The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/656454/
Do you want more XvXvX or XvX Battlegrounds in the future?
ChefZero
✭✭✭✭
or
PC EU - DC only
Do you want more XvXvX or XvX Battlegrounds in the future? 157 votes
XvXvX
19%
30 votes
XvX
80%
127 votes
0
-
ChefZero✭✭✭✭XvXIMO 4-man-teams are to small for playing objectives but a 8v8v8 would be such chaotic that you can go Cyro or IC as well. And BGs should be used to give guilds a chance to show thier strength.PC EU - DC only2
-
Tigeracer✭✭✭✭XvXvXThe only thing that I have about the 3-way nature of battlegrounds, is when you are attacking the leading team and then some a-hole on another losing team decides to attack you. Wtf is wrong with those people?8
-
Slack✭✭✭✭✭XvX6vs6 pleasePC EU
Betty Breeze - Magwarden
Hunts S'hitblades - Stamplar
Aschavi - Magplar7 -
XvXvXI really wish to see MMR-arena like in WoW, 2v2 or/and 1v1, whatever. BG's are still pretty good as they are.Edited by black_celebration on April 30, 2018 7:12PMlet's have a black celebration
tonight
to celebrate the fact
that we've seen the back
of another black
day5 -
wheem_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭XvX
I've wanted an arena-type system for a while now, since that was hands down the most enjoyable part of WoW to me, back in the day. That said, I definitely wouldn't have it be set up for duels, since class balancing for 1v1 would essentially be impossible, and some matchups are so out of whack that it isn't funny (even if we leave aside any sort of "cheesey" setups). I think 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 brackets would be fine, though there's still a lot of balancing that needs to happen in order for such a system to work well.black_celebration wrote: »I really wish to see MMR-arena like in WoW, 2v2 or/and 1v1, whatever. BG's are still pretty good as they are.
If it were put into the game right now, with no balancing changes, I'd predict that the only magicka setups that you'd ever see at higher ratings would be healers (almost all of whom would be Templars) and DKs. Stamina is just too strong compared to Magicka right now, for a number of different reasons.Edited by wheem_ESO on April 30, 2018 8:26PM1 -
RebornV3x✭✭✭✭✭
✭XvXwe need XvX 4 man and maybe 6 no more of this garbage 3 team XvXvX stuff it sucks whomever on the dev team thinks this is a good idea needs to be stopped just 2 teams going at it I hate it when I doing well in BGs just for another team to come up from behind us to ruin it or have both teams gang up on the other once that team pulls ahead 3s a crowd its a pain to play 4v8 all the time when your team is winning.Edited by RebornV3x on May 1, 2018 4:56AMXbox One - NA GT: RebornV3x
I also play on PC from time to time but I just wanna be left alone on there so sorry.2 -
xericdx✭✭✭XvXI like the current set up actually, but would be nice to have some competitive alternatives like 2vs2 or else.
CharactersPrimo Aldouine (MagSorc), AD
Kro'zuc Primo (StamDK), AD
Primo Leyla, MagDK, DC
Primo Salazar (MagPlar), AD
Leyla Softpawn (StamBade), AD
Shaz Primo (MagBlade), AD
Marcus Primo (MagDen), EP
Elonthor Primo (StamDen), AD
The Red, MagNecro, AD
You like housing?! We have the place for you: Tamriel Homes Guild! Contact me for info (in-game ID @xericdx) or visit our website https://tamrielhomes.com/
PC EU0 -
ChefZero✭✭✭✭XvXPlease be careful with your wishes for 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4. ESO will never able to be balanced. The community just would become more salty.
PC EU - DC only1 -
Merlin13KAGL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Expand the idea a bit. Have trial-like settings where there is more than just a single type of objective and more than one way to acquire it.
Then, let teams complete, assist, sabotage each other. Include, in some cases, the option to have a single spy in each group, countering their efforts and actually working for an opposing team. Each team would have to determine and deal with the individual once discovered.
There are certainly more mode opportunities to be had than just the currently available choices.Just because you don't like the way something is doesn't necessarily make it wrong...
Earn it.
IRL'ing for a while for assorted reasons, in forum, and in game.I am neither warm, nor fuzzy...
