There Should Be Both Non-CP AND CP lvl50 Battlegrounds

WuffyCerulei · September 2017

Though I love CP campaigns and am excited to have CP in Battlegrounds, changing it so the lvl 50 queue is only CP is a pretty bad idea. The lvl 10-49 one would be best as 10-50 non-CP. There is a huge number of people who like to play BGs for the fact that it is non-CP and isn't a zerg fest.

Tryxus · September 2017

10-49 No CP
50 No CP
50 CP

Those should be the options

SanTii.92 · September 2017

Issue with this is that you extend queue times.

ToRelax · September 2017

When I was playing battlegrounds on live yesterday, I counted significantly more players under 660 CP than over it. It would be a shame if the full CP players just walked over them next update. Since this is just PTS, I do hope ZOS is doing this just to get more and specifically CP enabled data and will enable non-CP battlegrounds on live.

simeion · September 2017

You dont want any of the cancer CP gives players in battlegrounds. I might not play them anymore with the Vivec cancer in battle grounds.

SodanTok · September 2017

Simply allow queue CP, NoCP or both. Queue time will slightly increase, but players will solve this themself (to wait longer or play the less prefered mode by queuing to both)

SanTii.92 · September 2017

SodanTok wrote: »

Simply allow queue CP, NoCP or both. Queue time will slightly increase, but players will solve this themself (to wait longer or play the less prefered mode by queuing to both)

This would be a simple solution that would benefit everyone.

Derra · September 2017

I don´t think they have the playerbase to support that.

I think changing it to CP is trying to get more people to play it as it´s already becoming stale due to not enough people wanting to join.

simeion · September 2017

It is becoming stale due lack of rewards and players are use to stats with CP. If players built for non-cp BGs they would realize how much better it is.

nCats · September 2017

SodanTok wrote: »

Simply allow queue CP, NoCP or both. Queue time will slightly increase, but players will solve this themself (to wait longer or play the less prefered mode by queuing to both)

This is how it should be done, and is done and works in some other games. Keep, please keep the no cp queue, and people will be thankful.

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

Derra · September 2017

simeion wrote: »

It is becoming stale due lack of rewards and players are use to stats with CP. If players built for non-cp BGs they would realize how much better it is.

I built for nonCP. Still don´t enjoy it.

WuffyCerulei · September 2017

Tryxus wrote: »

10-49 No CP
50 No CP
50 CP

Those should be the options

Tbh that's a better option than what I proposed.

Tillalarrien · September 2017

+ for that

bigelle.x3_ESO · September 2017

The only option should be nocp. The pvp community is too small to split cp and nocp and cp battlegrounds doesnt make sense. Its supposed to be a competitive environment but there isnt a sigle competitive game, sport, or activity ever that would promote such a massive advantage to certain players. A 660, soon to be 690, cp player has insurmountable damage, sustain, and defensive passives compared to someone like me, a 300 cp player. Were he the lowest skilled player in existence and i a top tier pvp fanatic, i still may not win. This is not how a competitive environment operates. This is a bad change.

nCats · September 2017

bigelle.x3_ESO wrote: »

The only option should be nocp. The pvp community is too small to split cp and nocp and cp battlegrounds doesnt make sense. Its supposed to be a competitive environment but there isnt a sigle competitive game, sport, or activity ever that would promote such a massive advantage to certain players. A 660, soon to be 690, cp player has insurmountable damage, sustain, and defensive passives compared to someone like me, a 300 cp player. Were he the lowest skilled player in existence and i a top tier pvp fanatic, i still may not win. This is not how a competitive environment operates. This is a bad change.

Lack of options is what makes the community even smaller, with a lot of would be BGers dropping of due to lack of separate queues etc. I do not see why adding two queues will be less beneficial.

If you want a distant analogy, scarce consumer choice options is what (amongst other things) killed the Soviet Union.

Derra · September 2017

nCats wrote: »

bigelle.x3_ESO wrote: »

The only option should be nocp. The pvp community is too small to split cp and nocp and cp battlegrounds doesnt make sense. Its supposed to be a competitive environment but there isnt a sigle competitive game, sport, or activity ever that would promote such a massive advantage to certain players. A 660, soon to be 690, cp player has insurmountable damage, sustain, and defensive passives compared to someone like me, a 300 cp player. Were he the lowest skilled player in existence and i a top tier pvp fanatic, i still may not win. This is not how a competitive environment operates. This is a bad change.

