BG's still borked?
-
NagualV✭✭✭✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.
This is super well said. My only differing point is that, I think we still need to just abolish the objective queue and make BGs a deathmatch-only thing, and just lean into that more. You can change death match to be multiple different things in a deathmatch queue such as...
Some ideas that would need polishing are:
1) Get as many kills as possible in 15 minutes
2) Knockout: every team has 510 points and every death subtracts 15 points, teams that get kills get a stacking damage buff of some sort until they die (to prevent healer teams for turtling to win)
3) First to 510 wins
etc. etc.
ZOS just needs to fix their broken *** queue system so it works as advertised. Period.
Did you read Magio's post? Did you watch that video clip of Rich Lambert? The queue is working correctly!!!! Objective games arent populating because it's NOT POPULAR
I dont understand anymore......its unbelievable really..
I really think that objective mode players cannot accept that they are the vocal minority on the forums.....that's the only explanation I cam think of......3 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.
This is super well said. My only differing point is that, I think we still need to just abolish the objective queue and make BGs a deathmatch-only thing, and just lean into that more. You can change death match to be multiple different things in a deathmatch queue such as...
Some ideas that would need polishing are:
1) Get as many kills as possible in 15 minutes
2) Knockout: every team has 510 points and every death subtracts 15 points, teams that get kills get a stacking damage buff of some sort until they die (to prevent healer teams for turtling to win)
3) First to 510 wins
etc. etc.
I don't think objectives need to be removed. But they do need to be adjusted to funnel players into more combat situations. Some suggestions I made in another post weeks ago:
Domination: Change this to king of the hill. Only have 1 capture point. Team that controls that point the longest wins.
Crazy King: Same as domination, only 1 capture point, but the point moves around the map.
Chaos Ball: Fine as is actually. The only good objective mode atm. Maybe increase the ramping damage to the ball carrier. I can hold that thing for a long time on a DPS build just outhealing the damage for like 2 minutes.
Relic: REMOVE THE THIRD TEAM. 3 team capture the flag is a joke. Make this a two team affair, with 6 players per team. Would be far, far, far better of a mode.
But also, I think we do need at least 1 additional DM mode:
Free-For-All Deathmatch: 12 players, all fighting against one another. Most kills wins. Random respawn on death.4 -
gariondavey✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.
This is super well said. My only differing point is that, I think we still need to just abolish the objective queue and make BGs a deathmatch-only thing, and just lean into that more. You can change death match to be multiple different things in a deathmatch queue such as...
Some ideas that would need polishing are:
1) Get as many kills as possible in 15 minutes
2) Knockout: every team has 510 points and every death subtracts 15 points, teams that get kills get a stacking damage buff of some sort until they die (to prevent healer teams for turtling to win)
3) First to 510 wins
etc. etc.
I don't think objectives need to be removed. But they do need to be adjusted to funnel players into more combat situations. Some suggestions I made in another post weeks ago:
Domination: Change this to king of the hill. Only have 1 capture point. Team that controls that point the longest wins.
Crazy King: Same as domination, only 1 capture point, but the point moves around the map.
Chaos Ball: Fine as is actually. The only good objective mode atm. Maybe increase the ramping damage to the ball carrier. I can hold that thing for a long time on a DPS build just outhealing the damage for like 2 minutes.
Relic: REMOVE THE THIRD TEAM. 3 team capture the flag is a joke. Make this a two team affair, with 6 players per team. Would be far, far, far better of a mode.
But also, I think we do need at least 1 additional DM mode:
Free-For-All Deathmatch: 12 players, all fighting against one another. Most kills wins. Random respawn on death.
I've been saying the same thing too for a while now. Juggernaut mode could be fun, as well.
Relics and chaosball should have a snare too, in these updated modes.
Relic could still be 3 teams, but just 1 flag spawns in the center, and you must get it back to your base.
Edit: and it is about dang time kills in bgs grant alliance pointsEdited by gariondavey on November 11, 2021 8:10PMPC NA @gariondavey, BG, IC & Cyrodiil Focused Since October 2017 Stamplar (main), Magplar, Magsorc, Stamsorc, StamDK, MagDK, Stamblade, Magblade, Magden, Stamden0 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭gariondavey wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.
This is super well said. My only differing point is that, I think we still need to just abolish the objective queue and make BGs a deathmatch-only thing, and just lean into that more. You can change death match to be multiple different things in a deathmatch queue such as...
Some ideas that would need polishing are:
1) Get as many kills as possible in 15 minutes
2) Knockout: every team has 510 points and every death subtracts 15 points, teams that get kills get a stacking damage buff of some sort until they die (to prevent healer teams for turtling to win)
3) First to 510 wins
etc. etc.
I don't think objectives need to be removed. But they do need to be adjusted to funnel players into more combat situations. Some suggestions I made in another post weeks ago:
Domination: Change this to king of the hill. Only have 1 capture point. Team that controls that point the longest wins.
Crazy King: Same as domination, only 1 capture point, but the point moves around the map.
