TheEndBringer wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

sabresandiego_ESO wrote: »

A deathmatch only que benefits objective players just as much as dm players because they don’t have to deal with people ignoring objectives in every single match

Objective players know that deep down inside, if given the choice of bg game mode, they are the ones that will be dealing with 30 min queues because the majority of pvpers want to actually pvp.

We used to have three options.

Random which can be anything. Here you get your big XP bump for finishing in 2nd or 1st.

Then you had DM.

Then you had a choice of flag games or chaos/relic.

There were no issues queuing for non DM modes. I don't remember waiting any longer if I queued for flags over DM, and I did often because some of my characters are better for those modes.

I know what we used to have, I've been doing these since they were added in morrowind. We used to not have the choice as well just like now for what it's worth. They gave us the choice because they saw the feedback.

You didnt have to wait long because there enough casual players queuing up for randoms and getting thrown into objective games to cross pollinate. Once you got into higher mmr and you were grinding BGs because you actually wanted to do BGs, objective mode queues were a joke.

Its simply not as popular as DM for the vast majority of players that actually want to pvp, and dont just want to collect their daily bonus.

Zos absolutely knows this and that is why they reverted the bg game mode choice to artificially populate all game modes so "everyone" is happy.

The issue is zos knew full well they couldnt have solo queue bg selection, solo queue random, premade random, premade bg selection etc etc, spreading the queues out even more. Trying to address the greater of two evils via combating premades shitting on solo queues was their approach, even when the evil was their own making, by designing a terrible battleground format for thier game to begin with.

Xahran wrote: »

Skoomah wrote: »

So you’re admitting there are game modes that don’t have enough interest by the player base, and that were artificially keeping them alive?

Which game mode(s) do you think it is?

I am not admitting to anything, you just had a problem comprehending my comment. I was just stating that BG with a single queue already has long queues at off-peak hours and that splitting queues will make things worse for both deathmatch and objective queues. I mean if you have been paying attention you would realise pvp isn't exactly flourishing lately and splitting the BG into 4 queues, group and solo for objectives and dm will be the nail on the no-cp proc pvp coffin. I actually prefer dm more than the other modes but I also prefer short queues, so I also proposed a solution to the OP and the devs that we should keep the queues as they are and marginally increase the chance for dm making it like 50 to 60% while all other modes the rest.

People should be allowed to queue for the game mode they want. It makes absolutely no sense to force people to play something they don't want to, which is why a whole large chunk of players have stopped playing BGs. It makes no sense to artificially keep specific game modes alive that don't have the player base demand for it.

Magio_ wrote: »

Xahran wrote: »

I actually prefer dm more than the other modes but I also prefer short queues

Then you have nothing to worry about with separate queues. Deathmatch was by far the most popular game mode for BGs back when we had a choice. You could tell by the fact that when you Random Queued, there was a high chance you'd get thrown into a DM game even thought it was supposed to only be a 1 in 3 chance. You could also tell by the Leaderboard scores which basically measure time played. Accumulated medals in Deathmatch surpassed both types of objective modes put together.

The main argument against separate queues is that it would fragment the player base. When people bring this up, including the devs, the argument works under the assumption that each queue will get equally low populations and none of the queues will pop in a timely manner. In reality, a very big "fragment" would be queueing for Deathmatch as in the past. This is what Skoomah is talking about when he says objective modes are being kept alive artificially by forcing people who don't want to actually be there (Deathmatchers) play them.

Precisely magio, there is literally no reason to not have a dm queue, especially when one, deathmatch is the most popular game mode in bgs, players who quit bgs will likely return if reinstalled and two, many deathmatchers already treat the other game modes as deathmatches to the objective players frustration because they can and will make any game into a deathmatch, even intentionally playing the objectives just enough to prolong the game, and it is not that hard to do for all game modes if you are coordinated. So if you want to have 15 minute games where a team or 2 filled with objective players getting quite literally farmed for kills reaching a combined k/d for a team north of 70 and 1 be my guest and leave bgs as they are. Let the community decide which gamemode to play in.