Lack of options is what makes the community even smaller, with a lot of would be BGers dropping of due to lack of separate queues etc. I do not see why adding two queues will be less beneficial.

If you want a distant analogy, scarce consumer choice options is what (amongst other things) killed the Soviet Union.

That would assume you have enough people to fuel multiple options available in the first place.

If bgs are anything like cyrodiil there are not enough people to have more than the seperation of 1-49 and 50.

AhPook_Is_Here · September 2017

bigelle.x3_ESO wrote: »

The only option should be nocp. The pvp community is too small to split cp and nocp and cp battlegrounds doesnt make sense. Its supposed to be a competitive environment but there isnt a sigle competitive game, sport, or activity ever that would promote such a massive advantage to certain players. A 660, soon to be 690, cp player has insurmountable damage, sustain, and defensive passives compared to someone like me, a 300 cp player. Were he the lowest skilled player in existence and i a top tier pvp fanatic, i still may not win. This is not how a competitive environment operates. This is a bad change.

I think having both CP 50, and No-CP 50 queues is a better way to go. They can still sell some boxes to people who passed just by adding the CP 50 option. I wouldn't really call this game a "competitive environment", there is no UI uniformity in this game, some people just have a vanilla experience and others have UIs that promp them to react to API queues that don't have a visible or audible queue for vanilla players. Honestly that's just the top of the iceberg, this won't ever be a serious competitive game, but that doesn't mean you can't have fun with it.

simeion · September 2017

If it goes full cp and those stupid broken builds from Cyrodiil show up in battle grounds, I may not play in the arenas anymore. There are already some broken builds in non-cp, but at least you can deal with a handful of that are there.

Cinbri · September 2017

Derra wrote: »

I don´t think they have the playerbase to support that.

I think changing it to CP is trying to get more people to play it as it´s already becoming stale due to not enough people wanting to join.

Ye, that probably a reason. So, as result we will have more populated matches that will become less enjoyable and more unbalanced :'(
Time to give up and prepare to be carried by CP into the land of imbalance.

Sigtric · September 2017

CP only BGs means the only way I am looking at BGs again is to go full on cancer tank build. CP PVP is so dumb the only way to deal with it is to be it.

ecru · September 2017

You'd be splitting up an already tiny playerbase. I don't know what the objective of this change is, but it won't make BG's any more popular than they already are. No one wants to queue for them now as it is, and ZOS refuses to see why.

Ace_SiN · September 2017

No. Regardless of my opinion on CP vs Non-CP, allowing these two "options" will split the handful of players that que, at best, for much longer que times. At worst, one side will give in and go que up for the one that has the shorter que times. Effectively creating the illusion of choice. If the CP campaign vs Non-CP campaign are anything to go by, the Non-CP one will be the one to die.

Personally, I enjoy both. CP allows me more build diversity. I can bolster some of my weaknesses and be less reliant on having a heal bot following me. On the other hand, I also enjoy non-cp since it kills off the extreme builds that zos has thus far failed to balance. They each have their pros and cons, so I don't care to argue which one should be the rule for bgs. However, at level 50, there should only be one BG rule set.

Waffennacht · September 2017

They need BGs to not be behind a paywall then the player base should be able to support different formats

ToRelax · September 2017

Ace_SiN wrote: »

No. Regardless of my opinion on CP vs Non-CP, allowing these two "options" will split the handful of players that que, at best, for much longer que times. At worst, one side will give in and go que up for the one that has the shorter que times. Effectively creating the illusion of choice. If the CP campaign vs Non-CP campaign are anything to go by, the Non-CP one will be the one to die.

Personally, I enjoy both. CP allows me more build diversity. I can bolster some of my weaknesses and be less reliant on having a heal bot following me. On the other hand, I also enjoy non-cp since it kills off the extreme builds that zos has thus far failed to balance. They each have their pros and cons, so I don't care to argue which one should be the rule for bgs. However, at level 50, there should only be one BG rule set.

Well as far as I can see neither CP nor non CP open world PvP is dead. And from what I can see in battlegrounds, there are enough players with uncapped CP to make the option worthwhile. I doubt a lot of them would like to compete against capped CP players.