Chaos Ball: Fine as is actually. The only good objective mode atm. Maybe increase the ramping damage to the ball carrier. I can hold that thing for a long time on a DPS build just outhealing the damage for like 2 minutes.
Relic: REMOVE THE THIRD TEAM. 3 team capture the flag is a joke. Make this a two team affair, with 6 players per team. Would be far, far, far better of a mode.
But also, I think we do need at least 1 additional DM mode:
Free-For-All Deathmatch: 12 players, all fighting against one another. Most kills wins. Random respawn on death.
I've been saying the same thing too for a while now. Juggernaut mode could be fun, as well.
Relics and chaosball should have a snare too, in these updated modes.
Relic could still be 3 teams, but just 1 flag spawns in the center, and you must get it back to your base.
Edit: and it is about dang time kills in bgs grant alliance points
Yeah, one flag would work for Relic for sure.
I was thinking about a snare, but it already suppresses stealth and streak on very squishy classes, a snare on top of that would be brutal and a bit unnecessary. But maybe have the relic deal damage to the carrier, similar to chaos ball, to prevent someone from holding it for the entire match.Edited by jaws343 on November 11, 2021 8:21PM0 -
thesarahandcompany✭✭✭✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.
This is super well said. My only differing point is that, I think we still need to just abolish the objective queue and make BGs a deathmatch-only thing, and just lean into that more. You can change death match to be multiple different things in a deathmatch queue such as...
Some ideas that would need polishing are:
1) Get as many kills as possible in 15 minutes
2) Knockout: every team has 510 points and every death subtracts 15 points, teams that get kills get a stacking damage buff of some sort until they die (to prevent healer teams for turtling to win)
3) First to 510 wins
etc. etc.
Removing the objective modes is not a valid solution.
ZOS just needs to fix their broken *** queue system so it works as advertised. Period.
I get some players don't like the idea, but "less is more" is a very valid, reasonable solution to this problem.Sarahandcompany
She/Her/Hers0 -
Qrähe✭✭✭gariondavey wrote: »
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.
Amen. Great post.
3 words.... XD1 -
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.
100% this.1 -
auz✭✭✭✭My favourite argument is the death match is only popular because it is at the top of the list. If people are so deadset against DM, how hard is it to scroll down one spot?
That Rich clip was awesome. The queues are working as intended, most people are just queuing for DM.
Does any more need to be said?
Let's start talking about how to make objective modes better and more engaging. And also custom lobbies so we can set up tournaments with friends and guilds.4 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.
Way to take what I said out of context completely to support your argument.
Specifically that thread was: “ADD A SEPARATE DEATHMATCH QUEUE FOR BATTLEGROUNDS”
I said:trackdemon5512 wrote: »And further split a player base from engaging in all BG modes. This is what got us to where we are today, catering to a small minority of die hards that are super focused on one type of play essentially disenfranchising every other player. It’s not like this subset hasn’t already tried to turn other BG modes into kill-fests.
There just aren’t enough active BG players to do this properly. You’ll basically change the random bg into a guaranteed deathmatch every time as you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Look at what happened historically.
1. Players got sick of DM players not playing to objectives in matches. Example: instead of capturing a flag they would spend the time just fighting other players away from the objectives.
2. ZOS saw this and bewilderingly decided to make all BGs Deathmatches.
3. Casual players stopped engaging in BGs altogether. Deathmatch players engaged but according to certain players here decided to leave anyways. Reasons include Dark Convergence and New World MMORPG.
4. ZOS’ actions decimated the BG population. The casual/objective segment has completely left. What remains are the hardcore Deathmatchers.
5. ZOS brings back the other modes in the most recent patch. Has no advertised this fact to players that left other than a forum post. ZOS also adjusts the queue so that if 12 people are brought together, if only 1 specifically queued for just Deathmatch then everyone gets Deathmatch.
6. The current population of ESO is overwhelmingly Deathmatchers with others have been driven out already. All matches essentially become Deathmatches because of the queue system and the unbalance caused by ZOS’ test.
Everything I said came to pass. ZOS drove the casuals/objective players from the game and made it so that everything is going to be a deathmatch to those who remain.2 -
mandricus✭✭✭✭✭I'm one of the few people (apparently) who enjoy the objective-mode bg, and the 3 teams scheme. It leads to interesting dynamics where you have to always be aware of what your team is doing and what the others 2 teams are doing. I found this particulary interesting in Capture the Relic games, where, if you are good enough at understanding what is happening on the battleground (whitout having the ability to have line of sight on your teammates or your enemies), you can understand simply observing how your teammates icons are moving on your compass if there is a fight near an enemy relic, or if there is an high chance that, while most of the people are fighting around one relic, there is may be the other one that is not well defended. So you can decide to take your chances and try to grab an enemy relic at the right time, in order to negate the other team the ability to score, and creating in the end very interesting situations on a tactical level.
You have to be smart in term of positioning, you have constantly question yourself if it's the right moment to defend or to try to go for a score, and what to do with the relic when you have it: is it better to score now, or is it better to just hold it, waiting for the other teams to eventually lose their relic in a fight and then score?
