It's probably to see how this affects the BG population.
The way I see:
If the test results in no change or an increase in population than it's safe to assume that a separate DM queue will be good for the overall BG population.
If the test results in a decrease in population then it might not be good at all to add a separate DM queue.
We'll have to wait and see 🤷♂️
It's probably to see how this affects the BG population.
The way I see:
If the test results in no change or an increase in population than it's safe to assume that a separate DM queue will be good for the overall BG population.
If the test results in a decrease in population then it might not be good at all to add a separate DM queue.
We'll have to wait and see 🤷♂️
That's not a valid testing methodology. That's like saying to thirsty joggers, we want to see if you prefer coke or pepsi but we only have pepsi to give you. Probably the stupidest thing since proc set scaling. But I do love the crit caps and need to see more stuff like that.
It's probably to see how this affects the BG population.
The way I see:
If the test results in no change or an increase in population than it's safe to assume that a separate DM queue will be good for the overall BG population.
If the test results in a decrease in population then it might not be good at all to add a separate DM queue.
We'll have to wait and see 🤷♂️
That's not a valid testing methodology. That's like saying to thirsty joggers, we want to see if you prefer coke or pepsi but we only have pepsi to give you. Probably the stupidest thing since proc set scaling. But I do love the crit caps and need to see more stuff like that.
ZOS loves their numbers. If there is a significant population increase or barely any change, that's something they can't ignore and as @Jackey mentioned it could determine if deathmatch warrants its own separate queue.
It's probably to see how this affects the BG population.
The way I see:
If the test results in no change or an increase in population than it's safe to assume that a separate DM queue will be good for the overall BG population.
If the test results in a decrease in population then it might not be good at all to add a separate DM queue.
We'll have to wait and see 🤷♂️
That's not a valid testing methodology. That's like saying to thirsty joggers, we want to see if you prefer coke or pepsi but we only have pepsi to give you. Probably the stupidest thing since proc set scaling. But I do love the crit caps and need to see more stuff like that.
ZOS loves their numbers. If there is a significant population increase or barely any change, that's something they can't ignore and as @Jackey mentioned it could determine if deathmatch warrants its own separate queue.
Like I said this in NOT a valid test, a valid test would be to have separate deathmatch only and leave the solo random the way it was, then you could see if the population is big enough. To be honest as long as I didn't have to be terrorized by the 20-30 sweaties who only want deathmatch, I would be willing to wait quite a long time to do my daily rando BG.
Hi All, just wanted to chime in real quick to highlight that this is not a permanent change to Battlegrounds. As highlighted in our post about the changes, we are collecting feedback and data from this experiment. We will continue to collate feedback across the spectrum around these changes.
Lastly, thank you all for voicing your constructive feedback on this. Much appreciated.
Not a comfort, as the duration of the change hasn't been disclosed. At present, it's, "until whenever," as far as the general public is concerned. In other words, it's effectively as permanent as any other change to BG has been in the past, it's just that way until it ain't.Hi All, just wanted to chime in real quick to highlight that this is not a permanent change to Battlegrounds.
I understand and appreciate the need to collect data and feedback when you try something new to address existing issues. I just want to understand why this was the something new ZOS settled on. I mean, A lot of people liked Deathmatch, and some people didn't, so when BG players started playing every mode like it was Deathmatch, you figured what? That Battlegrounds was becoming an unpleasant experience for people who didn't like Deathmatch, so you'd see what happens when you make it more unpleasant for them? Weird choice.As highlighted in our post about the changes, we are collecting feedback and data from this experiment. We will continue to collate feedback across the spectrum around these changes.
Hi All, just wanted to chime in real quick to highlight that this is not a permanent change to Battlegrounds. As highlighted in our post about the changes, we are collecting feedback and data from this experiment. We will continue to collate feedback across the spectrum around these changes.
Lastly, thank you all for voicing your constructive feedback on this. Much appreciated.
It's probably to see how this affects the BG population.
The way I see:
If the test results in no change or an increase in population than it's safe to assume that a separate DM queue will be good for the overall BG population.
If the test results in a decrease in population then it might not be good at all to add a separate DM queue.
We'll have to wait and see 🤷♂️
That's not a valid testing methodology. That's like saying to thirsty joggers, we want to see if you prefer coke or pepsi but we only have pepsi to give you. Probably the stupidest thing since proc set scaling. But I do love the crit caps and need to see more stuff like that.
ZOS loves their numbers. If there is a significant population increase or barely any change, that's something they can't ignore and as Jackey mentioned it could determine if deathmatch warrants its own separate queue.
Like I said this in NOT a valid test, a valid test would be to have separate deathmatch only and leave the solo random the way it was, then you could see if the population is big enough. To be honest as long as I didn't have to be terrorized by the 20-30 sweaties who only want deathmatch, I would be willing to wait quite a long time to do my daily rando BG.
You know just because you say something is not valid doesn't make it so. A test can take on many different forms including the example you just made, but the idea is to determine if doing something different will have an affect in general.
