So much for any hope of 2 team BGs

exeeter702 · January 2018

Maybe next year....

Dreth · January 2018

Why BG's were faction based to begin with is still confusing to me... A three way isnt competitive, its just two teams picking on the weaker team to see who can earn points off them the fastest. And if you are the weaker team, or a pug going against 2 premades, you have zero chance of pulling off a narrow victory like you could if it was one team vs another. Its dumb. No one cares about factions in BG's. In cyro it works bc its so huge, but not in BG's.

Mustard · January 2018

The game was never meant to be competitive

Ragnarock41 · January 2018

Mustard wrote: »

The game was never meant to be competitive

Devs are trying their best to make bad players feel good.
Proof: Best builds in battlegrounds are basically immortal tank-healer-support groups or destroballs.
game punishes you for being an agressive players. You are punished for killing people in all but one game mode, which is literally deathmatch.
While I understand reasons behind zos's decisions, they have to realize the way they are doing it is killing their own game.

exeeter702 · January 2018

Mustard wrote: »

The game was never meant to be competitive

being competitive or not has nothing to do with well designed battlegrounds that incentivize pvp around well placed objectives. BGs any various other mmos where never the competitive aspect of their pvp experience and were infinitely more engaging than what we have here.

Wheeler had said early on when BGs were first mentioned, that the planned format was just a first step and that we would see various other types in the near future. I suppose i assumed (wrongly) that this suggested that 3 way bgs were not going to be the only bgs. I knew the maps that were created were made with 3 teams in mind for obvious reasons. I hung on to the hope that when actual new maps were added (not to be confused with game modes) that it would be a more traditional 2 way set up. Something along the lines of 8v8 with spread out objectives. Swtor WZs are a good example of simple yet effective casual pvp experiences that dont lean on nonsense 3 team gimmicks.

CatchMeTrolling · January 2018

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

exeeter702 · January 2018

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Dreth · January 2018

Mustard wrote: »

The game was never meant to be competitive

lolwut

There is an objective
There is a score
There is a winner

PvP by definition is competitive.

Adenoma · January 2018

They literally threw away the GvG potential of BGs.

Dreth · January 2018

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

You assume thats because the two weaker teams would join up against the premades. That isnt how it works. What actually happens is the pugs are identified right off the bat and targeted asap to gain points as fast as possible. If it was two teams, a weaker team at least has a shot to pull an upset, but as is, they just get double teamed by both until the team who killed the pugs the most wins. The majority of the winning teams points arent coming from the 2nd place team obviously....

CatchMeTrolling · January 2018

Dreth wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

You assume thats because the two weaker teams would join up against the premades. That isnt how it works. What actually happens is the pugs are identified right off the bat and targeted asap to gain points as fast as possible. If it was two teams, a weaker team at least has a shot to pull an upset, but as is, they just get double teamed by both until the team who killed the pugs the most wins. The majority of the winning teams points arent coming from the 2nd place team obviously....

I didn't assume anything, you know what Nvm.

CatchMeTrolling · January 2018

exeeter702 wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Okay, without any of this added to the original post there's no context whatsoever besides suggesting two teams. My response is to that point. As it stands there's still no proper matchmaking system to combat pugs vs premades and quiet frankly there probably won't be for quite some time.

3 teams biggest problem isn't the structure it's the fact people get into matches and don't want to play the objective, (this won't change either with just 2 teams) other than that when the objective is being played nothing is wrong with 3 teams.

Subversus · January 2018

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Okay, without any of this added to the original post there's no context whatsoever besides suggesting two teams. My response is to that point. As it stands there's still no proper matchmaking system to combat pugs vs premades and quiet frankly there probably won't be for quite some time.

3 teams biggest problem isn't the structure it's the fact people get into matches and don't want to play the objective, (this won't change either with just 2 teams) other than that when the objective is being played nothing is wrong with 3 teams.

There's plenty wrong with 3 teams. In an even match, for example, any given team will play outnumbered in a 4v8. 3 teams will NEVER be competitive unless all 3 teams are equally skilled, otherwise it literally turns into "who can exploit the pugs the most". You know it's true, no team will go against a hard opponent when there's an easier one available and the objective is winning.

2 teams will always be the most competitive environment, because that way you'll always have the two teams focus on each other and not on anyone else. It also helps pugs who would only be left to shoot red enemies instead of choosing between pink and fuchsia or whatever else *** colors they come up with.

Edit: why do you think there has never been a 3 team competitive game supported by the major competitive tournaments? CS, league, Dota, wow/swtor clones etc. - how would those work with 3 teams?