That said, my point is: do we have the right to have a chance to play this game as we want, as anyone else, and as advertised?
Because, at the moment, we don't.
We don't have a chance, because we enjoy objective mode BG, we keep trying queueing for random battlegrounds, but we are getting deathmatches over and over and over. We won't keep trying forever. Many has already given up. Many will at some point.
At this point I would prefer waiting an entire afternoon trying to join a Random BG match, rather than the current situation. We don't have the numbers to start a match? Please let us try. If we won't be able to start a match after a whole day trying, we could always willingly decide to queue for Deathmatch and get a match. This decision, however, it should be up to us, not to Zenimax saying "since you won't be able to get the match you like, I'll get you a match that you don't like, because having a match you don't like is better than nothing anyway".
No thanks. I would like to be free to take my chances and watching my queue to go on forever, rather than not even having the possibility to try to get another match type.
This game is all about choices, and at the moment we don't have one.
Someone else decided for us that we don't deserve this kind of choice, is't not up to us do decide which kind of match we want to play and if we prefer to keep waiting hours in a queue or to have a match anyway, even if we don't like it.
While I can understand the ratios behind this choice on ZOS' side, I think that there is something fundamentally wrong in this choice. Something that goes against the very core philosophy of this game, wich is supposed to be: play how you want, the way you want.
Sadly, that's no longer true for us. We don't get to play as we want, we are forced to play how someone else decided it was better for us.
Edited by mandricus on November 13, 2021 3:10PM2 -
Magio_✭✭✭✭
You conveniently forgot 2 steps before your #1.trackdemon5512 wrote: »
Look at what happened historically.
1. Players got sick of DM players not playing to objectives in matches. Example: instead of capturing a flag they would spend the time just fighting other players away from the objectives.
2. ZOS saw this and bewilderingly decided to make all BGs Deathmatches.
3. Casual players stopped engaging in BGs altogether. Deathmatch players engaged but according to certain players here decided to leave anyways. Reasons include Dark Convergence and New World MMORPG.
4. ZOS’ actions decimated the BG population. The casual/objective segment has completely left. What remains are the hardcore Deathmatchers.
5. ZOS brings back the other modes in the most recent patch. Has no advertised this fact to players that left other than a forum post. ZOS also adjusts the queue so that if 12 people are brought together, if only 1 specifically queued for just Deathmatch then everyone gets Deathmatch.
6. The current population of ESO is overwhelmingly Deathmatchers with others have been driven out already. All matches essentially become Deathmatches because of the queue system and the unbalance caused by ZOS’ test.
Everything I said came to pass. ZOS drove the casuals/objective players from the game and made it so that everything is going to be a deathmatch to those who remain.
1) ZOS decided to disable being able to group up for a Group v Group v Group arena as a "test" for a whole year. A lot of BG regulars quit, specially healers, for not being able to play with friends and/or hold competitive organized BGs.
After enough outrage on the forums and a lot of people had quit the game
2) ZOS Brought back the ability to queue in group, but removed the ability to queue for whatever you wanted specifically.
This is when a lot of DM only players quit and clearly the time objective players liked most. Probably because of all the free easy "wins" for "high IQ tacticool plays", but in reality it was because most people didn't care about the boring objective and just want to kill people.
We've all seen it said, "I'm not good at PvP, but in objective modes I can make the difference" posted on the forums by different people. They could make the difference back then because their opponents didn't care. Make ESO Objective modes Head-to-Head like CS:GO, Overwatch, chess, soccer or w/e other game they like to bring up as to why ESO Objectives are real PvP and I bet many of those people will stop enjoying them cuz they'll get stomped having to actually fight for the Flag.
So, "You'll never fill flag games except with the same small group of people". You knew nobody wants to specifically queue for boring, to the majority of players, objective modes and wanted to keep the status quo and force people into them for free easy wins against opposition that didn't care that they were "losing" to people with negative KDA.
The truth of the matter is this I got what I want and I'm happy. I've even said you should get what you want; a specific objective mode queue. ZOS should let dead game mode queues be dead imo and shouldn't try to keep them alive artificially by forcing people into them. Once it's dead it should be removed or reworked to be attractive to more players. Evidently, that's something ZOS really doesn't want to happen.
So just answer me this, would you be ok with reworking Objective Modes to be Head-to-Head so more people, specifically the majority of DMers, start playing the objective?5 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭
You conveniently forgot 2 steps before your #1.trackdemon5512 wrote: »
Look at what happened historically.
1. Players got sick of DM players not playing to objectives in matches. Example: instead of capturing a flag they would spend the time just fighting other players away from the objectives.
2. ZOS saw this and bewilderingly decided to make all BGs Deathmatches.
3. Casual players stopped engaging in BGs altogether. Deathmatch players engaged but according to certain players here decided to leave anyways. Reasons include Dark Convergence and New World MMORPG.
4. ZOS’ actions decimated the BG population. The casual/objective segment has completely left. What remains are the hardcore Deathmatchers.