Imagine you want to queue into Fang Lair, but ZOS think there aren’t enough people doing Fungal Grotto so you’re put in a random dungeon queue and maybe after doing 5 dungeons, you finally get the one you want.

That is the BG experience right now.

Objective modes would be on life support due to their lack of popularity with pvp players. Because ZOS knows this, they’re artificially keeping it alive by forcing us to play them. How is this a fair or fun experience? It just leaves everybody frustrated in the end. It’s time to add a deathmatch queue.

Why are so many people on this thread just ignoring the fact that ZoS introduced this restriction due to very low populations on bg`s? When the split queue was released, Rich Lambert stated that they were removing the choice of modes because of this, otherwise the waiting time would be very long.
Personally, I love bs`s and I am very cold to DM. I think this is the worst mode. Seriously. Primarily because of the balance. If your team does not consist of stamwardens and sorcs, you are useless. Even when the balance feels good enough, as for example in this patch, still only a few classes outperform all other classes on dm bg`s in their effectiveness. After a while, the match turns into a hunt for the weakest team. I like crazy king better, when I have to make decisions, split up, fight 1v 1.
I just want to say really that the problem is not that there is no choice of mode. The problem is actually in a small population of pvp players. If there were enough players in the game, then the choice of the mode would not be such a problem as it is now. Better to talk about how to make pvp more attractive.

TheEndBringer wrote: »

Here's my suggestion.

Break the game modes into three.

DM.
Flag Games (Crazy and Dom)
Capture (Relic and Chaos)

Give them 33% chance each to pull. Profit.

What profit? People who don't like DM, will get DM more often now. And DMers will still "ruin" 66% of matches.

Fischblut wrote: »

Why are so many people on this thread just ignoring the fact that ZoS introduced this restriction due to very low populations on bg`s?

Many people were upset when developers removed group queue from BG and left only solo queue. That's why population was decreasing, I think. Then developers allowed groups to queue together again, but removed ability to select matches. And thus by removing ability to queue for specific mode, they reduce the BG population even further

Almost year ago, when we still had ability to queue for Deathmatch, I could play that for hours.
Nowadays, I stopped doing BGs at all. I am fed up with seeing "Capture the relic" and "Crazy king" many times in a row
1 less player in already small BG playerbase.

To increase BG participation, I would increase the rewards. And having option of CP-enabled Battlegrounds would be awesome too. And stop separating queue as "Group" and "Solo" - just one universal queue. The only separate queue could be for 12 people to organize their own private BG matches.

For example, I always play alone, and I have no fear to queue against premade groups. I do not expect to win, but I will at least try. Group or solo queues don't matter to me - I just want to get into the match Also, from my own experience, group queue doesn't guarantee strong teams and good action. Same as solo queue doesn't guarantee weak and clueless teams.

I also really dislike no-CP content. If I had a choice, I would never queue into no-CP BGs... Sadly, there is no choice. If I want some quick pure PvP action, Battlegrounds is the only option Cyrodiil is horse riding simulator, and it has lot of lag and unfair fights. Imperial City is PvE, roleplay, duels, and some unfair fights. If I had a choice of CP-enabled BGs, I would only queue for them.

solo players should never again play against a group. we have already gone through this before

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Foto1 wrote: »

Fischblut wrote: »

Why are so many people on this thread just ignoring the fact that ZoS introduced this restriction due to very low populations on bg`s?

Many people were upset when developers removed group queue from BG and left only solo queue. That's why population was decreasing, I think. Then developers allowed groups to queue together again, but removed ability to select matches. And thus by removing ability to queue for specific mode, they reduce the BG population even further

Almost year ago, when we still had ability to queue for Deathmatch, I could play that for hours.
Nowadays, I stopped doing BGs at all. I am fed up with seeing "Capture the relic" and "Crazy king" many times in a row
1 less player in already small BG playerbase.

To increase BG participation, I would increase the rewards. And having option of CP-enabled Battlegrounds would be awesome too. And stop separating queue as "Group" and "Solo" - just one universal queue. The only separate queue could be for 12 people to organize their own private BG matches.