3 teams just promotes the open world Zerg fest kind of pvp, not the instanced arenas battlegrounds were supposed to be.

Smmokkee · January 2018

Can we just talk about how terrible Chaosball is?

Smmokkee · January 2018

They totally missed the mark on BGs.

CatchMeTrolling · January 2018

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Okay, without any of this added to the original post there's no context whatsoever besides suggesting two teams. My response is to that point. As it stands there's still no proper matchmaking system to combat pugs vs premades and quiet frankly there probably won't be for quite some time.

3 teams biggest problem isn't the structure it's the fact people get into matches and don't want to play the objective, (this won't change either with just 2 teams) other than that when the objective is being played nothing is wrong with 3 teams.

There's plenty wrong with 3 teams. In an even match, for example, any given team will play outnumbered in a 4v8. 3 teams will NEVER be competitive unless all 3 teams are equally skilled, otherwise it literally turns into "who can exploit the pugs the most". You know it's true, no team will go against a hard opponent when there's an easier one available and the objective is winning.

2 teams will always be the most competitive environment, because that way you'll always have the two teams focus on each other and not on anyone else. It also helps pugs who would only be left to shoot red enemies instead of choosing between pink and fuchsia or whatever else *** colors they come up with.

Edit: why do you think there has never been a 3 team competitive game supported by the major competitive tournaments? CS, league, Dota, wow/swtor clones etc. - how would those work with 3 teams?

3 teams just promotes the open world Zerg fest kind of pvp, not the instanced arenas battlegrounds were supposed to be.

Your mistake is thinking this game is competitive, even the casual side of games like league make eso competitiveness look like a joke.

But again 2 teams will not stop a team from dominating a match, the stomping will be even more apparent, let's not act like 1 team already doesn't have the ability to make the match completely one sided. 2 or 3 doesn't solve anything without a proper matchmaking system.

What makes bgs interesting is the 3 team system, that's not its flaw. The flaw is matchmaking, people treating every match like a deathmatch, rewards, leaderboards and a solution to deal with premades vs pugs. Whether it's 2 or 3 the weaker team(s) get stomped unless equally skilled like you said. So what exactly changes besides the skewing and misconception of it being more competive because now it's only one team getting steam rolled.

Minno · January 2018

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Okay, without any of this added to the original post there's no context whatsoever besides suggesting two teams. My response is to that point. As it stands there's still no proper matchmaking system to combat pugs vs premades and quiet frankly there probably won't be for quite some time.

3 teams biggest problem isn't the structure it's the fact people get into matches and don't want to play the objective, (this won't change either with just 2 teams) other than that when the objective is being played nothing is wrong with 3 teams.

There's plenty wrong with 3 teams. In an even match, for example, any given team will play outnumbered in a 4v8. 3 teams will NEVER be competitive unless all 3 teams are equally skilled, otherwise it literally turns into "who can exploit the pugs the most". You know it's true, no team will go against a hard opponent when there's an easier one available and the objective is winning.

2 teams will always be the most competitive environment, because that way you'll always have the two teams focus on each other and not on anyone else. It also helps pugs who would only be left to shoot red enemies instead of choosing between pink and fuchsia or whatever else *** colors they come up with.

Edit: why do you think there has never been a 3 team competitive game supported by the major competitive tournaments? CS, league, Dota, wow/swtor clones etc. - how would those work with 3 teams?

3 teams just promotes the open world Zerg fest kind of pvp, not the instanced arenas battlegrounds were supposed to be.

Your mistake is thinking this game is competitive, even the casual side of games like league make eso competitiveness look like a joke.

But again 2 teams will not stop a team from dominating a match, the stomping will be even more apparent, let's not act like 1 team already doesn't have the ability to make the match completely one sided. 2 or 3 doesn't solve anything without a proper matchmaking system.

What makes bgs interesting is the 3 team system, that's not its flaw. The flaw is matchmaking, people treating every match like a deathmatch, rewards, leaderboards and a solution to deal with premades vs pugs. Whether it's 2 or 3 the weaker team(s) get stomped unless equally skilled like you said. So what exactly changes besides the skewing and misconception of it being more competive because now it's only one team getting steam rolled.

Premades and paywalls doomed BGs from the start.

Even now, players were staying to craft builds for BG balance in mind so it was only a matter of time before we saw balanced play out of BGs.