Probably has checkbox on Customer Service profile that say High Aggro, 99% immunity to BS0 -
BNOC✭✭✭✭✭XvXUnfortunately, nobody has the ability to be in 2 places at once, and the way 4v4v4 is set up, means that you essentially have to be. Especially for CTF, Domination and so on; if you're not, then you've lost the objective at location 2.
BG's as they currently stand, do not promote actual combat, they promote running as fast as you can around the map to the objectives, trying your best to capture them before anyone arrives and moving on to the next one.
So it probably comes as no surprise to see a game finish and people to literally have less than 100k damage/healing. That's literally 15 seconds and they can't even squeeze that in because they're too interested in the objectives.
IMO, players that are speed capping or just running to and from objectives should be in Cyrodil taking resources.
The OP linked a picture of Warsong Gulch and if you've ever played it, you'll see all of the issues with ESO BG's.
As a side note: Whilst it's going to be fun for 15 minutes beating on casuals when they make BG's F2p, it's only going to mean more of this ***-footing around the map. There needs to be minimum requirements for rewards, no matter your level or skill. Even 100k damage/healing, otherwise, what are you doing? Battlegrounds, not Capturegrounds, 100mSprintgrounds or HideNSeekgrounds.Please be careful with your wishes for 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4. ESO will never able to be balanced. The community just would become more salty.
None of them ever are. I guess that's why the healing debuff and so on, come in to play on WoW. It wouldn't be hard to implement something similar.
vMSA - Magplar - Xbox EU - 15/11/16
578,000 - 36 Minutes 58 Seconds (Top 2 World?)
vMSA - Magplar - Xbox NA
569,000 - 40 minutes (350CP, Non optimised runs)0 -
ChefZero✭✭✭✭XvXPlease be careful with your wishes for 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4. ESO will never able to be balanced. The community just would become more salty.
None of them ever are. I guess that's why the healing debuff and so on, come in to play on WoW. It wouldn't be hard to implement something similar.
IMO balancing ESO is better comparable to MOBAs like LoL or HotS as to WoW cause of the huge skillpool, synergies and mechanics. But 1. MOBAs have the feature to ban strong setups and 2. ESO has many housemade problems (many offense and defense mechanics are affected by same stats and aren't separated, so lesser downside of stacking damage and crit).PC EU - DC only1 -
exeeter702✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭XvXSeriously 8v8 is sorely needed. There are VERY few redeeming qualities in 3 way bgs. Most nay sayers either dont have the experience from other mmos, when they say thhings along the lines of "8v8 wont work becuase of stacking X ultimate or Y proc sets etc etc or they simply enjoy pvp formats that places less responsibility to perform. Properly developed BGs with intelligent map design and objectives always work because they almost garuntee loss if a team doesnt spread out and play the map, which when made right always creates actual incentive to pvp unlike the majority of game laughable game modes we have in eso atm.
Im not sure what obsession they had with making it 4v4v4 but that *** doesnt work beyond party game status. The technical and strategic depth is bankrupt in formats like that. Frankly, a player with zero to little pvp ability should only have so much opportunity for actual influence on a matches outcome. In popular game modes of other mmos, guarding a node can be uneventful for an entire match, yet if the node is attacked, said player HAS to have chops in buying time or fending off the cap outright. Scenarios like that rarely occur in esos BGs. Its why deasthmatch is the most popular, becauae player ability in raw pvp interactions carries the most weight in that format, ALMOST without any nonsense (getting "backdoor'd is always a possibility ie a throwaway easy team is farmed by the strongest team)
Most have experience in wow so i wont bother with those bg maps but
For all of swtors faults, its warzone designs werent one of them. They were very well made, geographically precise it travel time and route between objectives so as to reinforce the importance of winning verious micro pvp exchanges because of spawn timers.