5. ZOS brings back the other modes in the most recent patch. Has no advertised this fact to players that left other than a forum post. ZOS also adjusts the queue so that if 12 people are brought together, if only 1 specifically queued for just Deathmatch then everyone gets Deathmatch.
6. The current population of ESO is overwhelmingly Deathmatchers with others have been driven out already. All matches essentially become Deathmatches because of the queue system and the unbalance caused by ZOS’ test.
Everything I said came to pass. ZOS drove the casuals/objective players from the game and made it so that everything is going to be a deathmatch to those who remain.
1) ZOS decided to disable being able to group up for a Group v Group v Group arena as a "test" for a whole year. A lot of BG regulars quit, specially healers, for not being able to play with friends and/or hold competitive organized BGs.
After enough outrage on the forums and a lot of people had quit the game
2) ZOS Brought back the ability to queue in group, but removed the ability to queue for whatever you wanted specifically.
This is when a lot of DM only players quit and clearly the time objective players liked most. Probably because of all the free easy "wins" for "high IQ tacticool plays", but in reality it was because most people didn't care about the boring objective and just want to kill people.
We've all seen it said, "I'm not good at PvP, but in objective modes I can make the difference" posted on the forums by different people. They could make the difference back then because their opponents didn't care. Make ESO Objective modes Head-to-Head like CS:GO, Overwatch, chess, soccer or w/e other game they like to bring up as to why ESO Objectives are real PvP and I bet many of those people will stop enjoying them cuz they'll get stomped having to actually fight for the Flag.
So, "You'll never fill flag games except with the same small group of people". You knew nobody wants to specifically queue for boring, to the majority of players, objective modes and wanted to keep the status quo and force people into them for free easy wins against opposition that didn't care that they were "losing" to people with negative KDA.
The truth of the matter is this I got what I want and I'm happy. I've even said you should get what you want; a specific objective mode queue. ZOS should let dead game mode queues be dead imo and shouldn't try to keep them alive artificially by forcing people into them. Once it's dead it should be removed or reworked to be attractive to more players. Evidently, that's something ZOS really doesn't want to happen.
So just answer me this, would you be ok with reworking Objective Modes to be Head-to-Head so more people, specifically the majority of DMers, start playing the objective?
ZOS disabled Group Queues with the Harrowstorm Update that year. Why was this done? Because solo players were sick of queuing up and finding themselves against premades that made competition unfair.
They brought it back with the Markarth Update. That’s a span of about 6 months. Far less than the year you allege.
As for Objective modes I don’t understand how DMers call them not PVP. I mean Cyrodiil is one gigantic Domination game. Kills don’t matter, just holding objectives.
There is a LOT I would do to fix this:
DEATHMATCH
1) Give DMers love by instituting a SOLO DEATHMATCH in addition to the current TEAM DEATHMATCH. No teams. Each player for themselves. First to hit the magic number wins.
2) Take Team Deathmatch, reverse the scoring. Instead of having first to 500 you actually start with 500 points and deaths subtract from there. A team loses all of their points and they're eliminated. This promotes team co-operation far better than the current DM. At the same time it evens out imbalances caused by teams not filling. You only have two players? Well it's harder for you to get kills as a group but at the same time the rate at which you lose points/your gap increases is diminished.
DOMINATION/CRAZY KING
1) These are probably the two most balanced modes. With Domination I would increase the number of total flags to 5 from 4. While control of four flags is possible this means that you encourage teams to move from objective to objective smartly rather than potentially getting to a dominate then camp/defend mentality. This also helps with regards to games with teams that aren't filled as they'll always have a weak objective they can go after.
CHAOSBALL
1) Currently too chaotic. You're likely to get killed just jumping down before you even get to the ball or the holder. Chasing the one with ball is an exercise in futility as they often have built themselves to outrun everything. And at that point you have 7 other players raining down on you.
2) Institute a speed cap. No more one player running around the track racking up points while the other teams can do nothing.
3) Increase the speed at which the ball kills the holder. More players get a chance at the ball than just tanky holders.
4) Add an additional ball. Cap the number of balls a team can have at once to 1. Two teams are gaining points while one isn't. Splits the combat from the gigantic chaotic blob to something more discernible.
5) Add multiple randomized ball spawn spots. Akin to Crazy King this entices players to run the map and strategize while killing.
CAPTURE THE RELIC
1) Create an area around the relic spawn points in which defending players are debuffed. Currently there is too much tanking preventing action. Some tanks are powerful enough that they can take on 8 other players without issue. That's cute and all but super broken in a fair competitive environment.
There is more I can go on with but its clear BGs need a full rework to make the entire thing viable. Currently ZOS is playing favorites which is unhealthy.2 -
Magio_✭✭✭✭The BG population is too small. I think we can at least agree on that. Maybe not in how we got to that point, but that's moot for now.