Edit:
They really needed to place BGs on its own DLC. The high cost of Morrowind set it up for pop problems which premade groups kept down.

ak_pvp · January 2018

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

Mustard wrote: »

The game was never meant to be competitive

Devs are trying their best to make bad players feel good.
Proof: Best builds in battlegrounds are basically immortal tank-healer-support groups or destroballs.
game punishes you for being an agressive players. You are punished for killing people in all but one game mode, which is literally deathmatch.
While I understand reasons behind zos's decisions, they have to realize the way they are doing it is killing their own game.

^^^^^^^

Chaos: Group camps in spawn zone, so killing group is futile, best bet is to spam on ball holder and spam E when they die.

Domi: (And CK to a lesser extent) Fight over flag, with full group, lose other flags. Fight over flags with not full group. The other group will outsize you.

Relic: Keep a tank at spawn. Distract the other team. Grab relic and cap. Repeat. They can't take yours so no fighting needed. Old CTR was better.

ak_pvp · January 2018

Minno wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Okay, without any of this added to the original post there's no context whatsoever besides suggesting two teams. My response is to that point. As it stands there's still no proper matchmaking system to combat pugs vs premades and quiet frankly there probably won't be for quite some time.

3 teams biggest problem isn't the structure it's the fact people get into matches and don't want to play the objective, (this won't change either with just 2 teams) other than that when the objective is being played nothing is wrong with 3 teams.

There's plenty wrong with 3 teams. In an even match, for example, any given team will play outnumbered in a 4v8. 3 teams will NEVER be competitive unless all 3 teams are equally skilled, otherwise it literally turns into "who can exploit the pugs the most". You know it's true, no team will go against a hard opponent when there's an easier one available and the objective is winning.

2 teams will always be the most competitive environment, because that way you'll always have the two teams focus on each other and not on anyone else. It also helps pugs who would only be left to shoot red enemies instead of choosing between pink and fuchsia or whatever else *** colors they come up with.

Edit: why do you think there has never been a 3 team competitive game supported by the major competitive tournaments? CS, league, Dota, wow/swtor clones etc. - how would those work with 3 teams?

3 teams just promotes the open world Zerg fest kind of pvp, not the instanced arenas battlegrounds were supposed to be.

Your mistake is thinking this game is competitive, even the casual side of games like league make eso competitiveness look like a joke.

But again 2 teams will not stop a team from dominating a match, the stomping will be even more apparent, let's not act like 1 team already doesn't have the ability to make the match completely one sided. 2 or 3 doesn't solve anything without a proper matchmaking system.

What makes bgs interesting is the 3 team system, that's not its flaw. The flaw is matchmaking, people treating every match like a deathmatch, rewards, leaderboards and a solution to deal with premades vs pugs. Whether it's 2 or 3 the weaker team(s) get stomped unless equally skilled like you said. So what exactly changes besides the skewing and misconception of it being more competive because now it's only one team getting steam rolled.

Premades and paywalls doomed BGs from the start.

Even now, players were staying to craft builds for BG balance in mind so it was only a matter of time before we saw balanced play out of BGs.

Edit:
They really needed to place BGs on its own DLC. The high cost of Morrowind set it up for pop problems which premade groups kept down.

Its under a tenner. But aye. The fact its not base game, and even further since its a chapter mean not many people will play it.

Irylia · January 2018

I like exeeter’s 8v8 set up with only being able to bring a premade of 4 then prioritizing vs other premades

Or even more options such as 4v4 6v6

10v10 which is less group premade oriented and more for these objective game types while deathmatch is a specific option for the others.

Create some system, much like ranked games, to see the performance of groups and then increase their rating so they fight predominately other higher rated teams.

Or simply separate the q’s
Casual groups
And
Competitive groups

Make it open to the public and incentivize a prize for each new patch update to the groups who gather points for highest rating (title/Mount) and maybe a few quirky ones like who had the most healing, damage taken, damage dealt trophies gets a personality, costume or something small.

Alternatively you could just join my discord and set up your own gvg’s vs the dozen of guilds we have from various factions.

lao · January 2018

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

Mustard wrote: »

The game was never meant to be competitive

Devs are trying their best to make bad players feel good.
Proof: Best builds in battlegrounds are basically immortal tank-healer-support groups or destroballs.
game punishes you for being an agressive players. You are punished for killing people in all but one game mode, which is literally deathmatch.
While I understand reasons behind zos's decisions, they have to realize the way they are doing it is killing their own game.

they will never understand that. just like the dozens of other dev teams that created promising mmos that failed horribly shortly after because they made the mistake to try please the casual player before them.

one day theres gonna be a team that understands that you dont want as many players as possible. you want relatively small but highly competitive crowd of elite pvpers that will actually stick with your game instead. casuals serve zero purpose. they are literally wasted server load. yes you could argue that they bring in $$$ and they do.... for the 3 months they play your game. meanwhile theres games like DAoC, EVE and UO that have been running on a loyal fanbase for 20 years now and made more money over that period of time than any newschool casual friendly mmo during its entire lifetime could ever dream of.

