We Need Design-Based Changes to Battlegrounds

thesarahandcompany

BGs need design-level changes that address the underlying issues hindering match quality and quantity. I discuss my perspective on what those issues are and the design-level changes necessary to correct for them in this thread.

Rewarded Risk-Aversion: The Cat and Mouse
Rewarded risk-aversion refers to the design concept in BGs that it is more valuable to be risk-adverse. In other words, avoid fights and purely focus on noncombative ways to win the objective (e.g., running flag to flag, running with the chaos ball, camping relics). This creates a “cat and mouse scenario.” A large portion of players (the mouse) engage to avoid risk and combat, while a select few (the cat) simply run around farming KDA. The solution is to make risk-seeking more valuable or offer a BG space specifically for risk-seeking gameplay.

Matchmaking Noise
Matchmaking noise refers to the large variance introduced into each match because of improper matchmaking, often role-based matchmaking. Many players tell tales of how there’s two healers in a BG and they’re always on the same team. BGs is instanced content, just like Dungeons and Raids. BGs needs role-based matchmaking and role-based Battlespirits. For example, in addition to the usual Battlespirit buff, additional modifiers should be added so individuals cannot fake queue roles:

Tank Battlespirit: Should have significantly reduced critical and direct damage done and an increased critical resistance buff. This makes it so whoever queues as Tank is decidedly a “bruiser” and “spacemaker” playstyle and cannot burst people down.

Healer Battle Spirit: Should have increased healing done and reduced damage and critical damage done. This makes it so DPS cannot queue as a healer because they will have reduced damage done.

DPS Battle Spirit: Should have reduced healing done, increased healing taken, and an increased critical damage/damage done buff. This makes it so healers cannot queue as a DPS because the role buff will make it so their heals are most effective on themselves and not others.

Mode Discordance
I think there’s an overchoice of modes (and queue sizes!). Each mode theoretically would benefit from different sets and playstyles, and when you queue, you don’t really know what you’re getting. So it’s hard to build around. For example, it’s a lot less fun to play a magicka Necro or DK without much mobility on an 8v8 Domination map than playing Sorcerer with Storm Calling and being able to streak. Reduce the number of modes. Realistically, ESO just needs two modes and multiple maps. The modes and maps need to encourage risk-seeking as discussed above.

Social Isolation
People cannot reliably queue with friends, and this is an online RPG/MMO. That is a major design flaw. Someone should be able to queue with 1 other person and not have to wait 30minutes-1hour to maybe get a match. Eliminate the splitting of queues and limit the number of queues in the BG interface to no more than 2.

xylena

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

People cannot reliably queue with friends

Way too much power in duo comps to throw them in with randoms. For example:



They gotta fix the solo random queue and get that healthy, eventually it can attract enough players to also support an active premade queue for duos and/or 4s. I agree there should be fewer modes and queues, no idea why an already small player base is split so many ways.

thesarahandcompany

xylena wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

People cannot reliably queue with friends

Way too much power in duo comps to throw them in with randoms. For example:



They gotta fix the solo random queue and get that healthy, eventually it can attract enough players to also support an active premade queue for duos and/or 4s. I agree there should be fewer modes and queues, no idea why an already small player base is split so many ways.

One screen shot (N=1) is hardly evidence of duos being too powerful. And you don't know if any of the other people in that lobby were duos, which you can argue there probably were if you were also a duo. Which means being a duo is not an automatic win. What you're referring to is a matter of matchmaker rating, not the ability to queue with a friend.

Improving solo queue could help retention, but given a small player base, consolidating queues is likely a more direct and impactful lever for improving match quality. This idea that there's a causal chain from growing the solo queue --> BG population grows --> group queues merged with "solo queues" becoming viable is unfounded.

Decimus

The problem with mixing solo and group queue is that it turns into an unbalanced, toxic mess.

We had this at one point... What happened? You'd queue into a full premade and could just leave the lobby before the BG even started because it'd be pointless.

You could say "only allow duos", but being able to guarantee even one player who knows what they're doing in your team is already a huge, unfair advantage when going against uncoordinated randoms.

The other problem introduced by mixing solos and duos is the toxicity. There's a lot of people who used to duo queue (and even cross team in the 3-way BGs after mixed group/solo queue was removed) just to try and ruin PvP for a specific person they disliked. You'd see things like double Relequen sorcs just hard focused on a solo queuer etc... not an environment one would want to foster imo

I think it'd be best to wait for cross-play to fix the group queue time issues.