That's just the usual excuse for people trying to cope for a loss. The amount of times people in my BG guilds got whispered salt such as "Nice premade" when we weren't in a premade is hilarious. The most egregious of these was when Solo Queue was implemented and it was literally impossible to be in a premade, yet some players would still whisper people salt about being in a premade. (These are some of the same people that don't read forums, patch notes, announcements, or queue descriptions)trackdemon5512 wrote: »ZOS disabled Group Queues with the Harrowstorm Update that year. Why was this done? Because solo players were sick of queuing up and finding themselves against premades that made competition unfair.
The 1vX mentality in this game, which imo bled from Cyrodiil into BGs, is actually the root of the problem. Solo players want to 1vX in BGs and get angry when they run into any players that play off of each other, whether group queued or not, then accuse them of being in a premade with no evidence to massage their bruised egos. As if grouping up for a group arena is a bad thing anyway lol.
I always solo queued into the group queue and when I ran into an organized group I got my own group to fight it. It's simple.
Prioritizing Solo Queue for a Group Arena, specially in an MMO, was clearly not the best idea.1 -
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭DMers say Objective modes aren't PvP because they don't promote combat. Cyrodiil has nothing to do with it and I'd reckon there are plenty of BG players that play BGs specifically because they don't like the combat offering in Cyro.
You've mentioned FFA DM multiple times. I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I don't know of anyone that would like that because the mode would fail from the same critique I have of your "reverse scoring" TDM suggestion: tanks.
Creating a mode that incentivizes NOT dying versus KILLING incentivizes the existence of unkillable tanks. Put multiples of those in a lobby and you have a recipe for a stalemate, something no one wants.2 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭The BG population is too small. I think we can at least agree on that. Maybe not in how we got to that point, but that's moot for now.
That's just the usual excuse for people trying to cope for a loss. The amount of times people in my BG guilds got whispered salt such as "Nice premade" when we weren't in a premade is hilarious. The most egregious of these was when Solo Queue was implemented and it was literally impossible to be in a premade, yet some players would still whisper people salt about being in a premade. (These are some of the same people that don't read forums, patch notes, announcements, or queue descriptions)trackdemon5512 wrote: »ZOS disabled Group Queues with the Harrowstorm Update that year. Why was this done? Because solo players were sick of queuing up and finding themselves against premades that made competition unfair.
The 1vX mentality in this game, which imo bled from Cyrodiil into BGs, is actually the root of the problem. Solo players want to 1vX in BGs and get angry when they run into any players that play off of each other, whether group queued or not, then accuse them of being in a premade with no evidence to massage their bruised egos. As if grouping up for a group arena is a bad thing anyway lol.
I always solo queued into the group queue and when I ran into an organized group I got my own group to fight it. It's simple.
Prioritizing Solo Queue for a Group Arena, specially in an MMO, was clearly not the best idea.
Just because you or your friends weren’t in premades doesn’t make it a ridiculous reason for why they initiated that test.
At the time (early 2020) there was an extreme amount of frustration with Battlegrounds. The population was somewhat healthier but still not great. People were really really sick of premades and making their voices heard.
Solo players would queue up into matches where there would constantly be teams of two again a well prepared team of four. Packs of four werewolves would howl their way through matches, pouncing and killing. I made a post a year ago detailing it on Reddit:
“ With regards to BGs, premade groups have had the psychological effect of putting people off of the mode. New players often detest it after being walloped by premade groups in under 50 BGs, groups comprised of players that usually have other CP toons and crafted gear. Older players have gotten sick of being destroyed in deathmatches where they are outclassed or teams with healers or super tanks that are impossible to kill.
This is evident in the queue problems the ESO population currently faces. Attempting to queue into a BG results in unbalanced teams with premades having 4 and the system struggling to find solo players to fill opposing teams in enough time that they dont outright quit out.
ZOS has tried to entice players back with battleground outfits and style pages but that clearly has not worked as we are still faced with lack of population issues.”
ZOS took out the groups as a result of the extreme vocal opposition to the perception of premades. Unlike the recent only Deathmatch test there was only a small, negligible boost to the BG population with the solo only BGs. See point 30 here of a transcribed QnA with Rich. https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/529552/transcribed-interview-with-rich-lambert-27-05-2020/p1
That said there was a BOOST to the population with that change. Even if it was small or negligible it means that the population remained stable. That’s a big difference from the recent DM only experiment in which ZOS admitted that the results were not favorable and brought the overall BG population to an unhealthy low.
Prioritizing Solo for Group wasn’t a bad change.1 -
Contos✭✭✭I'm mostly replying to older comments from the first and second page.
"Yea. We literally get one thing as BG PVPers and that's deathmatch queue, and a few people just want to take it away from us. It's so exhausting just wanting to play the game"
I like how DM players (as you refer to yourself) always complained about objective queues (cuz dm had kinda low chance of pooping), and just kept ignoring the mechanics even when we had objective games. But they still got seperate deatmatch queue yet some of them are still here trying to cancel objective queues, for no reason.
You always had Deathmatch, back then it had even a seperate queue, after that in random you still had little bit low but still way better chance to get it then we have rn for objective modes.