Moglijuana · January 2018

No idea why ZOS went with the 4v4v4 system since it's not even faction locked. Like what is the point? A two team BG would be much more enjoyable than what we have now. Which is never seeing members of a certain team that mindlessly runs flags or captures points ignoring PvP completely.

This game has so much PvP potential but the ball is literally missed every single time.

Subversus · January 2018

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Okay, without any of this added to the original post there's no context whatsoever besides suggesting two teams. My response is to that point. As it stands there's still no proper matchmaking system to combat pugs vs premades and quiet frankly there probably won't be for quite some time.

3 teams biggest problem isn't the structure it's the fact people get into matches and don't want to play the objective, (this won't change either with just 2 teams) other than that when the objective is being played nothing is wrong with 3 teams.

There's plenty wrong with 3 teams. In an even match, for example, any given team will play outnumbered in a 4v8. 3 teams will NEVER be competitive unless all 3 teams are equally skilled, otherwise it literally turns into "who can exploit the pugs the most". You know it's true, no team will go against a hard opponent when there's an easier one available and the objective is winning.

2 teams will always be the most competitive environment, because that way you'll always have the two teams focus on each other and not on anyone else. It also helps pugs who would only be left to shoot red enemies instead of choosing between pink and fuchsia or whatever else *** colors they come up with.

Edit: why do you think there has never been a 3 team competitive game supported by the major competitive tournaments? CS, league, Dota, wow/swtor clones etc. - how would those work with 3 teams?

3 teams just promotes the open world Zerg fest kind of pvp, not the instanced arenas battlegrounds were supposed to be.

Your mistake is thinking this game is competitive, even the casual side of games like league make eso competitiveness look like a joke.

But again 2 teams will not stop a team from dominating a match, the stomping will be even more apparent, let's not act like 1 team already doesn't have the ability to make the match completely one sided. 2 or 3 doesn't solve anything without a proper matchmaking system.

What makes bgs interesting is the 3 team system, that's not its flaw. The flaw is matchmaking, people treating every match like a deathmatch, rewards, leaderboards and a solution to deal with premades vs pugs. Whether it's 2 or 3 the weaker team(s) get stomped unless equally skilled like you said. So what exactly changes besides the skewing and misconception of it being more competive because now it's only one team getting steam rolled.

SWTOR has a 2 team pvp system. You are allowed to either queue for unranked, which is 8v8, or ranked, which is 4v4 solo or premade v premade. In unranked, your premade can't exceed 4 players. This makes it very balanced when it comes to pug v pug, where even with a full premade you're not guaranteed a win if the other 4 in your team suck.

2 teams will always be more balanced than 3 if the devs think how to balance it hard enough. The only problem will always be lack of imagination, as you've shown in your post.

Also, stop going on about the game not being competitive. BGs have points, an objective, and more rewards for winning ergo, by definition, it's competitive.

lao · January 2018

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Okay, without any of this added to the original post there's no context whatsoever besides suggesting two teams. My response is to that point. As it stands there's still no proper matchmaking system to combat pugs vs premades and quiet frankly there probably won't be for quite some time.

3 teams biggest problem isn't the structure it's the fact people get into matches and don't want to play the objective, (this won't change either with just 2 teams) other than that when the objective is being played nothing is wrong with 3 teams.

There's plenty wrong with 3 teams. In an even match, for example, any given team will play outnumbered in a 4v8. 3 teams will NEVER be competitive unless all 3 teams are equally skilled, otherwise it literally turns into "who can exploit the pugs the most". You know it's true, no team will go against a hard opponent when there's an easier one available and the objective is winning.

2 teams will always be the most competitive environment, because that way you'll always have the two teams focus on each other and not on anyone else. It also helps pugs who would only be left to shoot red enemies instead of choosing between pink and fuchsia or whatever else *** colors they come up with.

Edit: why do you think there has never been a 3 team competitive game supported by the major competitive tournaments? CS, league, Dota, wow/swtor clones etc. - how would those work with 3 teams?

3 teams just promotes the open world Zerg fest kind of pvp, not the instanced arenas battlegrounds were supposed to be.

Your mistake is thinking this game is competitive, even the casual side of games like league make eso competitiveness look like a joke.

