J2JMC wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

J2JMC wrote: »

The solution to this is to make mmr w/l based while weighting the amount of mmr gained/lost against the players you beat/lose to.

This will solve your time issue. Although something tells me you still wouldn't be happy since you'll constantly be fighting the same high mmr grouped players and not given the opportunity to stomp scrubs. But I guess you can keep pretending that you care about lower skilled players improving LMAO!

That doesn't solve anything.

Basing MMR on Win Loss in ESO is a recipe for disaster - It's too easy to ignore all PVP and just cap objectives, even if you die 30 times you can finish top on score by literally playing objective.

The fact is, when you put those guys into games that need active PVP (Like all bg's should) they will and do just get pummelled non stop - When it gets that high, you need people who will fight and hold their own, not just run from any PVP to the next flag cap.

This method also promotes ignoring PVP as you only need wins.

@BNOC That's a completely separate topic from OP's issue of queue times, which my suggestion would alleviate. But since you brought it up, outside of Crazy King which I will give you, every other objective bg mode requires pvp to succeed. The only exception to this is when two teams decide to exclusively fight each other so the third just takes the free win. But here's the beauty of w/l mmr, if your teammates are bad, then that means the other team is also bad. So as long as you stomp the game, you'll get the wins and climb to an mmr with other people who can hold their own.

brandonv516 wrote: »

Actually your suggestion would not help OP at all because he does not play the objective ever.

So because he actually loses a lot of matches (other than DM) he would be placed with a lot of terrible players.

@brandonv516 Actually, OP losing makes my suggestion even better. The topic is bg queue times. If OP is losing a lot of games, then that means he will be lower mmr. Lower mmr=faster queue times in every single game that employs an mmr system. This thread was literally made because OP believes his mmr was too high to match with players.

Liam12548 wrote: »

So I completely ignore the objective in BG's, and have since it was introduced into the game. I play BG's as deathmatch always, because I'm only interested in them for a PLAYABLE PVP OPTION, which seems non existent elsewhere in the game. Due to this, I have around 2k BG wins out of 10k BG games, and probably some ungodly K/D ratio as well as ridiculously high damage & healing statistics.

The players in this "high MMR bracket" are mostly average tier players that play the objective in pre-made groups constantly, resulting in them reaching the upper bracket through W/L ratio and objective points alone. So to address your "He only wants to stomp pugs" statement, I already do that in high MMR bg's. The problem arises when I literally am unable to queue with friends without a 15-30 MINUTE queue time, every time. This results in me either having to waste hours sitting around doing nothing in a group waiting for a queue, or purposely going into a more or less 1v4v4 scenario over and over again by myself (usually against the exact same groups over and over again if they continuously queue, despite the NUMEROUS possible games I am barred from by MMR)...

I have no sympathy for you losing in objective based game modes when you can literally queue up for deathmatch (easily the most popular game mode) and never worry about objective game modes lol. You can even queue for chaos ball which is another mode that prioritizes pvp since there is only one objective to fight over.

Your second paragraph just furthers the point that my suggestion would be great for you. By your own admission, you lose lots of games. If mmr was w/l based instead of time played, you would be in a lower mmr. Naturally, as what happens with every single game that implements w/l mmr into their matchmaking, your queue times would be significantly faster because you would have a low mmr. You'll continue to "prepare new players for real pvp" while getting fast queue times. Win-win situation.

Why would I que for deathmatch only and win every game when purposely losing objective games by playing deathmatch should hurt my w/l ratio and theoretically lower my mmr, resulting in faster queue times?

I haven't seen any evidence of w/l being the factor in MMR.

It could be, not saying it isn't, just saying I haven't seen any evidence of that

It could be point based like the rest of the system

Liam12548 wrote: »

Why would I que for deathmatch only and win every game when purposely losing objective games by playing deathmatch should hurt my w/l ratio and theoretically lower my mmr, resulting in faster queue times?

Based on the experiences you have described, we are operating under the assumption that the current mmr system is based off of time played instead of w/l ratio. If it was based off of w/l ratio, there would be more players at a higher mmr since time is not the gatekeep, but winning is. That in itself should lower your queue times since even people who haven't played as long as you would still reach your mmr if they are winning a lot. So, you constantly winning with your amazing skills should not put you to a point where no other player could reach your mmr, as it is much easier to get wins than it is to accumulate time played.