Objective queues were removed for an entire patch and now we have a 1% chance to get it. Or less. The system is ridiculously rigged in favor of DM but you say things like:
"DM players feel like no one at ZOS is advocating for them" - oh yeah.. but we are still here after 2 weeks with a system where getting an objective mode is rarer then finding an atherial dust. And it is intended.
You say that people want to take DM away from you, when in reality noone does that and you are the one who wants to take away objective queues (you said it not once) for no reason, even tho you cd just queue for your dm and you wd be happy. But no you are there at every forum post enthusiastically trying to sabotage all effort people who actually care about something other than just deathmatch make to just get their gamemodes back in some form.
No, we dont need to move on from the topic of queues just cuz it's rigged in a way you like it. I cant believe you honestly think that having less than 1% chance to get 80% of the gamemodes is ok. And yeah yeah it's about popularity and all. So you think more than 99% of the people queues for dm all the time? Thats ridiculous. You say it's the majority.
But the problem is, yeah, the queues shd be based on populrity. But they arent.
Yeah, right now, the majority queues for DM, but as I said. That majority can be anything, but hardly 99%.
And to visualize how badly the system is rigged actually, if just one person queues for DM from 12 it will result in a DM.
You say it's not happening, not realistic and it's just theory.
1. I'm sure it happened several times in this last 2 weeks, it's just how randomness works.
2. So it is very realistic. Way more than you "knowing" more than half of the players rn queueing for DM.
3. Also this isn't a theory. Other people already refered Rich confirming this in some ways. I'm talking about the "ticket" system.
And if you don't like the 1/12 example, lets scale it up to 100 people.
From 100 people 8% that is 8 player queues for DM. The other 92 queues for Random using the current system.
Using some middle school level math turns out 65% of the time it will result in a deathmatch.
If 1 person from 100 queues it will result in 12% DM not 1%. (And I DIDNT calculate in the fact that random can also drop DM 1/5 times)
The objective modes can't have more than 80% drop rate, even at 100% popularity. And even if just a small amount of people queues for DM, like 1-10%, the rates drastically drop. At 20% (DM player) it reaches 95% DM/rate and at 30% it's at 99%. What is our current situation at the least. So you don't need a majority from DM players (im not saying they arent majority) you just need a poor system.
So the current system is based on the assuption that DM is the most popular mode and always will be, and
not on real popularity. It also doesn't allow any mode to ever get popular so they won't get, generating false data, digging the grave of objective modes even further. It really seems like they just wan't to get rid of these modes in the most annoying way.
Also you don't need offical confirmation to make a the very likely assumption about 1 dm guy being able to pull 11 others into a dm all the time.
Why? Cuz the queues are merged. And the ones who queued for ONLY dm will OFC get only dm.
While the ones who are queued for random CAN get dm.
So how do you guarantee that the DM guy will get his DM even if he was sorted with 11 random guys?
Even if the system tries to group DM players with DM ones and Random players with Random ones, what i hardly doubt, it still won't change the fact that (cuz the queues arent seperated) people will get mixed (if they arent mixed its seperate), and the example you claimed as unrealistic will happen over and over, even more in the latter example, cuz thats how filling up different containers then mixing the remining works. You will get leftovers.
I don't know how popular objective modes are, but the "objecive queues wd never pop" is just an exaggeration, i know he didnt mean it word by word. All im trying to say is the current system doesn't allow them to be popular. It's essentially like it was in the last months, deathmatch only. With the illusion of having a choice. And the illsuion is not based on popularity.
The logical way wd be to seperate the queues, but then it can't be done for several reasons. Ok, then just make a system that is not BASED on popularity, but is DRIVEN by it. A system that always reflects the current popularity of the modes. You can chose what you want then you migth get it, might not.
On the bg screen you can choose Grp or Solo. Somewhere else you cd choose what mode you want.
The options are Deathmatch, Capture the Relic, Chaosball, Domination, Crazy King.
If that wont work they can be Deathmatch, Land Grab and Flag Games,
or even Dathmatch and Objective.
By default all of them is checked, but you can modifiy it.
Each mode would have a seperate queue. With a visual indicator (like in teh old days, and like in dungeon queue) showing how many people form the 12 is there and how long the queue has been running (since the last time it was full).
If you queue up by default it will look for the modes you picked,
1. it will place you in a running game of that kind for replacement.
2. it will drop you in to the longest running queue from your prefered ones.
3. if it doesnt fill in a reasonable time a window like ready check will pop up. do you want to move queue?
4. if you say no you stay but you can still leave queue or move, the option will still be there in the bg window menu.
5. if you say yes i want to move it will drop you in to the queue with the most people (if you lets say moved from a domination queue it cant drop you back even if it has the most people)
Queue shd prioritize - before move - Longest running and least people - after move - close to full fresh queues.
The move queue option shd only pop up after a few mins of waiting, so people wont just move all the time. But this shd solve the problem of people getting bored cuz of never popping queues, cuz the game wd just move you after a while. Also all modes wd have a seperate but also flexible queue. It wd be based on popularity also. Modes still wont pop if they arent popular, but noone will care. Ofc if a gamemode is dead it is dead, queues wont make it better. But not even giving the people the chance to wait in the queue before redirecting them to a DM makes everyone salty about not having a real choice.