But again 2 teams will not stop a team from dominating a match, the stomping will be even more apparent, let's not act like 1 team already doesn't have the ability to make the match completely one sided. 2 or 3 doesn't solve anything without a proper matchmaking system.

What makes bgs interesting is the 3 team system, that's not its flaw. The flaw is matchmaking, people treating every match like a deathmatch, rewards, leaderboards and a solution to deal with premades vs pugs. Whether it's 2 or 3 the weaker team(s) get stomped unless equally skilled like you said. So what exactly changes besides the skewing and misconception of it being more competive because now it's only one team getting steam rolled.

SWTOR has a 2 team pvp system. You are allowed to either queue for unranked, which is 8v8, or ranked, which is 4v4 solo or premade v premade. In unranked, your premade can't exceed 4 players. This makes it very balanced when it comes to pug v pug, where even with a full premade you're not guaranteed a win if the other 4 in your team suck.

2 teams will always be more balanced than 3 if the devs think how to balance it hard enough. The only problem will always be lack of imagination, as you've shown in your post.

Also, stop going on about the game not being competitive. BGs have points, an objective, and more rewards for winning ergo, by definition, it's competitive.

thats by far the worst and most incorrect definition of competitive ive ever heard in over 25 years of competitive gaming. then again the guy you quoted takes 2nd place for calling league casual.

the level of clueless in this thread is unreal.

CatchMeTrolling · January 2018

lao wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Okay, without any of this added to the original post there's no context whatsoever besides suggesting two teams. My response is to that point. As it stands there's still no proper matchmaking system to combat pugs vs premades and quiet frankly there probably won't be for quite some time.

3 teams biggest problem isn't the structure it's the fact people get into matches and don't want to play the objective, (this won't change either with just 2 teams) other than that when the objective is being played nothing is wrong with 3 teams.

There's plenty wrong with 3 teams. In an even match, for example, any given team will play outnumbered in a 4v8. 3 teams will NEVER be competitive unless all 3 teams are equally skilled, otherwise it literally turns into "who can exploit the pugs the most". You know it's true, no team will go against a hard opponent when there's an easier one available and the objective is winning.

2 teams will always be the most competitive environment, because that way you'll always have the two teams focus on each other and not on anyone else. It also helps pugs who would only be left to shoot red enemies instead of choosing between pink and fuchsia or whatever else *** colors they come up with.

Edit: why do you think there has never been a 3 team competitive game supported by the major competitive tournaments? CS, league, Dota, wow/swtor clones etc. - how would those work with 3 teams?

3 teams just promotes the open world Zerg fest kind of pvp, not the instanced arenas battlegrounds were supposed to be.

Your mistake is thinking this game is competitive, even the casual side of games like league make eso competitiveness look like a joke.

But again 2 teams will not stop a team from dominating a match, the stomping will be even more apparent, let's not act like 1 team already doesn't have the ability to make the match completely one sided. 2 or 3 doesn't solve anything without a proper matchmaking system.

What makes bgs interesting is the 3 team system, that's not its flaw. The flaw is matchmaking, people treating every match like a deathmatch, rewards, leaderboards and a solution to deal with premades vs pugs. Whether it's 2 or 3 the weaker team(s) get stomped unless equally skilled like you said. So what exactly changes besides the skewing and misconception of it being more competive because now it's only one team getting steam rolled.

SWTOR has a 2 team pvp system. You are allowed to either queue for unranked, which is 8v8, or ranked, which is 4v4 solo or premade v premade. In unranked, your premade can't exceed 4 players. This makes it very balanced when it comes to pug v pug, where even with a full premade you're not guaranteed a win if the other 4 in your team suck.

2 teams will always be more balanced than 3 if the devs think how to balance it hard enough. The only problem will always be lack of imagination, as you've shown in your post.

Also, stop going on about the game not being competitive. BGs have points, an objective, and more rewards for winning ergo, by definition, it's competitive.

thats by far the worst and most incorrect definition of competitive ive ever heard in over 25 years of competitive gaming. then again the guy you quoted takes 2nd place for calling league casual.

the level of clueless in this thread is unreal.

I never called league casual, I said casual side there's a difference. League isn't filled with just hardcore and competitive people, there's people who play casually. It's one of the most popular games because it has something for everyone.

CatchMeTrolling · January 2018

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Okay, without any of this added to the original post there's no context whatsoever besides suggesting two teams. My response is to that point. As it stands there's still no proper matchmaking system to combat pugs vs premades and quiet frankly there probably won't be for quite some time.