That said, BGs are far from perfect currently... This is what I'd change:
1. Revamp solo queue 4v4 into a 3v3 or 4v4 shuffle mode where everyone plays with/against each other across multiple rounds.
2. Remove flag games from 4v4 (preferably 3v3).
3. Introduce a simple win/loss MMR system, gaining or losing points based on opponents' average MMR. System tries to match you against people of similar MMR/rank.
4. Make this MMR visible and rank people based on it - they can even use same ranks as in ToT to keep it Elder Scrolls themed.
5. Introduce seasonal rewards unlocked at each rank and for people at the top MMR of the highest rank, similar to ToT.
6. Add the same matchmaking system to 8v8, minus ranks and rewards. Keep the number invisible - this is the casual mode.
7. Kick people down from spawn after 15 seconds to prevent spawn camping and toxic afk'ing to prolong matches out of spite.
8. Add a prompt to pick up chaosball, reduce the number of chaosballs to one.
9. In CtR move relics further away from spawn location, or move spawn locations close to middle to prevent the infinite respawn loop of interrupters while providing people the chance to intercept a relic runner instead. Would require substantial map redesign.
10. Reduce the amount of flags in certain Domination maps or significantly increase the amount of time it takes to flip one.
11. Add more maps.

SundarahFr3akinrican

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

BGs need design-level changes that address the underlying issues hindering match quality and quantity. I discuss my perspective on what those issues are and the design-level changes necessary to correct for them in this thread.

Rewarded Risk-Aversion: The Cat and Mouse
Rewarded risk-aversion refers to the design concept in BGs that it is more valuable to be risk-adverse. In other words, avoid fights and purely focus on noncombative ways to win the objective (e.g., running flag to flag, running with the chaos ball, camping relics). This creates a “cat and mouse scenario.” A large portion of players (the mouse) engage to avoid risk and combat, while a select few (the cat) simply run around farming KDA. The solution is to make risk-seeking more valuable or offer a BG space specifically for risk-seeking gameplay.

Matchmaking Noise
Matchmaking noise refers to the large variance introduced into each match because of improper matchmaking, often role-based matchmaking. Many players tell tales of how there’s two healers in a BG and they’re always on the same team. BGs is instanced content, just like Dungeons and Raids. BGs needs role-based matchmaking and role-based Battlespirits. For example, in addition to the usual Battlespirit buff, additional modifiers should be added so individuals cannot fake queue roles:

Tank Battlespirit: Should have significantly reduced critical and direct damage done and an increased critical resistance buff. This makes it so whoever queues as Tank is decidedly a “bruiser” and “spacemaker” playstyle and cannot burst people down.

Healer Battle Spirit: Should have increased healing done and reduced damage and critical damage done. This makes it so DPS cannot queue as a healer because they will have reduced damage done.

DPS Battle Spirit: Should have reduced healing done, increased healing taken, and an increased critical damage/damage done buff. This makes it so healers cannot queue as a DPS because the role buff will make it so their heals are most effective on themselves and not others.

Mode Discordance
I think there’s an overchoice of modes (and queue sizes!). Each mode theoretically would benefit from different sets and playstyles, and when you queue, you don’t really know what you’re getting. So it’s hard to build around. For example, it’s a lot less fun to play a magicka Necro or DK without much mobility on an 8v8 Domination map than playing Sorcerer with Storm Calling and being able to streak. Reduce the number of modes. Realistically, ESO just needs two modes and multiple maps. The modes and maps need to encourage risk-seeking as discussed above.

Social Isolation
People cannot reliably queue with friends, and this is an online RPG/MMO. That is a major design flaw. Someone should be able to queue with 1 other person and not have to wait 30minutes-1hour to maybe get a match. Eliminate the splitting of queues and limit the number of queues in the BG interface to no more than 2.

The concept of role based battle spirit sounds amazing. I dont know how i feel about it for every role but atleast for healer. No one should be able to heal like somone queued as healer. The amount of healing a bruiser and dps can do to them selves is absurd.

thesarahandcompany

Decimus wrote: »

The problem with mixing solo and group queue is that it turns into an unbalanced, toxic mess.

We had this at one point... What happened? You'd queue into a full premade and could just leave the lobby before the BG even started because it'd be pointless.

You could say "only allow duos", but being able to guarantee even one player who knows what they're doing in your team is already a huge, unfair advantage when going against uncoordinated randoms.

The other problem introduced by mixing solos and duos is the toxicity. There's a lot of people who used to duo queue (and even cross team in the 3-way BGs after mixed group/solo queue was removed) just to try and ruin PvP for a specific person they disliked. You'd see things like double Relequen sorcs just hard focused on a solo queuer etc... not an environment one would want to foster imo

I think it'd be best to wait for cross-play to fix the group queue time issues.

That said, BGs are far from perfect currently... This is what I'd change:
1. Revamp solo queue 4v4 into a 3v3 or 4v4 shuffle mode where everyone plays with/against each other across multiple rounds.
2. Remove flag games from 4v4 (preferably 3v3).
3. Introduce a simple win/loss MMR system, gaining or losing points based on opponents' average MMR. System tries to match you against people of similar MMR/rank.
4. Make this MMR visible and rank people based on it - they can even use same ranks as in ToT to keep it Elder Scrolls themed.
5. Introduce seasonal rewards unlocked at each rank and for people at the top MMR of the highest rank, similar to ToT.
6. Add the same matchmaking system to 8v8, minus ranks and rewards. Keep the number invisible - this is the casual mode.
7. Kick people down from spawn after 15 seconds to prevent spawn camping and toxic afk'ing to prolong matches out of spite.
8. Add a prompt to pick up chaosball, reduce the number of chaosballs to one.
9. In CtR move relics further away from spawn location, or move spawn locations close to middle to prevent the infinite respawn loop of interrupters while providing people the chance to intercept a relic runner instead. Would require substantial map redesign.
10. Reduce the amount of flags in certain Domination maps or significantly increase the amount of time it takes to flip one.
11. Add more maps.

