NO IT IS NOT. IT IS NOT THE SAME AT ALL. ONE IS SMALL SCALE GROUP OBJECTIVE PLAY WHEREAS THE OTHER HAVE VERY LITTLE SMALL SCALE ACTION. THEY KILLED THE BEST PART OF ESO PVP.

I go there more now that I know I won't be facing the same team over and over again that can wipe anything in their path. I don't often play during peak hours so it was fairly common to see the same people over and over in one night until finally others quit queuing because it was no fun facing the same pre-made group over and over again.

While two queues seems the obvious solution there are not enough players most the day to support separate queues. I'm not sure what the fix is but just going back to what we had is definitely not it.

kargen27 wrote: »

I go there more now that I know I won't be facing the same team over and over again that can wipe anything in their path. I don't often play during peak hours so it was fairly common to see the same people over and over in one night until finally others quit queuing because it was no fun facing the same pre-made group over and over again.

While two queues seem the obvious solution there are not enough players most the day to support separate queues. I'm not sure what the fix is but just going back to what we had is definitely not it.

IM NOT SURE YOU READ THE POST CORRECTLY. NO ONE SAID TO REVERT THE CHANGES. THE SOLO QUEUE FAVORS MORE CASUAL/ LESS SKILLED PLAYERS AND REMOVES A LAYER OF COMPETITIVENESS TO A OBJECTIVE BASED GAME MODE. IT IS A MMO AND CONFINING A CRUCIAL PVP ELEMENT TO SOLO QUEUE IS A VERY BAD DECISION. IT REMOVES THE FUN OF PLAYING WITH YOUR FRIENDS...IN A MMO.

Nope, im not interested in giving your premade group easy dominance of the battleground .. seperate queues for solo or groups are only solution, but then you wouldnt want that either since no easy kills hmm.

ThePianist wrote: »

I would not bring back group bgs. Currently there is a way to play with your friends in bgs, I think your friend has to join your bgs session through the PS4 network.

I know it’s solo que at the moment but I swear I keep facing off the same warden deathball groups or the same tanky werewolf groups. There must be an exploit to this but idk. I don’t think it has to do with scoreboards and MMR. I mean how crappy would it be that bgs matchmaking will group rank 1, 2, 3 and 4 together in the same group lol? That’s an easy stomp for them.

What I think they do is they all queue up at the same time and sometimes they get lucky and all get in. Because I've had similar things happen to me as well.

It's not a 100% fullproof against premades. But it's been a definite improvement.

mairwen85 wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

ZaroktheImmortal wrote: »

One option could be to have two options on battlegrounds on for groups which could be with people who are all in a set up group to make the playing ground fair. Or they could pick random to be matched with and against other randoms. That way only organised teams would be matched to organised teams and only random ques would be matched to random ques and it'd make it fair.

That's what I think they should do as well.

Just have a group queue and a solo queue. That would be fair and more fun for everyone.

Supposedly too many partial and full pre-mades that lead to solo-queues would make the group queue under populated... apparently, or so people keep saying.

Personally I agree with ZaroktheImmortal, let the population organise themselves into groups or pugs. Expand on what we have with ranked matches for groups, and keep the daily random bonus on the solo-only queue (solo or merc rank for soloists to better group them instead of the broken MMR system we have now); improve rewards with greater xmute yield, and more creative gear drop choices and actually generate incentive for either option (unique drops for either group or solo). Maybe invent a few new modes that support pugging or have more varied objectives like skirmishes or tower defence.

They could always just test out having two queues (a solo and group queue) and see how it goes. If it turns out the population can't sustain them they can always just revert it back.

mairwen85 wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

mairwen85 wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

ZaroktheImmortal wrote: »

One option could be to have two options on battlegrounds on for groups which could be with people who are all in a set up group to make the playing ground fair. Or they could pick random to be matched with and against other randoms. That way only organised teams would be matched to organised teams and only random ques would be matched to random ques and it'd make it fair.

That's what I think they should do as well.