But yes, higher mmr players in any active game will always have a longer queue time than lower mmr players. So, if in the new system I suggested you'd still be willing to throw away a competitive and healthy pvp experience for a queue timer that's 60 seconds faster, there's nothing I can do to help you.

As an aside, I do think soft resets every x months are necessary regardless of how you're basing an mmr system. Hard resets are probably necessary depending on how small you think ESO's active BG population is.

exeeter702 wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

People here talking like BGs in eso are in anyway designed to be a competitive platform........

W/l mmr?
Low skill / high skill mmr?

None of this would have even been a issue whatsoever had zos not been so damn perversely obsessed with make BGs a 3 team wack a mole affair. The problems with this entire system is rooted at its very core and none of the suggestions spoken here would do anything.

Premade / queue separation does nothing but divide the already small player pool that participates in BGs, resulting in longer queues for everyone which is then further compounded by high mmr queue times.

Variation group size matchmaking solves no problem with the mmr system still intact.

Removing everything but solo queue is just a big FU to anyone that wants to play with friends in a genre that emphasizes group play.

Having casual and ranked queues is a dead end because again you are not only separating the player pool between 2 formats, you are still going to run into an even worse issue with high mmr queue times. Which says nothing of how anti competitive these bg maps are designed, trying to shoehorn some kind of ranked system into them is laughable at best.

There is no compromise so long as 3 teams of 4 is the format and the player pool is as small as it is. You can axe the mmr system entirely and tell everyone its either sink or swim which would alleviate queue times for experienced players, with the minor risk of driving away less experienced players. Couple that with making the brackets <160 and >160 and you have a pallatable system. But of course you still run into the issue with premades.

Bgs should have never been 3 team affairs with multiple different game modes employed on each of the maps, that was the absolute nail in the coffin. One that clearly demonstrated a lack of experience and a lack of forsight for the long term.
They must have known they didnt have a highly competitive system which i can only assume their logic was "lets make it as casual as possible by making 3 team objective based bgs so its just random enough that everyone can have fun!" Yet didnt account for what would happen with premade coordination in the one and only bg mode that anyone even gives a damn about, death match.

They needed to realize exactly what purpise BGs were going to serve instead of trying to have their cale and eat it. They should have seen that this pvp format was never going to be competitive despite players trying to convince themselves otherwise and went ahead with 2 team bgs where 8 players where on each team and each map was specifically designed around a single game mode and you could only queue up as a 4 man group at most. Proper objective design would garuntee a quick loss if teams just lumped up instead of splitting up. And experienced players have a real potential opportunity to influence the outcome of a match without making it a blowout for lesser experienced players. You would have had at one extreme two 4 man premades on each team and on the other extreme 16 solos and never 2 premades vs 8 solos.

Massive missed opportunity.

Whenever someone says that they want 2 team BGs and that they trust groupfinder to match it up, it makes me sad because it means people are advocating a game mode that they’ve never bothered to simulate w/ syncd queueing and therefore have no idea about the downsides or the many reasons why it’s a terrible idea.

I would ask how many mmos you have pvped in for the sole reason that those who have experienced the very system that i have metioned here in other mmos know full well that it is a system that works when incorporated properly. Now of course we are talking about ZoSs match making and group finding systems of which have a terrible track record, and would concede on the point that the reason they did not do it was because their particular server infrastructure was incompatible.

But 2 team objective based pvp instancesd games with sophisticated match making systems in place to curb premade vs pug issues absolutely do work and have existed in this genre already.

@exeeter702 I’ve PvPed in many of them. All the big ones, with a focus on DAoC, the MMO this game is derived from. I’ve been playing MMOs for 17 years now.

It works in other MMOs. It doesn’t work in this one because of the combat system and balance decisions made by the dev team to which we are committed.

If you don’t understand why it’s a terrible idea, let me suggest you do a 4v4 in no cp or 6v6 in CP GvG tournament where there are no enforced rules or set bans. The flaws with your suggestion will quickly become apparent once you are on a competent team that starts fighting competent teams. Not even a great team, just decent-ish.

Thogard wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

People here talking like BGs in eso are in anyway designed to be a competitive platform........

W/l mmr?
Low skill / high skill mmr?