I know its only one thing if something works in theory. But im sure there are better options than the current one.Edited by Contos on November 14, 2021 7:53PM2 -
thesarahandcompany✭✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »The BG population is too small. I think we can at least agree on that. Maybe not in how we got to that point, but that's moot for now.
That's just the usual excuse for people trying to cope for a loss. The amount of times people in my BG guilds got whispered salt such as "Nice premade" when we weren't in a premade is hilarious. The most egregious of these was when Solo Queue was implemented and it was literally impossible to be in a premade, yet some players would still whisper people salt about being in a premade. (These are some of the same people that don't read forums, patch notes, announcements, or queue descriptions)trackdemon5512 wrote: »ZOS disabled Group Queues with the Harrowstorm Update that year. Why was this done? Because solo players were sick of queuing up and finding themselves against premades that made competition unfair.
The 1vX mentality in this game, which imo bled from Cyrodiil into BGs, is actually the root of the problem. Solo players want to 1vX in BGs and get angry when they run into any players that play off of each other, whether group queued or not, then accuse them of being in a premade with no evidence to massage their bruised egos. As if grouping up for a group arena is a bad thing anyway lol.
I always solo queued into the group queue and when I ran into an organized group I got my own group to fight it. It's simple.
Prioritizing Solo Queue for a Group Arena, specially in an MMO, was clearly not the best idea.
Just because you or your friends weren’t in premades doesn’t make it a ridiculous reason for why they initiated that test.
At the time (early 2020) there was an extreme amount of frustration with Battlegrounds. The population was somewhat healthier but still not great. People were really really sick of premades and making their voices heard.
Solo players would queue up into matches where there would constantly be teams of two again a well prepared team of four. Packs of four werewolves would howl their way through matches, pouncing and killing. I made a post a year ago detailing it on Reddit:
“ With regards to BGs, premade groups have had the psychological effect of putting people off of the mode. New players often detest it after being walloped by premade groups in under 50 BGs, groups comprised of players that usually have other CP toons and crafted gear. Older players have gotten sick of being destroyed in deathmatches where they are outclassed or teams with healers or super tanks that are impossible to kill.
This is evident in the queue problems the ESO population currently faces. Attempting to queue into a BG results in unbalanced teams with premades having 4 and the system struggling to find solo players to fill opposing teams in enough time that they dont outright quit out.
ZOS has tried to entice players back with battleground outfits and style pages but that clearly has not worked as we are still faced with lack of population issues.”
ZOS took out the groups as a result of the extreme vocal opposition to the perception of premades. Unlike the recent only Deathmatch test there was only a small, negligible boost to the BG population with the solo only BGs. See point 30 here of a transcribed QnA with Rich. https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/529552/transcribed-interview-with-rich-lambert-27-05-2020/p1
That said there was a BOOST to the population with that change. Even if it was small or negligible it means that the population remained stable. That’s a big difference from the recent DM only experiment in which ZOS admitted that the results were not favorable and brought the overall BG population to an unhealthy low.
Prioritizing Solo for Group wasn’t a bad change.
Again, useless data given it was started on the tail of New World's release and dark convgergence which was the causal factor in BG queue declines. Stop trying to spin the test to fit your narrative. A majority of BG queuers are queueing deathmatch. Stop driving a false narrative to support your view point.Sarahandcompany
She/Her/Hers1 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »The BG population is too small. I think we can at least agree on that. Maybe not in how we got to that point, but that's moot for now.
That's just the usual excuse for people trying to cope for a loss. The amount of times people in my BG guilds got whispered salt such as "Nice premade" when we weren't in a premade is hilarious. The most egregious of these was when Solo Queue was implemented and it was literally impossible to be in a premade, yet some players would still whisper people salt about being in a premade. (These are some of the same people that don't read forums, patch notes, announcements, or queue descriptions)trackdemon5512 wrote: »ZOS disabled Group Queues with the Harrowstorm Update that year. Why was this done? Because solo players were sick of queuing up and finding themselves against premades that made competition unfair.
The 1vX mentality in this game, which imo bled from Cyrodiil into BGs, is actually the root of the problem. Solo players want to 1vX in BGs and get angry when they run into any players that play off of each other, whether group queued or not, then accuse them of being in a premade with no evidence to massage their bruised egos. As if grouping up for a group arena is a bad thing anyway lol.
I always solo queued into the group queue and when I ran into an organized group I got my own group to fight it. It's simple.
Prioritizing Solo Queue for a Group Arena, specially in an MMO, was clearly not the best idea.
Just because you or your friends weren’t in premades doesn’t make it a ridiculous reason for why they initiated that test.
At the time (early 2020) there was an extreme amount of frustration with Battlegrounds. The population was somewhat healthier but still not great. People were really really sick of premades and making their voices heard.