Just have a group queue and a solo queue. That would be fair and more fun for everyone.

Supposedly too many partial and full pre-mades that lead to solo-queues would make the group queue under populated... apparently, or so people keep saying.

Personally I agree with ZaroktheImmortal, let the population organise themselves into groups or pugs. Expand on what we have with ranked matches for groups, and keep the daily random bonus on the solo-only queue (solo or merc rank for soloists to better group them instead of the broken MMR system we have now); improve rewards with greater xmute yield, and more creative gear drop choices and actually generate incentive for either option (unique drops for either group or solo). Maybe invent a few new modes that support pugging or have more varied objectives like skirmishes or tower defence.

They could always just test out having two queues (a solo and group queue) and see how it goes. If it turns out the population can't sustain them they can always just revert it back.

I'd rather they apply some creativity than take things away. Imagination is lacking in this scenario. If you think about what BGs actually are, the options are near limitless to expand on them, but we get stale repetition instead. This problem is best addressed by expanding not locking down the BG concept.

I get what you're saying. But having a group and solo queue shouldn't prevent them from adding new modes or objectives in the future. So I don't see why it would lock down the BG concept.

If you want to be fair and make PvP as enjoyable as possible for the most number of people, then I think having two queue systems is unavoidable. Because no matter what the mode or objective is - coordinated and organized teams are always going to have a huge upper hand. It's why in sports you have teams and leagues. You're not going to throw some random selection of football players up against an organized team like say the New England Patriots. If you did it that would be a slaughter - because they are trained to play together and utilize specific team strategies. A group of players who are only just now playing with one another for the first time just aren't going to be able to compete with that.

I do like the idea of adding some new modes and objectives though.

mairwen85 wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

mairwen85 wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

mairwen85 wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

ZaroktheImmortal wrote: »

One option could be to have two options on battlegrounds on for groups which could be with people who are all in a set up group to make the playing ground fair. Or they could pick random to be matched with and against other randoms. That way only organised teams would be matched to organised teams and only random ques would be matched to random ques and it'd make it fair.

That's what I think they should do as well.

Just have a group queue and a solo queue. That would be fair and more fun for everyone.

Supposedly too many partial and full pre-mades that lead to solo-queues would make the group queue under populated... apparently, or so people keep saying.

Personally I agree with ZaroktheImmortal, let the population organise themselves into groups or pugs. Expand on what we have with ranked matches for groups, and keep the daily random bonus on the solo-only queue (solo or merc rank for soloists to better group them instead of the broken MMR system we have now); improve rewards with greater xmute yield, and more creative gear drop choices and actually generate incentive for either option (unique drops for either group or solo). Maybe invent a few new modes that support pugging or have more varied objectives like skirmishes or tower defence.

They could always just test out having two queues (a solo and group queue) and see how it goes. If it turns out the population can't sustain them they can always just revert it back.

I'd rather they apply some creativity than take things away. Imagination is lacking in this scenario. If you think about what BGs actually are, the options are near limitless to expand on them, but we get stale repetition instead. This problem is best addressed by expanding not locking down the BG concept.

I get what you're saying. But having a group and solo queue shouldn't prevent them from adding new modes or objectives in the future. So I don't see why it would lock down the BG concept.

If you want to be fair and make PvP as enjoyable as possible for the most number of people, then I think having two queue systems is unavoidable. Because no matter what the mode or objective is - coordinated and organized teams are always going to have a huge upper hand. It's why in sports you have teams and leagues. You're not going to throw some random selection of football players up against an organized team like say the New England Patriots. If you did it that would be a slaughter - because they are trained to play together with specific team strategies.

I do like the idea of adding some new modes and objectives though.

That's the same point I'm making. But I'm adding that if population for either queue is lower than necessary, expand the concept to support and incentivise, rather than remove one. Hence the idea of rankings and modes that support pugging and group play.

I see. I'm not sure on the details, but the concept sounds like a worthwhile thing to try if it turns out the current population can't support a two queue system.