For example, I always play alone, and I have no fear to queue against premade groups. I do not expect to win, but I will at least try. Group or solo queues don't matter to me - I just want to get into the match Also, from my own experience, group queue doesn't guarantee strong teams and good action. Same as solo queue doesn't guarantee weak and clueless teams.

I also really dislike no-CP content. If I had a choice, I would never queue into no-CP BGs... Sadly, there is no choice. If I want some quick pure PvP action, Battlegrounds is the only option Cyrodiil is horse riding simulator, and it has lot of lag and unfair fights. Imperial City is PvE, roleplay, duels, and some unfair fights. If I had a choice of CP-enabled BGs, I would only queue for them.

solo players should never again play against a group. we have already gone through this before

Let's do one of these:

-Solo Objective (Daily Bonus Eligible)
-Group Deathmatch
-Solo Deathmatch

Or

-Group Random (50% objective, 50% DM)
-Solo Random (50% objective, 50% DM)
[Both daily bonus eligible]

Please ZOS!!!

Solo random
Group dm

Xahran wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

-Group Random (50% objective, 50% DM)
-Solo Random (50% objective, 50% DM)
[Both daily bonus eligible]

I agree with this. Finally a sensible argument.

This does not work because choices are not given.

Viewsfrom6ix wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

Here's my suggestion.

Break the game modes into three.

DM.
Flag Games (Crazy and Dom)
Capture (Relic and Chaos)

Give them 33% chance each to pull. Profit.

What profit? People who don't like DM, will get DM more often now. And DMers will still "ruin" 66% of matches.

Okay so we've established that no one wants to run any mode other than their "preferred mode." Unfortunately that creates a system that overwhelmingly punishes DD groups and favors groups with tanks and healers. Any mode OTHER than DM is easily won by the group with a healer and/or tank. Go get on a necro tank and do a flag game. Just sit on one while the rest of your group goes to get other flags. Easy win. Chaos and Relic are even easier.

There's no situation that will make everyone happy. If you straight up just let people pick a mode, then you have people complain that queues for non-DM matches will take forever (I disagree because we had this option before and it worked fine, but I digress). If you increase the chance of DM, you tick off people who build for the other game modes. If you keep the system as is, you end up with frustrated DDs who just start killing and ignoring the objectives.

The only way to be fair with a random queue is to give 33% chance to get one of the 3 game modes, as I outlined above. Grouping Domination and Crazy King and then grouping Chaos Ball and Relic is fair.

I do 3 or so BGs a day. I go an entire week without getting death match which, for one of my characters, is the only real mode that works.

Magio_ wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

There's no situation that will make everyone happy. If you straight up just let people pick a mode, then you have people complain that queues for non-DM matches will take forever (I disagree because we had this option before and it worked fine, but I digress).

Even if that were the case, why do I and many other DMers have to suffer through game modes we DO NOT ever want to play to fill games for other ppl that then complain that we don't play the objective? The current system is not making anyone happy at all.

TheEndBringer wrote: »

The only way to be fair with a random queue is to give 33% chance to get one of the 3 game modes, as I outlined above. Grouping Domination and Crazy King and then grouping Chaos Ball and Relic is fair.

Your suggestion is bad. For one, there's really only 2 camps, DM or objective players. So a 50% chance would be more fair to DM players w/o even taking into consideration that DM is way more popular than the other modes put together. An that's why it's bad. Making the majority play a mode they don't want to play for 66% of their matches is still terrible. No half efforts plz. Put it back the way it was.

Like you said, Objective queues worked fine. I bet they will work even better if you combine the old Land Grab and Flag Game queues into a singular Objective Mode queue.

As I said, you can't make everyone happy. Under what I suggested you'd get a whole lot more DMs. Important to note I'm talking about the RANDOM QUEUE. You have to have a random queue.

Then yes, let people manually choose from those three just like you used to.

TheEndBringer wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

There's no situation that will make everyone happy. If you straight up just let people pick a mode, then you have people complain that queues for non-DM matches will take forever (I disagree because we had this option before and it worked fine, but I digress).