3 teams biggest problem isn't the structure it's the fact people get into matches and don't want to play the objective, (this won't change either with just 2 teams) other than that when the objective is being played nothing is wrong with 3 teams.

There's plenty wrong with 3 teams. In an even match, for example, any given team will play outnumbered in a 4v8. 3 teams will NEVER be competitive unless all 3 teams are equally skilled, otherwise it literally turns into "who can exploit the pugs the most". You know it's true, no team will go against a hard opponent when there's an easier one available and the objective is winning.

2 teams will always be the most competitive environment, because that way you'll always have the two teams focus on each other and not on anyone else. It also helps pugs who would only be left to shoot red enemies instead of choosing between pink and fuchsia or whatever else *** colors they come up with.

Edit: why do you think there has never been a 3 team competitive game supported by the major competitive tournaments? CS, league, Dota, wow/swtor clones etc. - how would those work with 3 teams?

3 teams just promotes the open world Zerg fest kind of pvp, not the instanced arenas battlegrounds were supposed to be.

Your mistake is thinking this game is competitive, even the casual side of games like league make eso competitiveness look like a joke.

But again 2 teams will not stop a team from dominating a match, the stomping will be even more apparent, let's not act like 1 team already doesn't have the ability to make the match completely one sided. 2 or 3 doesn't solve anything without a proper matchmaking system.

What makes bgs interesting is the 3 team system, that's not its flaw. The flaw is matchmaking, people treating every match like a deathmatch, rewards, leaderboards and a solution to deal with premades vs pugs. Whether it's 2 or 3 the weaker team(s) get stomped unless equally skilled like you said. So what exactly changes besides the skewing and misconception of it being more competive because now it's only one team getting steam rolled.

SWTOR has a 2 team pvp system. You are allowed to either queue for unranked, which is 8v8, or ranked, which is 4v4 solo or premade v premade. In unranked, your premade can't exceed 4 players. This makes it very balanced when it comes to pug v pug, where even with a full premade you're not guaranteed a win if the other 4 in your team suck.

2 teams will always be more balanced than 3 if the devs think how to balance it hard enough. The only problem will always be lack of imagination, as you've shown in your post.

Also, stop going on about the game not being competitive. BGs have points, an objective, and more rewards for winning ergo, by definition, it's competitive.

To you it's competive, it's more subjective than objective. And in terms of imagination it would actually be you who lacks imagination by not seeing the potential in it because you're accustomed to a 2 team format.

lao · January 2018

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

lao wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Okay, without any of this added to the original post there's no context whatsoever besides suggesting two teams. My response is to that point. As it stands there's still no proper matchmaking system to combat pugs vs premades and quiet frankly there probably won't be for quite some time.

3 teams biggest problem isn't the structure it's the fact people get into matches and don't want to play the objective, (this won't change either with just 2 teams) other than that when the objective is being played nothing is wrong with 3 teams.

There's plenty wrong with 3 teams. In an even match, for example, any given team will play outnumbered in a 4v8. 3 teams will NEVER be competitive unless all 3 teams are equally skilled, otherwise it literally turns into "who can exploit the pugs the most". You know it's true, no team will go against a hard opponent when there's an easier one available and the objective is winning.

2 teams will always be the most competitive environment, because that way you'll always have the two teams focus on each other and not on anyone else. It also helps pugs who would only be left to shoot red enemies instead of choosing between pink and fuchsia or whatever else *** colors they come up with.

Edit: why do you think there has never been a 3 team competitive game supported by the major competitive tournaments? CS, league, Dota, wow/swtor clones etc. - how would those work with 3 teams?

3 teams just promotes the open world Zerg fest kind of pvp, not the instanced arenas battlegrounds were supposed to be.

Your mistake is thinking this game is competitive, even the casual side of games like league make eso competitiveness look like a joke.

But again 2 teams will not stop a team from dominating a match, the stomping will be even more apparent, let's not act like 1 team already doesn't have the ability to make the match completely one sided. 2 or 3 doesn't solve anything without a proper matchmaking system.

What makes bgs interesting is the 3 team system, that's not its flaw. The flaw is matchmaking, people treating every match like a deathmatch, rewards, leaderboards and a solution to deal with premades vs pugs. Whether it's 2 or 3 the weaker team(s) get stomped unless equally skilled like you said. So what exactly changes besides the skewing and misconception of it being more competive because now it's only one team getting steam rolled.

SWTOR has a 2 team pvp system. You are allowed to either queue for unranked, which is 8v8, or ranked, which is 4v4 solo or premade v premade. In unranked, your premade can't exceed 4 players. This makes it very balanced when it comes to pug v pug, where even with a full premade you're not guaranteed a win if the other 4 in your team suck.