This doesnt even get into the subject of how 2 team BGs can easily remedy queue times and premade vs pug issues. I could write a whole thesis on proper competitive objective based map design but honestly esos approach was a massive let down for numerous reasons. I would love to hear / have a dialogue with @ZOS_BrianWheeler to find out exactly why the decision was made to go the route they did. If i were a betting man, id wager it had something to do with making sure BGs were a casual, easy to enjoy accessible experience which in and of itself isnt necessarily a bad thing i guess, but larger objective based BGs are casual enough by default.Edited by exeeter702 on May 2, 2018 9:01PM1 -
ecru✭✭✭✭✭
✭XvXwe need XvX 4 man and maybe 6 no more of this garbage 3 team XvXvX stuff it sucks whomever on the dev team thinks this is a good idea needs to be stopped just 2 teams going at it I hate it when I doing well in BGs just for another team to come up from behind us to ruin it or have both teams gang up on the other once that team pulls ahead 3s a crowd its a pain to play 4v8 all the time when your team is winning.
4-6 is too small. 8 minimum. Smaller teams lead to games that are more easily imbalanced by one or two players. More players fixes this. 4v4 only (outside of some kind of ranked/ladder) would be a disasterGryphon Heart
Godslayer
Dawnbringer3 -
Mojomonkeyman✭✭✭✭✭
✭XvXAnything above 3v3 becomes messy, 4v4 should be highest number of players involved with the current map layouts (since there is no incentive to split up).we need XvX 4 man and maybe 6 no more of this garbage 3 team XvXvX stuff it sucks whomever on the dev team thinks this is a good idea needs to be stopped just 2 teams going at it I hate it when I doing well in BGs just for another team to come up from behind us to ruin it or have both teams gang up on the other once that team pulls ahead 3s a crowd its a pain to play 4v8 all the time when your team is winning.
4-6 is too small. 8 minimum. Smaller teams lead to games that are more easily imbalanced by one or two players. More players fixes this. 4v4 only (outside of some kind of ranked/ladder) would be a disaster
What you are describing here is called skill, its exactly what PvP should be about. Funny that you seem to think its a bad thing. Don't need that zergling attitude in BGs, no thank you.Koma Grey, Chocolate Thunder, Little Mojo, Dagoth Mojo & Mojomancy1 -
ChefZero✭✭✭✭XvXMojomonkeyman wrote: »Anything above 3v3 becomes messy, 4v4 should be highest number of players involved with the current map layouts (since there is no incentive to split up).we need XvX 4 man and maybe 6 no more of this garbage 3 team XvXvX stuff it sucks whomever on the dev team thinks this is a good idea needs to be stopped just 2 teams going at it I hate it when I doing well in BGs just for another team to come up from behind us to ruin it or have both teams gang up on the other once that team pulls ahead 3s a crowd its a pain to play 4v8 all the time when your team is winning.
4-6 is too small. 8 minimum. Smaller teams lead to games that are more easily imbalanced by one or two players. More players fixes this. 4v4 only (outside of some kind of ranked/ladder) would be a disaster
What you are describing here is called skill, its exactly what PvP should be about. Funny that you seem to think its a bad thing. Don't need that zergling attitude in BGs, no thank you.
What you're talking about is called arena in every other game. This here is about battlegrounds, means maps with objectives and the need to split out and this requires bigger groups.PC EU - DC only3 -
ecru✭✭✭✭✭
✭XvXMojomonkeyman wrote: »Anything above 3v3 becomes messy, 4v4 should be highest number of players involved with the current map layouts (since there is no incentive to split up).we need XvX 4 man and maybe 6 no more of this garbage 3 team XvXvX stuff it sucks whomever on the dev team thinks this is a good idea needs to be stopped just 2 teams going at it I hate it when I doing well in BGs just for another team to come up from behind us to ruin it or have both teams gang up on the other once that team pulls ahead 3s a crowd its a pain to play 4v8 all the time when your team is winning.
4-6 is too small. 8 minimum. Smaller teams lead to games that are more easily imbalanced by one or two players. More players fixes this. 4v4 only (outside of some kind of ranked/ladder) would be a disaster
What you are describing here is called skill, its exactly what PvP should be about. Funny that you seem to think its a bad thing. Don't need that zergling attitude in BGs, no thank you.