Where we are now is with a test that has already been determined. The actions of the playerbase as a whole will most likely decide what happens next.
gamerguy757 wrote: »I know is t it great?!? No more 15min matches. Just fight and fight and fight and get AP
VaranisArano wrote: »It's probably to see how this affects the BG population.
The way I see:
If the test results in no change or an increase in population than it's safe to assume that a separate DM queue will be good for the overall BG population.
If the test results in a decrease in population then it might not be good at all to add a separate DM queue.
We'll have to wait and see 🤷♂️
That's not a valid testing methodology. That's like saying to thirsty joggers, we want to see if you prefer coke or pepsi but we only have pepsi to give you. Probably the stupidest thing since proc set scaling. But I do love the crit caps and need to see more stuff like that.
ZOS loves their numbers. If there is a significant population increase or barely any change, that's something they can't ignore and as Jackey mentioned it could determine if deathmatch warrants its own separate queue.
Like I said this in NOT a valid test, a valid test would be to have separate deathmatch only and leave the solo random the way it was, then you could see if the population is big enough. To be honest as long as I didn't have to be terrorized by the 20-30 sweaties who only want deathmatch, I would be willing to wait quite a long time to do my daily rando BG.
You know just because you say something is not valid doesn't make it so. A test can take on many different forms including the example you just made, but the idea is to determine if doing something different will have an affect in general.
Where we are now is with a test that has already been determined. The actions of the playerbase as a whole will most likely decide what happens next.
So, uh, I teach science. If you want to know the effect of changing a single variable, you test that single variable.
If this test was designed to see "What's the effect of removing every choice but Deathmatch?" then it's a valid test, because that's exactly the result you'll get.
However, that's not apparently the conclusion ZOS was looking for, since they say they'll be bringing back the other game modes. They say they aren't interested in Deathmatch-only Battlegrounds.
If the idea was to test "Is there a sufficient demand for Deathmatch Modes to warrant its own queue alongside the other Flag/Land games?" then the current test is not valid, or at least, it's a really inaccurate way of figuring out that result. Because of what ZOS did here, there's lots of other factors at work here that are affecting the BG population, like players refusing to play BGs at all because there aren't Land/Flag options, or players who prefer Land/Flag options but who would rather play Deathmatch than nothing.
For the Devs: test what you actually mean to implement in Battlegrounds. If you don't see a future for Deathmatch-only BGs, then why force Deathmatch-only BGs on players?
It feels more like a marketing stunt meant to draw Deathmatch-loving players back in from other PVP games than it does a genuine test meant to gauge how successful a separate queue for Deathmatch and Land/Flag games would be.
VaranisArano wrote: »It's probably to see how this affects the BG population.
The way I see:
If the test results in no change or an increase in population than it's safe to assume that a separate DM queue will be good for the overall BG population.
If the test results in a decrease in population then it might not be good at all to add a separate DM queue.
We'll have to wait and see 🤷♂️
That's not a valid testing methodology. That's like saying to thirsty joggers, we want to see if you prefer coke or pepsi but we only have pepsi to give you. Probably the stupidest thing since proc set scaling. But I do love the crit caps and need to see more stuff like that.
ZOS loves their numbers. If there is a significant population increase or barely any change, that's something they can't ignore and as Jackey mentioned it could determine if deathmatch warrants its own separate queue.
Like I said this in NOT a valid test, a valid test would be to have separate deathmatch only and leave the solo random the way it was, then you could see if the population is big enough. To be honest as long as I didn't have to be terrorized by the 20-30 sweaties who only want deathmatch, I would be willing to wait quite a long time to do my daily rando BG.
You know just because you say something is not valid doesn't make it so. A test can take on many different forms including the example you just made, but the idea is to determine if doing something different will have an affect in general.
Where we are now is with a test that has already been determined. The actions of the playerbase as a whole will most likely decide what happens next.
So, uh, I teach science. If you want to know the effect of changing a single variable, you test that single variable.
If this test was designed to see "What's the effect of removing every choice but Deathmatch?" then it's a valid test, because that's exactly the result you'll get.
However, that's not apparently the conclusion ZOS was looking for, since they say they'll be bringing back the other game modes. They say they aren't interested in Deathmatch-only Battlegrounds.
If the idea was to test "Is there a sufficient demand for Deathmatch Modes to warrant its own queue alongside the other Flag/Land games?" then the current test is not valid, or at least, it's a really inaccurate way of figuring out that result. Because of what ZOS did here, there's lots of other factors at work here that are affecting the BG population, like players refusing to play BGs at all because there aren't Land/Flag options, or players who prefer Land/Flag options but who would rather play Deathmatch than nothing.
For the Devs: test what you actually mean to implement in Battlegrounds. If you don't see a future for Deathmatch-only BGs, then why force Deathmatch-only BGs on players?
It feels more like a marketing stunt meant to draw Deathmatch-loving players back in from other PVP games than it does a genuine test meant to gauge how successful a separate queue for Deathmatch and Land/Flag games would be.