2 teams will always be more balanced than 3 if the devs think how to balance it hard enough. The only problem will always be lack of imagination, as you've shown in your post.

Also, stop going on about the game not being competitive. BGs have points, an objective, and more rewards for winning ergo, by definition, it's competitive.

thats by far the worst and most incorrect definition of competitive ive ever heard in over 25 years of competitive gaming. then again the guy you quoted takes 2nd place for calling league casual.

the level of clueless in this thread is unreal.

I never called league casual, I said casual side there's a difference. League isn't filled with just hardcore and competitive people, there's people who play casually. It's one of the most popular games because it has something for everyone.

ok missunderstood you then. sry for that. however its not one of the most popular games, it is THE most popular game. thats mostly due to the fact that the biggest ISP in china bought it a while ago and now delivers it with every contract. outside of china i think theres a couple games that are on par or even more successful. CS:GO, dota2 and probably even PUBG come really close atleast

MurderMostFoul · January 2018

I must be in the vast minority, but I don't mind 4v4v4 all that much.

I am certain that, given the lack of skill-based matchmaking, 4v4 BGs would almost always be significantly one sided with one team dominating the other. At least in 4v4v4, the one team domination only occurs about 50% of the time.

CatchMeTrolling · January 2018

lao wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

lao wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Okay, without any of this added to the original post there's no context whatsoever besides suggesting two teams. My response is to that point. As it stands there's still no proper matchmaking system to combat pugs vs premades and quiet frankly there probably won't be for quite some time.

3 teams biggest problem isn't the structure it's the fact people get into matches and don't want to play the objective, (this won't change either with just 2 teams) other than that when the objective is being played nothing is wrong with 3 teams.

There's plenty wrong with 3 teams. In an even match, for example, any given team will play outnumbered in a 4v8. 3 teams will NEVER be competitive unless all 3 teams are equally skilled, otherwise it literally turns into "who can exploit the pugs the most". You know it's true, no team will go against a hard opponent when there's an easier one available and the objective is winning.

2 teams will always be the most competitive environment, because that way you'll always have the two teams focus on each other and not on anyone else. It also helps pugs who would only be left to shoot red enemies instead of choosing between pink and fuchsia or whatever else *** colors they come up with.

Edit: why do you think there has never been a 3 team competitive game supported by the major competitive tournaments? CS, league, Dota, wow/swtor clones etc. - how would those work with 3 teams?

3 teams just promotes the open world Zerg fest kind of pvp, not the instanced arenas battlegrounds were supposed to be.

Your mistake is thinking this game is competitive, even the casual side of games like league make eso competitiveness look like a joke.

But again 2 teams will not stop a team from dominating a match, the stomping will be even more apparent, let's not act like 1 team already doesn't have the ability to make the match completely one sided. 2 or 3 doesn't solve anything without a proper matchmaking system.

What makes bgs interesting is the 3 team system, that's not its flaw. The flaw is matchmaking, people treating every match like a deathmatch, rewards, leaderboards and a solution to deal with premades vs pugs. Whether it's 2 or 3 the weaker team(s) get stomped unless equally skilled like you said. So what exactly changes besides the skewing and misconception of it being more competive because now it's only one team getting steam rolled.

SWTOR has a 2 team pvp system. You are allowed to either queue for unranked, which is 8v8, or ranked, which is 4v4 solo or premade v premade. In unranked, your premade can't exceed 4 players. This makes it very balanced when it comes to pug v pug, where even with a full premade you're not guaranteed a win if the other 4 in your team suck.

2 teams will always be more balanced than 3 if the devs think how to balance it hard enough. The only problem will always be lack of imagination, as you've shown in your post.

Also, stop going on about the game not being competitive. BGs have points, an objective, and more rewards for winning ergo, by definition, it's competitive.

thats by far the worst and most incorrect definition of competitive ive ever heard in over 25 years of competitive gaming. then again the guy you quoted takes 2nd place for calling league casual.

the level of clueless in this thread is unreal.

I never called league casual, I said casual side there's a difference. League isn't filled with just hardcore and competitive people, there's people who play casually. It's one of the most popular games because it has something for everyone.

ok missunderstood you then. sry for that. however its not one of the most popular games, it is THE most popular game. thats mostly due to the fact that the biggest ISP in china bought it a while ago and now delivers it with every contract. outside of china i think theres a couple games that are on par or even more successful. CS:GO, dota2 and probably even PUBG come really close atleast

Well I'm not surprised anyone can pick up the game and get something out of it, I like it but prefer mmo's so I can only play so much of it. And I played everything else besides CS: GO, one thing ZOS could learn is offering something to everyone because in my opinion the game caters to casual play. Maybe BGs can be esports ready one day, although most mmo's aren't worthy of it, eso has the combat potential but struggles with balance and the feeling of being rewarded.