I think you're confused about what casual instanced pvp open to everyone in the game should be like, and that's OK, because I also said outside of some kind of ranked/ladder. I thought it was obvious that I was making a distinction between battlegrounds and some kind of ranked/ladder, but I guess I wasn't clear enough.Gryphon Heart
Godslayer
Dawnbringer1 -
Mojomonkeyman✭✭✭✭✭
✭XvXMojomonkeyman wrote: »Anything above 3v3 becomes messy, 4v4 should be highest number of players involved with the current map layouts (since there is no incentive to split up).we need XvX 4 man and maybe 6 no more of this garbage 3 team XvXvX stuff it sucks whomever on the dev team thinks this is a good idea needs to be stopped just 2 teams going at it I hate it when I doing well in BGs just for another team to come up from behind us to ruin it or have both teams gang up on the other once that team pulls ahead 3s a crowd its a pain to play 4v8 all the time when your team is winning.
4-6 is too small. 8 minimum. Smaller teams lead to games that are more easily imbalanced by one or two players. More players fixes this. 4v4 only (outside of some kind of ranked/ladder) would be a disaster
What you are describing here is called skill, its exactly what PvP should be about. Funny that you seem to think its a bad thing. Don't need that zergling attitude in BGs, no thank you.
What you're talking about is called arena in every other game. This here is about battlegrounds, means maps with objectives and the need to split out and this requires bigger groups.
As I've stated: with the current map layout it won't work that way. You'd need more wow'ish battleground maps to give incentive for splitting up. I agree, then higher numbers would make sense. But larger teams with the current layout? Hell no.Koma Grey, Chocolate Thunder, Little Mojo, Dagoth Mojo & Mojomancy0 -
BNOC✭✭✭✭✭XvXwe need XvX 4 man and maybe 6 no more of this garbage 3 team XvXvX stuff it sucks whomever on the dev team thinks this is a good idea needs to be stopped just 2 teams going at it I hate it when I doing well in BGs just for another team to come up from behind us to ruin it or have both teams gang up on the other once that team pulls ahead 3s a crowd its a pain to play 4v8 all the time when your team is winning.
4-6 is too small. 8 minimum. Smaller teams lead to games that are more easily imbalanced by one or two players. More players fixes this. 4v4 only (outside of some kind of ranked/ladder) would be a disaster
If you've ever been part of a full 4 man or have come up against one with decent players in BGs, you'll know how powerful they are. Any competent group of 8 could literally camp a spawn at ease until everyone else left the game.
That wouldn't be fun for everyone else.
If they ever increased team sizes, the minimum ZOS would need to do is properly match-make and adjust a few of the maps.vMSA - Magplar - Xbox EU - 15/11/16
578,000 - 36 Minutes 58 Seconds (Top 2 World?)
vMSA - Magplar - Xbox NA
569,000 - 40 minutes (350CP, Non optimised runs)0 -
ecru✭✭✭✭✭
✭XvXwe need XvX 4 man and maybe 6 no more of this garbage 3 team XvXvX stuff it sucks whomever on the dev team thinks this is a good idea needs to be stopped just 2 teams going at it I hate it when I doing well in BGs just for another team to come up from behind us to ruin it or have both teams gang up on the other once that team pulls ahead 3s a crowd its a pain to play 4v8 all the time when your team is winning.
4-6 is too small. 8 minimum. Smaller teams lead to games that are more easily imbalanced by one or two players. More players fixes this. 4v4 only (outside of some kind of ranked/ladder) would be a disaster
If you've ever been part of a full 4 man or have come up against one with decent players in BGs, you'll know how powerful they are. Any competent group of 8 could literally camp a spawn at ease until everyone else left the game.
That wouldn't be fun for everyone else.
If they ever increased team sizes, the minimum ZOS would need to do is properly match-make and adjust a few of the maps.
There won't/shouldn't be super-competent groups of 8 because group sizes while queueing will be limited to 4 players just like dungeons. Combined with a simple matchmaking system based off of wins/losses and you'll have pretty balanced matches IMO. With good matchmaking, premades will be matched on opposite teams, with pugs on either side. Both teams get the high ELO premade (if there are two queueing at the same time), or one high 4 person ELO premade is matched with 4 very low ELO pugs vs 8 average ELO pugs.
The reason 4v4 is too small is just as I stated--one or two exceptional players can shift the balance too easily and overwhelm the other team, so smaller matches are better suited for competitive play, rather than casual instanced pvp with mostly pugs. Throw in objectives and things get even worse because the likelihood of a team wipe in a 4v4 vs an 8v8 is much higher, giving the remaining team time to secure objectives while the entire opposing team is respawning.
