Maintenance for the week of November 25:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 25, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 7:00AM EST (12:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 25, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 7:00AM EST (12:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
Should ZOS add a 6v6 BG mode?
-
Urvoth✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yesdamtotb16_ESO wrote: »No since they can''t fix lag even in 4vs4
6v6s is the same amount of players as 4v4v4s though...0 -
Slack✭✭✭✭✭YesBump.
Please, 3 sides is OK for cyrodiil.
But WHY in Battlegrounds?PC EU
Betty Breeze - Magwarden
Hunts S'hitblades - Stamplar
Aschavi - Magplar1 -
Urvoth✭✭✭✭✭
✭0 -
Seraphayel✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭OtherSeraphayel wrote: »
You sound like you’ve never played any other competitive PvP game.
I did and compared to the 1vs1vs1 PvP in ESO their 1vs1 approach is quite boring.PS5EUAldmeri Dominion- Khajiit Arcanist -0 -
stamdammered✭✭YesI vote yes but they would have to fix the premade issue, a 6 man premade will absolutely roll 6 man pugs, worse than 4x4x4 in my opinion. At least in 4x4x4 if team #1 is a premade monster you can battle it out with team #2 for second and still have fun.Edited by stamdammered on February 26, 2019 4:57PM0 -
Urvoth✭✭✭✭✭
✭YesSeraphayel wrote: »Seraphayel wrote: »
You sound like you’ve never played any other competitive PvP game.
I did and compared to the 1vs1vs1 PvP in ESO their 1vs1 approach is quite boring.
Objective modes don’t work with 3 teams since once two of the teams start fighting, the 3rd team gets the objectives. Dm is the only mode that functions somewhat ok for BGs.
CS:GO, LoL, dota, overwatch, wow, etc are all 2 team based because it actually works for competitive gameplay, whereas 3 teams does not.0 -
Urvoth✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yesstamdammered wrote: »I vote yes but they would have to fix the premade issue, a 6 man premade will absolutely roll 6 man pugs, worse than 4x4x4 in my opinion. At least in 4x4x4 if team #1 is a premade monster you can battle it out with team #2 for second and still have fun.
It really depends. 6 solo Qs, yeah probably, but a 5 man and a solo Q or a 4 man and a 2 man could still be fine.0 -
wheem_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭Other
It's only dynamic when there aren't any premade groups involved. The "better" a team plays, the less dynamic it becomes. Have you ever played Battlegrounds where all 3 teams were full 4-player premade teams? Because I have, and it usually devolves into a giant merry-go-round with everyone avoiding combat as much as possible (other than Silver Leashing when possible to try and burn someone down 4v1).Seraphayel wrote: »
If Team #1 charges in against Team #2, chances are Team #3 will be the prime beneficiary of that decision. They'll just hang back and wait for the right opportunity to ult-dump and AOE execute spam, collect points, then avoid everyone else until it's time to do it all over again.
Just as an example, there's a video on Thogard's twitch channel where our team took just shy of 11 minutes to get our first kill of the match. But hey, maybe we're just a bunch of no-skill newbs right? What were the other teams' scores at the time? 75 and 30. That means there were a grand total 8 kills/deaths in the game, with just over 4 minutes left until it times out. The final score was 120-90-30, and 4 of those last 8 "kills" were due to people getting knocked into lava (at least 2 directly died because of it, and a third got pulled and wrecked because his team was dead).
With only 2 teams, this boring strategy of avoiding combat for most of the game simply wouldn't be a thing. I still think that 6v6 is the wrong team size, unless it's limited to objective-based games where people are forced to split up a bit, but this 3-team business simply doesn't work well in Battlegrounds. At least not in cases where people play death matches "properly," and want to win.
PS
Around 5:36:00 in this video is what I was referring to above.1 -
Urvoth✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes
It's only dynamic when there aren't any premade groups involved. The "better" a team plays, the less dynamic it becomes. Have you ever played Battlegrounds where all 3 teams were full 4-player premade teams? Because I have, and it usually devolves into a giant merry-go-round with everyone avoiding combat as much as possible (other than Silver Leashing when possible to try and burn someone down 4v1).Seraphayel wrote: »
If Team #1 charges in against Team #2, chances are Team #3 will be the prime beneficiary of that decision. They'll just hang back and wait for the right opportunity to ult-dump and AOE execute spam, collect points, then avoid everyone else until it's time to do it all over again.
Just as an example, there's a video on Thogard's twitch channel where our team took just shy of 11 minutes to get our first kill of the match. But hey, maybe we're just a bunch of no-skill newbs right? What were the other teams' scores at the time? 75 and 30. That means there were a grand total 8 kills/deaths in the game, with just over 4 minutes left until it times out. The final score was 120-90-30, and 4 of those last 8 "kills" were due to people getting knocked into lava (at least 2 directly died because of it, and a third got pulled and wrecked because his team was dead).