Thogard · January 2018

lao wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Subversus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

2 teams wouldn't make it more competitive, in fact this will make the difference in skill even more obvious when a match goes 100 to 500. Dropping one team also doesn't suddenly erase the issue with premades vs pugs.

Not that im arguing for raw competitive experiences, 2 teams is far more structured for an engaging match. Premade vs pug is its own issue and has nothing to do with the design flaw of small scale 4v4v4 objective pvp. Besides other mmos have a fairly effective solution : limit premades to 4 player groups (half of an 8 player team) and priority match them against another 4 man premade group. This results in a bg team never having a full premade and when you have properly made bgs with objectives and the type of variables that happen, a 4 man premade on an 8 player team is hardly a guaranteed snow ball.

Okay, without any of this added to the original post there's no context whatsoever besides suggesting two teams. My response is to that point. As it stands there's still no proper matchmaking system to combat pugs vs premades and quiet frankly there probably won't be for quite some time.

3 teams biggest problem isn't the structure it's the fact people get into matches and don't want to play the objective, (this won't change either with just 2 teams) other than that when the objective is being played nothing is wrong with 3 teams.

There's plenty wrong with 3 teams. In an even match, for example, any given team will play outnumbered in a 4v8. 3 teams will NEVER be competitive unless all 3 teams are equally skilled, otherwise it literally turns into "who can exploit the pugs the most". You know it's true, no team will go against a hard opponent when there's an easier one available and the objective is winning.

2 teams will always be the most competitive environment, because that way you'll always have the two teams focus on each other and not on anyone else. It also helps pugs who would only be left to shoot red enemies instead of choosing between pink and fuchsia or whatever else *** colors they come up with.

Edit: why do you think there has never been a 3 team competitive game supported by the major competitive tournaments? CS, league, Dota, wow/swtor clones etc. - how would those work with 3 teams?

3 teams just promotes the open world Zerg fest kind of pvp, not the instanced arenas battlegrounds were supposed to be.

Your mistake is thinking this game is competitive, even the casual side of games like league make eso competitiveness look like a joke.

But again 2 teams will not stop a team from dominating a match, the stomping will be even more apparent, let's not act like 1 team already doesn't have the ability to make the match completely one sided. 2 or 3 doesn't solve anything without a proper matchmaking system.

What makes bgs interesting is the 3 team system, that's not its flaw. The flaw is matchmaking, people treating every match like a deathmatch, rewards, leaderboards and a solution to deal with premades vs pugs. Whether it's 2 or 3 the weaker team(s) get stomped unless equally skilled like you said. So what exactly changes besides the skewing and misconception of it being more competive because now it's only one team getting steam rolled.

SWTOR has a 2 team pvp system. You are allowed to either queue for unranked, which is 8v8, or ranked, which is 4v4 solo or premade v premade. In unranked, your premade can't exceed 4 players. This makes it very balanced when it comes to pug v pug, where even with a full premade you're not guaranteed a win if the other 4 in your team suck.

2 teams will always be more balanced than 3 if the devs think how to balance it hard enough. The only problem will always be lack of imagination, as you've shown in your post.

Also, stop going on about the game not being competitive. BGs have points, an objective, and more rewards for winning ergo, by definition, it's competitive.

thats by far the worst and most incorrect definition of competitive ive ever heard in over 25 years of competitive gaming. then again the guy you quoted takes 2nd place for calling league casual.

the level of clueless in this thread is unreal.

Is it just me or is there a direct relation between people who can’t seem to win BGs and people who don’t think BGs are competitive?

Tbh I agree... the BGs could be a lot more competitive... especially since many of the best groups don’t play the BGs regularly. But it bugs me that the people who say they aren’t competitive are people who aren’t even part of a regular 4 man. IMO you have to be able to win consistently before you can call it not competitive.

Hiero_Glyph · January 2018

What they should do is add private matches and add game modes that allow for two-team 4v4 combat. By placing a starting objective near the unused teams starting location both teams would have to travel the same distance to get there making it competitive without having to redesign new maps.

4v4 game modes could include CtF, Deathmatch (with buffs), KotH, 3-flag Control, etc. Once these are thoroughly tested via private matches them ZOS can consider adding them to the MM.