Edited by ecru on May 8, 2018 9:48AMGryphon Heart
Godslayer
Dawnbringer0 -
MurderMostFoul✭✭✭✭✭
✭XvXvXXvX would only work if there was effective skill-based matchmaking implemented. Frankly, I don't think that is really possible in this game given all the variables that impact player performance.
I've been playing 'The Division' lately. It is a RPG-shooter with a huge variety of builds given all it's loot and player abilities. It also has a 4v4 mode which the developer has said uses skill based matchmaking. However, around 75% of matches are entirely noncompetitive, complete blowouts.
I have no doubt that there would be the same result in ESO if they switched to XvX. The better team would just wipe the floor with the lesser. At least that is a little harder to do with XvXvX.“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”0 -
BNOC✭✭✭✭✭XvXMurderMostFoul wrote: »XvX would only work if there was effective skill-based matchmaking implemented. Frankly, I don't think that is really possible in this game given all the variables that impact player performance.
I've been playing 'The Division' lately. It is a RPG-shooter with a huge variety of builds given all it's loot and player abilities. It also has a 4v4 mode which the developer has said uses skill based matchmaking. However, around 75% of matches are entirely noncompetitive, complete blowouts.
I have no doubt that there would be the same result in ESO if they switched to XvX. The better team would just wipe the floor with the lesser. At least that is a little harder to do with XvXvX.
The problem with XvXvX is that, all too often, it already is XvX whilst X3 is on the other side of the map, ignoring all combat and capping flags/relics - It's impossible to be in 2 places at once. Team fights can and do often go on long enough for X3 to take multiple points in domination, capture a relic or so on.
Granted, running the London Marathon or playing Hide N Seek isn't effective in every game mode, but it is in most and is a problem tied exclusively to XvXvXvMSA - Magplar - Xbox EU - 15/11/16
578,000 - 36 Minutes 58 Seconds (Top 2 World?)
vMSA - Magplar - Xbox NA
569,000 - 40 minutes (350CP, Non optimised runs)1 -
MurderMostFoul✭✭✭✭✭
✭XvXvXMurderMostFoul wrote: »XvX would only work if there was effective skill-based matchmaking implemented. Frankly, I don't think that is really possible in this game given all the variables that impact player performance.
I've been playing 'The Division' lately. It is a RPG-shooter with a huge variety of builds given all it's loot and player abilities. It also has a 4v4 mode which the developer has said uses skill based matchmaking. However, around 75% of matches are entirely noncompetitive, complete blowouts.
I have no doubt that there would be the same result in ESO if they switched to XvX. The better team would just wipe the floor with the lesser. At least that is a little harder to do with XvXvX.
The problem with XvXvX is that, all too often, it already is XvX whilst X3 is on the other side of the map, ignoring all combat and capping flags/relics - It's impossible to be in 2 places at once. Team fights can and do often go on long enough for X3 to take multiple points in domination, capture a relic or so on.
Granted, running the London Marathon or playing Hide N Seek isn't effective in every game mode, but it is in most and is a problem tied exclusively to XvXvX
All game types rely on a team's Mobility and combat prowess. The degree to which one or the other is relied upon depends on each game type. Effective team strategy requires using both combat and Mobility appropriately in each game type. I really don't see what the problem is with that.
It sounds to me like you want the team with better combat prowess to always win. If that is the case, then you will be all set when Somerset comes around and you can pick Deathmatch every time. But if the focus of BG's shifted to xvx, I feel it is inevitable that the vast majority of games would just involve one team getting dominated by the other to the point of being spawn camped.“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”0 -
ecru✭✭✭✭✭
✭XvXMurderMostFoul wrote: »XvX would only work if there was effective skill-based matchmaking implemented. Frankly, I don't think that is really possible in this game given all the variables that impact player performance.
I've been playing 'The Division' lately. It is a RPG-shooter with a huge variety of builds given all it's loot and player abilities. It also has a 4v4 mode which the developer has said uses skill based matchmaking. However, around 75% of matches are entirely noncompetitive, complete blowouts.
I have no doubt that there would be the same result in ESO if they switched to XvX. The better team would just wipe the floor with the lesser. At least that is a little harder to do with XvXvX.
