Amunari wrote: »

For those saying eso should not have full premades (be it in normal ques, or ranked) i have an argument for you.

These are as vital to the game as traders are for trading. So if you don't agree with full guild premades, which are vital for validating pvp guilds, then traders should instantly be removed.

While I agree that allowing pre-mades of any size is healthy for PvP and the game in general if implemented correctly, I honestly don't see how you can equate that to the trader system. Having a trader does not necessarily validate the existence for a guild as it purely depends on the 'mission' of the guild whether to have one or not. Likewise battlegrounds and pre-made options in the sense of guild mission are only relevant for battleground guilds. That's a bit of a weird equivalence in my opinion, and you're making a statement outside of the boundaries of this conversation with it... unless you can elaborate and explain that equivalence in more depth, I feel it has no place in the thought process here.

kargen27 wrote: »

Amunari wrote: »

When it comes to skill and the knowledge (ie builds) of the game, PvP Queues should not be considered. Ranking systems are the fix to the abuse of "better players farming the bracket", this is not a valid reason for preventing group queue. Actually, this is a highly beneficial thing and in my profession opinion, is THE of the most important aspects of content and its validation (ie cooperation and competition).


As for the stomping noobs aspect, its because of the power in the game. If pvp had some hard caps on it this would be significantly less of an issue. On top of that some things just need a hard cap (like being an unkillable tank in pvp, or spamming 10 abilities in 1 second).

Each problem needs to be introduced separately. If one stroke can solve a few problems, that is a more desirable stroke, provided it does not need as much development time/effort as the two separate strokes would collectively.

One things for sure, regardless of ranking systems and all that, the group pvp should not be disabled. I am so enraged at zenimax for not addressing this problem i cannot begin to express my utter and unconditional disgust as a player, and hatred for the bad name they are giving the rest of us designers/developers.

I find this to be extremely unprofessional.

Random groups can and do cooperate. Even with cooperation they often can not compete against a team that can coordinate in Discord or have discussed strategy before entering.
The ranking system is a completely separate issue. As players rise in rank they find the queue times getting longer. No ranking system means a chance for a player new to battlegrounds getting easily outdone by players with more experience and that isn't a fun experience for either most of the time. It might even cause the less experience player to not give battlegrounds another try. Without an increase in player population there is no easy fix. Going back to group queues is not the fix. In fact it is going in exactly the wrong direction. I think an antiquity lead being found in battlegrounds was a toe in the water approach to trying to get more people interested.
Might be good to have a battleground exclusive event. Something like they did with the dragons where we all got a house if a certain number of dragons were killed. Until the population increases there isn't enough players to support two separate queues except maybe at peak hours for a short time. Most the day queues would be miserable.

The population problem is addressed with options and rewards. More varied BG modes and objectives that are more attuned to pug-life, and other modes that are better aligned with tactical group composition. Unique and scaled rewards based on method of entry to the match. Locking the queue down isolates one selection of the population and excludes the others because it removes options. More options, more creativity, more effort, and better rankings is the solution that ZOS should have considered in the first place. The problem is myopia, not being able to see the bigger picture and concentrating on one minor point as the defining factor.

I am cool with solo queue and premade queue as well because at the end i win everytimes no matters who is with and against me

I used to play mostly solo BGs, but removing the group que is terrible, also they did something to the MMR system and now in every match there is a patato who feeds like it's his last day on earth.

Sevn wrote: »

mairwen85 wrote: »

Qbiken wrote: »

Vanagrand wrote: »

Qbiken wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

DMuehlhausen wrote: »

The sad part...I want the Fire Drake Signature armor. I hate PvP, and by reading these and how people talk in the game it's a terrible experience...not sure I"ll bother with the grind for it.

Battlegrounds can still be fun - even though I think damage is too high right now - just so long as your'e not pitted against a pre-made (who still manage to get in now and then).

Going up against premade teams as a pug is what can make battlegrounds an absolutely miserable experience. That's why a solo queue for battlegrounds is extremely important to maintain. Especially in this environment - because running around as an organized team focusing on the same target to stun and coordinate damage burst would easily destroy any pug group.

That being said: I'm not against adding a group queue for tournament style battlegrounds. But it needs to be made in addition to the solo queue and not as a replacement.

Solo queue has killed BG´s more than you can imagine.

Crying premade is an excuse for being bad and playing with friends needs to have higher priority than people making up excuses for losing BG matches.

You with 3 randoms without voicechat against 4 guys in discord speaking about priorities. If you win ill give you 500k if you lose you give me 250k, are you up? Or you are so bad to try it?

Already occurred back in the days in high mmr matches when group queues were a thing. So I'll have those 500k tyvm
You can send the gold to @ Qbiken on PCEU.

On topic now that I've responded to obvious bait:

I wouldn't mind a separate queue as long as zos put efffort into making a proper ranking system where I can see my MMR. What I would like to see:

* A solo queue only option where MMR/ranking is disabled. This will lead to faster games since you no longer get put in a bracket, but in return the rewards aren't as attractive + you don't get any score that counts towards the weekly leaderboards.