You’re treating any mixing of solos and groups as the problem, when the real issue is coordination asymmetry — specifically full premades vs everyone else.

A 4-stack isn’t comparable to a duo or even a trio. A coordinated 4-man fundamentally changes the match, while duos/trios are still manageable and can be balanced through matchmaking (mirroring group sizes, filling with solos, etc.).

The bigger flaw in your argument is ignoring how group queue actually breaks match integrity on its own. When you isolate groups, you force the system into impossible fills — like trios needing a 4th when solos aren’t technically allowed — which leads to uneven teams anyway. So instead of preventing imbalance, group queue just guarantees it in a different way.

Separating full 4-stacks/8-stacks (in the current environment) and allowing solos, duos, and trios to mix is a far more stable solution. It removes the worst-case coordination gap while still giving the matchmaking system enough flexibility to build fair teams.

Right now, the system is trying to solve imbalance by restricting flexibility — which is exactly why it keeps creating it. Treating “any mixing = bad” is way too blunt. Just wait for cross-play isn't a real solution. The reality is that you cannot just implement a perfectly fair system, it's about degrees of unfair, not absolute. And right now there's too much swinging in the direction of being perfectly "fair" toward "solo queue" at the expensive of social gameplay. It's not about never mixing different player types, it's about limiting coordination asymmetry to manageable levels. Right now it's being OVER-limited.

xylena

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

One screen shot (N=1) is hardly evidence of duos being too powerful.

while duos/trios are still manageable and can be balanced through matchmaking

How many screenshots would you like me to post?

4 random vs 2 random + duo isn't a 4v4, it's pugs vs raid boss with respawning miniboss adds. It's futile to target the duo unless you've got your team focusing on command. Demanding this level of coordination from randoms has failed miserably for 12 years now.

Do you play DD or are you exclusively Support? I don't think you realize how drastically harder the fight becomes for DDs on the 4 random side when the opposing team basically has a miniature ball group inside it. Tactics become severely limited compared to fighting 4 randoms.

I think much better chance with a premade queue that sometimes pits 4 man stack vs 2 duos. Now every player there is at least in comp builds and using a comp strat. I see no pressing need to accept teams of 3 because of how messy the queue would become.

thesarahandcompany

xylena wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

One screen shot (N=1) is hardly evidence of duos being too powerful.

while duos/trios are still manageable and can be balanced through matchmaking

How many screenshots would you like me to post?

4 random vs 2 random + duo isn't a 4v4, it's pugs vs raid boss with respawning miniboss adds. It's futile to target the duo unless you've got your team focusing on command. Demanding this level of coordination from randoms has failed miserably for 12 years now.

Do you play DD or are you exclusively Support? I don't think you realize how drastically harder the fight becomes for DDs on the 4 random side when the opposing team basically has a miniature ball group inside it. Tactics become severely limited compared to fighting 4 randoms.

I think much better chance with a premade queue that sometimes pits 4 man stack vs 2 duos. Now every player there is at least in comp builds and using a comp strat. I see no pressing need to accept teams of 3 because of how messy the queue would become.

This proves my point—you’re replacing evidence with metaphor (“raid boss + adds”) instead of demonstrating a systemic imbalance or logic chain.

Also, duos don’t win simply because they’re “in a group.” Two people who duo queue and destroy a lobby could get paired together via solo queueing and still destroy a lobby. Disallowing duo queues with solo queues doesn't solve the fundamental design problem and logically doesn't make sense. A more plausible and logical explanation is self-selection: players who duo queue tend to be higher MMR and more competitive on average.

In other words, being in a duo isn’t the causal mechanism—the characteristics associated with duo queueing are. And those are things matchmaking systems can measure and account for.

The real question is whether any advantage from duos is manageable within matchmaking. Historically, in many systems, it has been. If the claim is that duos fundamentally break matchmaking, that needs to be demonstrated at scale—not inferred from frustrating matches.

xylena

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

This proves my point—you’re replacing evidence with metaphor (“raid boss + adds”) instead of demonstrating a systemic imbalance or logic chain.

I'm using metaphor to describe the gameplay experience of playing DD against a minmax comp duo. The devs already did the math and decided that no, duos should not queue into randoms. The burden of proof to demonstrate systemic (im)balance is therefore on you.

4 random vs 2 random + minmax comp duo. All equal on skill and sweat. Who wins?