I addressed this above. The reason those matches are blowouts is the team size and I speculated that 4v4 in ESO would be exactly the same. I haven't played the game you're talking about so I don't know whether it could support larger team sizes, but ESO obviously can.Edited by ecru on May 8, 2018 11:45PMGryphon Heart
Godslayer
Dawnbringer0 -
BNOC✭✭✭✭✭XvXMurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »XvX would only work if there was effective skill-based matchmaking implemented. Frankly, I don't think that is really possible in this game given all the variables that impact player performance.
I've been playing 'The Division' lately. It is a RPG-shooter with a huge variety of builds given all it's loot and player abilities. It also has a 4v4 mode which the developer has said uses skill based matchmaking. However, around 75% of matches are entirely noncompetitive, complete blowouts.
I have no doubt that there would be the same result in ESO if they switched to XvX. The better team would just wipe the floor with the lesser. At least that is a little harder to do with XvXvX.
The problem with XvXvX is that, all too often, it already is XvX whilst X3 is on the other side of the map, ignoring all combat and capping flags/relics - It's impossible to be in 2 places at once. Team fights can and do often go on long enough for X3 to take multiple points in domination, capture a relic or so on.
Granted, running the London Marathon or playing Hide N Seek isn't effective in every game mode, but it is in most and is a problem tied exclusively to XvXvX
All game types rely on a team's Mobility and combat prowess. The degree to which one or the other is relied upon depends on each game type. Effective team strategy requires using both combat and Mobility appropriately in each game type. I really don't see what the problem is with that.
It sounds to me like you want the team with better combat prowess to always win. If that is the case, then you will be all set when Somerset comes around and you can pick Deathmatch every time. But if the focus of BG's shifted to xvx, I feel it is inevitable that the vast majority of games would just involve one team getting dominated by the other to the point of being spawn camped.
The problem with it in any game mode bar TDM is that you're punished for engaging in a team fight.
It's almost always better to just run from flag to flag, relic to relic - Ignoring all combat at any expense as it's simply a waste of time and puts you at a disadvantage.vMSA - Magplar - Xbox EU - 15/11/16
578,000 - 36 Minutes 58 Seconds (Top 2 World?)
vMSA - Magplar - Xbox NA
569,000 - 40 minutes (350CP, Non optimised runs)1 -
MurderMostFoul✭✭✭✭✭
✭XvXvXMurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »XvX would only work if there was effective skill-based matchmaking implemented. Frankly, I don't think that is really possible in this game given all the variables that impact player performance.
I've been playing 'The Division' lately. It is a RPG-shooter with a huge variety of builds given all it's loot and player abilities. It also has a 4v4 mode which the developer has said uses skill based matchmaking. However, around 75% of matches are entirely noncompetitive, complete blowouts.
I have no doubt that there would be the same result in ESO if they switched to XvX. The better team would just wipe the floor with the lesser. At least that is a little harder to do with XvXvX.
The problem with XvXvX is that, all too often, it already is XvX whilst X3 is on the other side of the map, ignoring all combat and capping flags/relics - It's impossible to be in 2 places at once. Team fights can and do often go on long enough for X3 to take multiple points in domination, capture a relic or so on.
Granted, running the London Marathon or playing Hide N Seek isn't effective in every game mode, but it is in most and is a problem tied exclusively to XvXvX
All game types rely on a team's Mobility and combat prowess. The degree to which one or the other is relied upon depends on each game type. Effective team strategy requires using both combat and Mobility appropriately in each game type. I really don't see what the problem is with that.
It sounds to me like you want the team with better combat prowess to always win. If that is the case, then you will be all set when Somerset comes around and you can pick Deathmatch every time. But if the focus of BG's shifted to xvx, I feel it is inevitable that the vast majority of games would just involve one team getting dominated by the other to the point of being spawn camped.
The problem with it in any game mode bar TDM is that you're punished for engaging in a team fight.
It's almost always better to just run from flag to flag, relic to relic - Ignoring all combat at any expense as it's simply a waste of time and puts you at a disadvantage.
This is only true for domination, all other game modes involve times when engaging in (and winning) a fight is to your advantage.“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”0