* Next you've a ranked mode which allows you to queue with ANY group size. These games affects your BG rankings/mmr and counts towards the leaderboard scores. Ranked games also have more attractive rewards (needs to be unique and worth the effort).

And I don't buy the argument that there aren't enough players to support two queues. The underlying issue is the ranking/mmr system and the lack of a competitive atmosphere with BG's. Currently there is no competitiveness whatsoever.

Interesting that despite several approaches to the actual detail, the common theme for most suggestions on how to properly resolve the original issue (and re-introduce group queues) is rankings/leagues. As I've said in multiple threads and posts, a proper ranking system with bragging rights and decent rewards is what's necessary: ranked match (group enabled queue) and un-ranked (solo-only queue).

[Another thing to add to your rankings suggestion would be how rewards scale to your queue option, i.e. queue solo in ranked match = greater yield, queue 4 man = least reward]

Why is group ranked? Because it's what you prefer. No, I'm all for a split, but I don't want to be forced to group just to get credit for my BG efforts or be punished for playing solo.

Let group play be the unranked one or both or no deal. Stop trying to set the table where it only benefits premades.

If you look at my previous posts in this thread, you'll see I've suggested many things, including individual rankings for solo and group play and believe both are a good idea, as are rewards based on method of entry, and a wider range of modes and options to support either. I'm not putting forward any bias for either as a player preference. The bottom line is options and a modicum of creativity in the design of how this can be implemented. Don't make it personal, it's not helpful--objectively discussing this is far more productive, hence putting forward a spread of ideas under a common theme.

You also overlooked:

... rewards scale to your queue option, i.e. queue solo in ranked match = greater yield, queue 4 man = least reward

Hardly setting the table where it only benefits premades, even in the context of ranking options on a queue permissive of group entry.

mairwen85 wrote: »

As I've said in multiple threads and posts, a proper ranking system with bragging rights and decent rewards is what's necessary: ranked match (group enabled queue) and un-ranked (solo-only queue).

And I have said in multiple threads and posts that you can't split the queue, @mairwen85.

I don't understand why players keep bringing this idea up either ... because it will increase the wait times on both sides (both solo and group).

Rich Lambert has said the same himself in a recent (5/27) interview:

"If we let players choose we would fragment the queues ... and Battlegrounds wouldn't match up anymore."

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/529552/transcribed-interview-with-rich-lambert-27-05-2020/p1

mairwen85 wrote: »

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

mairwen85 wrote: »

As I've said in multiple threads and posts, a proper ranking system with bragging rights and decent rewards is what's necessary: ranked match (group enabled queue) and un-ranked (solo-only queue).

And I have said in multiple threads and posts that you can't split the queue, @mairwen85.

I don't understand why players keep bringing this idea up either ... because it will increase the wait times on both sides (both solo and group).

Rich Lambert has said the same himself in a recent (5/27) interview:

"If we let players choose we would fragment the queues ... and Battlegrounds wouldn't match up anymore."

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/529552/transcribed-interview-with-rich-lambert-27-05-2020/p1

And the solution to that is to extend what Battlegrounds offer. Create modes that are better aligned with pug and/or group, unique rewards--the problem is myopically holding on to a failed design, and lack of creativity and imagination. Like I keep saying. Incentivise participation don't deny it.

They would have to do something like have arena weapons for weekly rewards again, tbh the same should be done for cyrodil and IC so there is any sort of reason to go there. Even though these places are old content, zos could add current items as incentives.

Funny, yet this dilema is just result of pvp problem and elitism in eso.
I remember first time zos showed arena-typed match just for fun when 3 teams were fighting for flag; I think it was Quakecon. And lot of people wished zos will add arenas.
Then when zos announced bgs people were super hyped, there was even created guild "Crucible" on eu pc, specifically to prepare and coordinate people for incoming pvp mode. We were doing weekly evening matches 2v2/3v3 with score and rankings, ended with large 2v2 tournament.
But when bgs launched, apart from problem that they were horribly bugged for couple months, people literally lost interest to it without even trying them, despite all that hype.
Those who planned to play "small-scale" bgs simply didnt wanted to hop there and fight other groups. It was far easier to go cyro and farm unorganized pugs in towers, instead of coming to bg and fight equally strong and organized groups, risking to loose to them and hurt your ego; and sadly arrogance is common trait of end-game players in eso.
And it resulted in lower bg pop than expected. But even then as i already said - there was more premades than amount of solo players in high mmr matches right now..
That kinda sad how one of most awaited feature turned into empty hype, just coz people want casuality and lack of competitiveness.
P.S.: this actually reminded me situation with no-cp cyro. When it was announced everyone was so hyped claiming stuff like "finally we will fight using our personal skills instead of carry points", as even then CP was already getting out of control. But when Morrowind launched - what an irony, literally noone of those "elite small-scale" pvpers fully switched to it for a simple reason: CP carrying 1vX so hard that and it was far easier to fight on cp cyro being carried with CP system, than fighting "using personal skill" without carry. And people abandoned their claims for easier route, simply coz pvp community in eso always prefer easy way. This irony is making me laugh even tho it sad.