None of this would have even been a issue whatsoever had zos not been so damn perversely obsessed with make BGs a 3 team wack a mole affair. The problems with this entire system is rooted at its very core and none of the suggestions spoken here would do anything.

Premade / queue separation does nothing but divide the already small player pool that participates in BGs, resulting in longer queues for everyone which is then further compounded by high mmr queue times.

Variation group size matchmaking solves no problem with the mmr system still intact.

Removing everything but solo queue is just a big FU to anyone that wants to play with friends in a genre that emphasizes group play.

Having casual and ranked queues is a dead end because again you are not only separating the player pool between 2 formats, you are still going to run into an even worse issue with high mmr queue times. Which says nothing of how anti competitive these bg maps are designed, trying to shoehorn some kind of ranked system into them is laughable at best.

There is no compromise so long as 3 teams of 4 is the format and the player pool is as small as it is. You can axe the mmr system entirely and tell everyone its either sink or swim which would alleviate queue times for experienced players, with the minor risk of driving away less experienced players. Couple that with making the brackets <160 and >160 and you have a pallatable system. But of course you still run into the issue with premades.

Bgs should have never been 3 team affairs with multiple different game modes employed on each of the maps, that was the absolute nail in the coffin. One that clearly demonstrated a lack of experience and a lack of forsight for the long term.
They must have known they didnt have a highly competitive system which i can only assume their logic was "lets make it as casual as possible by making 3 team objective based bgs so its just random enough that everyone can have fun!" Yet didnt account for what would happen with premade coordination in the one and only bg mode that anyone even gives a damn about, death match.

They needed to realize exactly what purpise BGs were going to serve instead of trying to have their cale and eat it. They should have seen that this pvp format was never going to be competitive despite players trying to convince themselves otherwise and went ahead with 2 team bgs where 8 players where on each team and each map was specifically designed around a single game mode and you could only queue up as a 4 man group at most. Proper objective design would garuntee a quick loss if teams just lumped up instead of splitting up. And experienced players have a real potential opportunity to influence the outcome of a match without making it a blowout for lesser experienced players. You would have had at one extreme two 4 man premades on each team and on the other extreme 16 solos and never 2 premades vs 8 solos.

Massive missed opportunity.

Whenever someone says that they want 2 team BGs and that they trust groupfinder to match it up, it makes me sad because it means people are advocating a game mode that they’ve never bothered to simulate w/ syncd queueing and therefore have no idea about the downsides or the many reasons why it’s a terrible idea.

Literally every other game has two teams. ESO is not unique or special in any way.

Two team objective based matches have been put together in just about every MMO with instanced pvp with pretty good success. Even the Rift developers managed to put together balanced matches with an ELO system and they have probably 10% of the resources that ZOS has, and their ELO system only took into account wins and losses. It even allowed full premades (5 person group) to queue into matches, which worked fine because the minimum team size was 10. This gives the matchmaking system 5 people on the premade's team and 10 people on the opposing team to balance a match with.

What we have now is one team consisting of a premade, often in voice, against a few other teams with maybe a duo on them. The suggestion by the some pvpers is to coordinate with the other team to "beat" the premade, but you can't communicate with the other team, half of them are pugs who won't listen anyway, and you're still at a disadvantage because the premade team can engage and disengage as a full group through better coordination due to better communication. These matches will never, ever be balanced unless the premade is made up of total potatoes vs two groups of very good players, but we all know that isn't what happens.

A simple 8v8 system with objective based pvp where premades are limited to a group of 4 would easily fix the vast majority of matchmaking issues we see in BGs today. You would never have an entire group made up of a premade and either team could have two equally skilled premades on them, or skilled pugs on one team vs the premade + potato pugs on the other. This worked fine in Rift and most players had roughly a 45-50% win rate, as it should be in any balanced system.

And no, 8 people isn't a zerg. And no, it wouldn't be "too many" people because with objective based pvp, objectives are spread out, leading to fights to take place in different areas. And no, there would be no deathmatch, because that isn't objective-based pvp, so opinions from "entire premade in voice vs entire premade in voice" direction aren't relevant at all. hope that covers a few of the more ridiculous arguments I've read from people who have very obviously never participated in instanced pvp in any other MMO.