Even if that were the case, why do I and many other DMers have to suffer through game modes we DO NOT ever want to play to fill games for other ppl that then complain that we don't play the objective? The current system is not making anyone happy at all.

TheEndBringer wrote: »

The only way to be fair with a random queue is to give 33% chance to get one of the 3 game modes, as I outlined above. Grouping Domination and Crazy King and then grouping Chaos Ball and Relic is fair.

Your suggestion is bad. For one, there's really only 2 camps, DM or objective players. So a 50% chance would be more fair to DM players w/o even taking into consideration that DM is way more popular than the other modes put together. An that's why it's bad. Making the majority play a mode they don't want to play for 66% of their matches is still terrible. No half efforts plz. Put it back the way it was.

Like you said, Objective queues worked fine. I bet they will work even better if you combine the old Land Grab and Flag Game queues into a singular Objective Mode queue.

As I said, you can't make everyone happy. Under what I suggested you'd get a whole lot more DMs. Important to note I'm talking about the RANDOM QUEUE. You have to have a random queue.

Then yes, let people manually choose from those three just like you used to.

No one cares about random queue here. The entire argument is about giving the specifc choice of game mode, not making the random queue fair lol...

1.Give back game mode selection
2. Let natural selection take its course where DM is undoubtably the most populated game mode by a mile
3. Zos swallows their pride and accepts their bg model is weak
4. Zos takes steps to reform bgs. While asking themselves why the objective modes are so unpopular.

Magio_ wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

Important to note I'm talking about the RANDOM QUEUE. You have to have a random queue.

Bro what? I think you're confused. W/e you're talking about is not necessary, you're just clogging up the conversation. If the system was reverted to what we previously had and players could choose their most preferred game mode(s), then the Random Queue just fills games that need filling when other people are choosing their mode. It wouldn't put 12 Random queuers into an actual "random match".

TheEndBringer wrote: »

Then yes, let people manually choose from those three just like you used to.

This is all we need to know. Thanks for your support.

The random queue is rubbish right now specifically because of the percentages. So yes, I suggested a solution in a thread about BGs which also couple let people select modes.

TheEndBringer wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

Important to note I'm talking about the RANDOM QUEUE. You have to have a random queue.

Bro what? I think you're confused. W/e you're talking about is not necessary, you're just clogging up the conversation. If the system was reverted to what we previously had and players could choose their most preferred game mode(s), then the Random Queue just fills games that need filling when other people are choosing their mode. It wouldn't put 12 Random queuers into an actual "random match".

TheEndBringer wrote: »

Then yes, let people manually choose from those three just like you used to.

This is all we need to know. Thanks for your support.

The random queue is rubbish right now specifically because of the percentages. So yes, I suggested a solution in a thread about BGs which also couple let people select modes.

It was a common understanding that this thread was specifically talking about having a specific deathmatch queue option, which by the nature of the question, completely omits it from random queue.

Those that want to grind out DM dont actually care about getting a game mode they dont want to play for the random queue because its random and that is the deal. The issue is explicitly about having the choice for those that simply want to BG and are not just in it for the random queue bonus. Trying to come up with a balanced solution for an even distribution of game modes is wasted energy in a discussion about wanting specfic game mode choice returned.

You are suggesting that random queue will be the only option and that a compromise should be made to make the game mode selection "fair". Which is essentially dismissing the original point of the thread.

I say it again, leave the random queue alone. It's not rrubbish. Its random. Give player choice back in terms of game mode and let the random queue populate naturally. Random queue will be deathmatch 9 times out of 10. And the majority of those participating in battlegrounds will be happy. Those that are in the minority and want to play objective mode, get to deal with one DM a day for their daily bonus and then get to sit in long queues for their capture the flag nonsense.

People have the audacity to suggest zos artificially inflate unpopular game modes by forcing random on everyone and then, in your case, try to come up with some kind of match making formula that causes the system to have an equal level of game modes pop so everyone is forced to be only mildly happy.

I wont get political here but I'll let you think about the comparison that could be made with certain types of government :wink