With only 2 teams, this boring strategy of avoiding combat for most of the game simply wouldn't be a thing. I still think that 6v6 is the wrong team size, unless it's limited to objective-based games where people are forced to split up a bit, but this 3-team business simply doesn't work well in Battlegrounds. At least not in cases where people play death matches "properly," and want to win.
PS
Around 5:36:00 in this video is what I was referring to above.
It's only dynamic when there aren't any premade groups involved. The "better" a team plays, the less dynamic it becomes. Have you ever played Battlegrounds where all 3 teams were full 4-player premade teams? Because I have, and it usually devolves into a giant merry-go-round with everyone avoiding combat as much as possible (other than Silver Leashing when possible to try and burn someone down 4v1).Seraphayel wrote: »
If Team #1 charges in against Team #2, chances are Team #3 will be the prime beneficiary of that decision. They'll just hang back and wait for the right opportunity to ult-dump and AOE execute spam, collect points, then avoid everyone else until it's time to do it all over again.
Just as an example, there's a video on Thogard's twitch channel where our team took just shy of 11 minutes to get our first kill of the match. But hey, maybe we're just a bunch of no-skill newbs right? What were the other teams' scores at the time? 75 and 30. That means there were a grand total 8 kills/deaths in the game, with just over 4 minutes left until it times out. The final score was 120-90-30, and 4 of those last 8 "kills" were due to people getting knocked into lava (at least 2 directly died because of it, and a third got pulled and wrecked because his team was dead).
With only 2 teams, this boring strategy of avoiding combat for most of the game simply wouldn't be a thing. I still think that 6v6 is the wrong team size, unless it's limited to objective-based games where people are forced to split up a bit, but this 3-team business simply doesn't work well in Battlegrounds. At least not in cases where people play death matches "properly," and want to win.
PS
Around 5:36:00 in this video is what I was referring to above.
6v6s with control points to ensure teams split up would be ideal imo0 -
Karmanorway✭✭✭✭✭
✭YesThat would be awesome! Wouldnt Mind getting rid of 2 premade teams Vs 1 random team, oh and fix MMR too 🙂0 -
PhoenixGrey✭✭✭✭✭
✭NoNope. Anything 4+ is leaning towards a zerg. I can only imagine how 6 blockades or 6 pet sorcs would look like if 4 isn't bad enough alreadyEdited by PhoenixGrey on March 9, 2019 1:44AM0 -
Urvoth✭✭✭✭✭
✭YesPhoenixGrey wrote: »Nope. Anything 4+ is leaning towards a zerg. I can only imagine how 6 blockades or 6 pet sorcs would look like if 4 isn't bad enough already
Doesn't matter if it's an objective mode like control points. Teams would have to split up to win.2 -
ToRelax✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭OtherI like 4v4v4 for three way fights, but for more competitive fights between just two teams, I prefer 3v3. It forces more hybridization for roles because you have fewer people to cover all necessities and focus damage is less extreme, so something like a full tank with guard makes less sense.DAGON - ALTADOON - CHIM - GHARTOK
The Covenant is broken. The Enemy has won...
Elo'dryel - Sorc - AR 50 - Hopesfire - EP EU0 -
WeylandLabs✭✭✭✭✭NoNoooooooo Stop adding - fix stuff and rebalance.Edited by WeylandLabs on March 24, 2019 8:08AM0 -
KhajiitFelix✭✭✭✭✭YesI like getting backstabbed in back but that would work too.Edited by KhajiitFelix on March 24, 2019 8:19AM0
-
PC-NA1 -
Urvoth✭✭✭✭✭
✭YesShokasegambit1 wrote: »Noooooooo Stop adding - fix stuff and rebalance.
6v6 would fix a lot of issues...1 -
Qwazzy✭✭✭✭YesAny new additions to PvP are welcome at this point.Smallscale/Solo player on multiple servers
PC North America - CharactersAD Sorcerer - PvP 16
AD Templar - PvP 33
AD Nightblade - PvP 17
AD Dragonknight - PvP 19
AD Necromancer - PvP 22
EP Sorcerer - PvP 20
EP Templar - PvP 21
EP Nightblade - PvP 20
DC Sorcerer - PvP 16
DC Templar - PvP 24
DC Nightblade - PvP 18Xbox North America - CharactersAD Sorcerer - PvP 32
AD Sorcerer - PvP 20
AD Sorcerer - PvP 14
AD Templar - PvP 41
AD Templar - PvP 16
AD Templar - PvP 14
AD Warden - PvP 29
AD Nightblade - PvP 27
AD Dragonknight - PvP 18
AD Necromancer - PvP 14Xbox Europe - CharactersAD Sorcerer - PvP 42
AD Templar - PvP 36
EP Sorcerer - PvP 160