Why ZOS decided against implementing a system that works just fine in every other game and instead went with this absurd three team system, We'll never know. Maybe someday we'll get the rundown on how and why this blunder happened, maybe not. Different isn't always good, or right, or better, and ESO is unique in any way that lends itself to three teams. The three team system is mostly a failed experiment that players only tolerate because they don't have any other choice, and players who have played other MMOs know just how much better it could be with normal teams. Honestly, out of every decision ZOS has made in regards to pvp, three teams in BGs is probably the biggest disappointment/letdown for me.

Thogard wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

People here talking like BGs in eso are in anyway designed to be a competitive platform........

W/l mmr?
Low skill / high skill mmr?

None of this would have even been a issue whatsoever had zos not been so damn perversely obsessed with make BGs a 3 team wack a mole affair. The problems with this entire system is rooted at its very core and none of the suggestions spoken here would do anything.

Premade / queue separation does nothing but divide the already small player pool that participates in BGs, resulting in longer queues for everyone which is then further compounded by high mmr queue times.

Variation group size matchmaking solves no problem with the mmr system still intact.

Removing everything but solo queue is just a big FU to anyone that wants to play with friends in a genre that emphasizes group play.

Having casual and ranked queues is a dead end because again you are not only separating the player pool between 2 formats, you are still going to run into an even worse issue with high mmr queue times. Which says nothing of how anti competitive these bg maps are designed, trying to shoehorn some kind of ranked system into them is laughable at best.

There is no compromise so long as 3 teams of 4 is the format and the player pool is as small as it is. You can axe the mmr system entirely and tell everyone its either sink or swim which would alleviate queue times for experienced players, with the minor risk of driving away less experienced players. Couple that with making the brackets <160 and >160 and you have a pallatable system. But of course you still run into the issue with premades.

Bgs should have never been 3 team affairs with multiple different game modes employed on each of the maps, that was the absolute nail in the coffin. One that clearly demonstrated a lack of experience and a lack of forsight for the long term.
They must have known they didnt have a highly competitive system which i can only assume their logic was "lets make it as casual as possible by making 3 team objective based bgs so its just random enough that everyone can have fun!" Yet didnt account for what would happen with premade coordination in the one and only bg mode that anyone even gives a damn about, death match.

They needed to realize exactly what purpise BGs were going to serve instead of trying to have their cale and eat it. They should have seen that this pvp format was never going to be competitive despite players trying to convince themselves otherwise and went ahead with 2 team bgs where 8 players where on each team and each map was specifically designed around a single game mode and you could only queue up as a 4 man group at most. Proper objective design would garuntee a quick loss if teams just lumped up instead of splitting up. And experienced players have a real potential opportunity to influence the outcome of a match without making it a blowout for lesser experienced players. You would have had at one extreme two 4 man premades on each team and on the other extreme 16 solos and never 2 premades vs 8 solos.

Massive missed opportunity.

Whenever someone says that they want 2 team BGs and that they trust groupfinder to match it up, it makes me sad because it means people are advocating a game mode that they’ve never bothered to simulate w/ syncd queueing and therefore have no idea about the downsides or the many reasons why it’s a terrible idea.

I would ask how many mmos you have pvped in for the sole reason that those who have experienced the very system that i have metioned here in other mmos know full well that it is a system that works when incorporated properly. Now of course we are talking about ZoSs match making and group finding systems of which have a terrible track record, and would concede on the point that the reason they did not do it was because their particular server infrastructure was incompatible.

But 2 team objective based pvp instancesd games with sophisticated match making systems in place to curb premade vs pug issues absolutely do work and have existed in this genre already.

@exeeter702 I’ve PvPed in many of them. All the big ones, with a focus on DAoC, the MMO this game is derived from. I’ve been playing MMOs for 17 years now.

It works in other MMOs. It doesn’t work in this one because of the combat system and balance decisions made by the dev team to which we are committed.

If you don’t understand why it’s a terrible idea, let me suggest you do a 4v4 in no cp or 6v6 in CP GvG tournament where there are no enforced rules or set bans. The flaws with your suggestion will quickly become apparent once you are on a competent team that starts fighting competent teams. Not even a great team, just decent-ish.

There is absolutely nothing unique about ESO that makes three teams "work" compared to two teams "not working." This is one of the most out of touch statements (in context) that I've read on these forums and is made even more absurd by the idea that you're basing this ridiculous assumption entirely on one organized premade facing another premade.

Do you know what happens in WoW when premades face each other? Mostly stalemates. Same in Rift. Mostly stalemates. But guess what? 99.9% of matches in any of those other MMOs do not have an entire team making up a premade vs another organized premade. This is the absolute rarest matchup you will ever have, and in many games it isn't even allowed outside of some kind of ladder. Suggesting that ESO cannot have two teams because (lol) of what happens when one premade faces another is completely out of touch with the other 99.99% of the playerbase that will not ever give a *** about what happens when one premade is up against another.

The matches that you suggest will happen will never, ever happen if only half of a team can ever be a premade at any point. This is what every other game does. If you had pvp'd in any other game besides DAoC (which I suspect you haven't), you would know this. You would know that not every match is 4v4 or 6v6 and in fact many are larger, still allow premades, and still have mostly balanced matches that don't end in stalemates.

Coming at this entire discussion from the point of view of an entire team made up of an organized premade vs another team made up of an organized premade is absolutely the wrong way to look at it and honestly, everyone here should remind themselves of this. BGs aren't just for you, Thogard, and your experience does not even come close to reflecting the experience of the average player.

No one who knows what they're talking about is even suggesting 4v4, or even 6v6. If you've played other MMOs with instanced pvp you should know that matches that small are very, very easily imbalanced. Even 6v6 would on the very edge of being too small due to one or two exceptional players or healers being able to throw the balance too far in one direction. For real, stop wasting everyone's time and try to look at things from the perspective of the average player, and then offer up your opinion from that direction, and for once not from your super-mlg-pro-0.001%-of-the-playerbase perspective.

I had the highest solo-queued ELO (MMR) in Rift for years, and you know what? The matchmaking system still worked just fine. A whole lot better than in ESO, actually. The reason for this isn't some ultra special matchmaking system or unique game mechanics, it's just because two teams, none of which can be a full premade, creates much better and more balanced/fun matches than three teams ever could.

edit: I would actually say that matches in Rift had the potential to be much more imbalanced than matches in ESO due to how powerful healers were in Rift compared to in ESO. In Rift one healer could carry 9 other people to an extent that just isn't possible in ESO. We still had much more balanced matches.

Thogard wrote: »

Dude you’ve got to stop talking about other MMOs as if they were relevant here. They aren’t.

Dude I reread your post and I literally have no idea what you’re talking about. Nobody cares about rift or the ELO system there. This isn’t that game. You haven’t made a single point relevant to the conversation at hand which is whether or not a 4v4 game mode can be competitive or interesting with ESO’s current combat mechanics.

This reminds me of the MMR post I wrote where I explained how MMR is derived in this game and you told me I was wrong because MMR is treated differently in other games. Your post made no sense and was not relevant then.

You seem to think that I’m advocating for the way things are. I’m not. I’m simply pointing out how things are.

You should focus on playing this game so that you might also notice how things are.

You couldn't prove that you were right (you still can't), so you were in fact wrong. No one was "right" (including me), because none of us are developers, and we don't have access to the data. You were basing your assumptions on your own anecdotal evidence and conjecture from an extremely narrow point of view and tiny data set. You're right about one thing though--you still have no idea what I'm talking about. The reason you don't have any idea what I'm talking about is because you seem to have almost no experience with instanced pvp in other games, whereas other people do.

The idea that you could somehow deduce exactly the way that a MMR system was working from the perspective of one player (and possibly a few anecdotes from others) is incredibly arrogant. The vast, vast majority of MMR systems are based on one thing--wins and losses. To immediately discount that fact when anyone suggests that's actually how it works (which, again, is the most likely scenario), and come up with some ridiculous, convoluted system that you "feel" is right, isn't actually right.

Anyway, I'll say it again. ESO is not unique. ESO is not special. It's a MMO with pvp just like any other MMO. There is absolutely nothing about ESO that makes three teams better than two teams. If this were the case, ESO would somehow be drastically different than literally every other game (not just MMOs) in existence. Fortunately for us, it isn't.

My points were pretty easy to understand, but I'll try to simplify it for you: You're basing your assumption that three teams is better from the experience and outcome of one organized premade vs another organized premade, which (I'm repeating myself here, but reading is apparently very hard) is the least likely scenario to ever take place in instanced pvp. Hope that helps.

I've played a lot of MMOs. I've participated in instanced pvp in a lot of MMOs. I've participated in the class development of a MMO. I've participated in the tuning of an ELO/matchmaking system in a MMO. Believe it or not, this experience is relevant to ESO, because it's a MMO.

edit: I want to add one more thing: In Rift (which is actually relevant) the initial matchmaking system wasn't only based around wins/losses, but took into account things like healing and damage. On the surface, it may seem like this is a good idea as player who do a lot of damage or healing are probably good, but it turned out to be extremely difficult to properly analyze these values and create balanced matches based off of them. There ended up being a number of outliers who did a lot of damage/healing, but weren't particularly good players and didn't contribute much to wins, and those outliers were being placed into matches that they clearly didn't belong, or ended up with very long queues that they shouldn't have had. That system was eventually scrapped for a system based on only wins and losses, which actually lead to much better outcomes. Sometimes simple is better, and less is more. Aside from most other matchmaking systems being based off of w/l, this is another part of the reason I assume the matchmaking is based entirely (or mostly) on wins and losses.

Thogard wrote: »

That’s a lot of writing that, once again, has no relevance here. Im not even sure if you play this game. I’m going to put you back on ignore.

Suffice it to say, if you don’t play battlegrounds in eSO then you should probably refrain from commenting on them on the message boards. It dilutes actual information from people with knowledge and experience.

The outcome of organized 4v4 and 6v6 has no relevance to the discussion either as that was not what was being advocated for when reffering to two team 8v8 objective based BGs.

There is a reason historically, why instanced pvp in mmos has avoided anything larger than 4v4, because the simple truth exists that when you introduce that amount of player power into an isolated small instance and tell players to kill each other, all sorts of balancing issues arise. Its why death match focused competitive pvp systems are almost universally 3v3 or 4v4 (with specific tuning inplemented by devs or by forcing roles etc).

When suggesting an 8v8 2 team affair, it is absolutely not a zerg because you are not making a death match BG and you are guarunteeing a quiick loss if a given team stacks up in such a way. That is no different in any other mmo than it would be here. ESOs combat structure, while problematic for small scale competitive play (as you cared to point out), is not problematic for spread out objective based BGs because you are not funneling all players into a single spot and you are not creating the possibility that an 8 man premade would be able to steam role a bunch of pugs.

Outside mmo pvp experience absolutely positively is applicable to this subject.

As i have said in the past, pvp "arenas" would make very clear a swath of issues that would make such a mode inherently flawed (CC mechanics and a lack of CDs primarily) but 8v8 BGs where objectives are baked into the map desgin itself and a premade never being more than 4 players on a team absolutely can work in ESO.

Those that want nonsense 2 team deathmatch 6v6+ BGs dont understand the underlying issues and should frankly be ignored. But ESO BGs and to a lesser extent organized small scale 2 team circle jerks are not some highly competitive demonstration of player prowess and trying to shorehorn them into such a place and pretend there is this higher level of insider pvp knowledge where there actually isnt any is incredibly obnoxious.

Remove MMR completely and throw in the trash where it belongs. I can't play my main anymore. Not only are my queues 10+ mins long, but i'm sick and tired of going against full high mmr teams, while i have team mates that have never been heard of in their own home. Every single game i've been in lately has been one sided, and i've been able to tell which team will dominate from the moment i zone in and open the bg tab. I've been in games where the best 4 players in the bg are in the same team, and they're all solo queuing.

Whatever MMR formula they use, IT DOESN'T WORK.

Mystikkal wrote: »

Honestly this is a bad idea. Any good BG'er who has entered a BG on an alt knows this... The majority of PvPers in this game can't even come close to competing with the top players. The games would almost always become so unbalanced that it wouldn't be fun for either side

Lol speak for yourself.
Don't put words in the mouths of players who like to play on a competitive level.
It's convenient to say "no one would like it" when you have solos getting treated like complete *** and groups who feel entitled to smash on players who would rather not group.

An overwhelming number of players want to be rid of this *** no-one-can-die tank meta.
An overwhelming number of players have quit because it's just a steady downhill of poolnoodle combat.
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with pvp. People who don't play to compete, so the bar is lowered 10,000% until players who play hard are in the exact same place as players who don't and the competitive substance of the game is gone.