Solo players would queue up into matches where there would constantly be teams of two again a well prepared team of four. Packs of four werewolves would howl their way through matches, pouncing and killing. I made a post a year ago detailing it on Reddit:
“ With regards to BGs, premade groups have had the psychological effect of putting people off of the mode. New players often detest it after being walloped by premade groups in under 50 BGs, groups comprised of players that usually have other CP toons and crafted gear. Older players have gotten sick of being destroyed in deathmatches where they are outclassed or teams with healers or super tanks that are impossible to kill.
This is evident in the queue problems the ESO population currently faces. Attempting to queue into a BG results in unbalanced teams with premades having 4 and the system struggling to find solo players to fill opposing teams in enough time that they dont outright quit out.
ZOS has tried to entice players back with battleground outfits and style pages but that clearly has not worked as we are still faced with lack of population issues.”
ZOS took out the groups as a result of the extreme vocal opposition to the perception of premades. Unlike the recent only Deathmatch test there was only a small, negligible boost to the BG population with the solo only BGs. See point 30 here of a transcribed QnA with Rich. https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/529552/transcribed-interview-with-rich-lambert-27-05-2020/p1
That said there was a BOOST to the population with that change. Even if it was small or negligible it means that the population remained stable. That’s a big difference from the recent DM only experiment in which ZOS admitted that the results were not favorable and brought the overall BG population to an unhealthy low.
Prioritizing Solo for Group wasn’t a bad change.
Again, useless data given it was started on the tail of New World's release and dark convgergence which was the causal factor in BG queue declines. Stop trying to spin the test to fit your narrative. A majority of BG queuers are queueing deathmatch. Stop driving a false narrative to support your view point.
Except both points are completely true.
1) ZOS tested Solo-Only Queues. BG Populations stayed relatively the same for 6 months, only incrementally improved.
2) ZOS tested Deathmatch-Only Queues. BG Population plummeted within the span of 2 months. Plummeted to levels that were bad enough that continuing the test wasn’t possible.
There is no spin to that. I’m not spinning anything.
The first test kept enough players appeased that they stayed with the game for six months, INCLUDING DEATHMATCH PLAYERS (who as you argue all over these forums that if they abandoned the game BGs would die)
The second test didn’t appease enough players. Not to keep deathmatchers from leaving to another game as you state. And not enough to weather the remaining population through an unpopular set. Not that unpopular broken sets are uncommon. EVERY PATCH has one and it’s used in BGs/Cyrodiil. AND the test clearly didn’t appease anyone who wanted to play anything besides Deathmatch.
That’s the Truth.
And if you want to identify the broken build during the 2020 test I can easily point to CRIMSON/ALESSIA 40K WEREWOLF builds everywhere. In Cyrodiil, howling through the street of Imperial City, and in BGs being impossible to kill. Impossible to kill because the build was so powerful and broken that 4 random players coming into a deathmatch would all be werewolves and it would all boost itself to a ridiculous level.Edited by trackdemon5512 on November 14, 2021 9:50PM1 -
auz✭✭✭✭Crimson/ alessian ww builds were everywhere, that is true. Very hard to kill, especially when outnumbered, is also true. But, they are avoidable in open world, and they can be grouped down in bgs. 1v1 they were hard to kill, but, if you played smart, they were not going to kill you either.
Dc is unavoidable. It pulls off walls into a timed ultimates. You can't avoid that, and a coordinated group with 1 or 2 dcs in the group is going to be able to wipe a large group very quickly or even more problematically, imo, a solo or very small group with little to no chance of counter play. That is almost by definition a broken mechanism.
You keep saying that bg population dropped during dm only, and I am not going to say it didn't and zos have confirmed it did. However, it cannot be denied that the timing of it was terrible. Dm only with original dc and un nerfed hrothgar literally broke pvp. In fact even zos came out and said hrothgar was broken and it was nerfed into oblivion. Add the release of NW and the population was going to drop anyway. Pvpers have been ignored too long. Why shouldn't they test the water somewhere else? The last content we got was the addition of a hammer to cyro, how long ago? There was literally nothing for them in this year's dlc except a couple crappy emotes. We couldn't even get a new bg map, while pve got 4 dungeons a trial and 2 zones. The only thing they got were months of experiments and test, no great performance improvement and some busted new proc sets.
Why would they stay?
1 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭Crimson/ alessian ww builds were everywhere, that is true. Very hard to kill, especially when outnumbered, is also true. But, they are avoidable in open world, and they can be grouped down in bgs. 1v1 they were hard to kill, but, if you played smart, they were not going to kill you either.
Dc is unavoidable. It pulls off walls into a timed ultimates. You can't avoid that, and a coordinated group with 1 or 2 dcs in the group is going to be able to wipe a large group very quickly or even more problematically, imo, a solo or very small group with little to no chance of counter play. That is almost by definition a broken mechanism.
You keep saying that bg population dropped during dm only, and I am not going to say it didn't and zos have confirmed it did. However, it cannot be denied that the timing of it was terrible. Dm only with original dc and un nerfed hrothgar literally broke pvp. In fact even zos came out and said hrothgar was broken and it was nerfed into oblivion. Add the release of NW and the population was going to drop anyway. Pvpers have been ignored too long. Why shouldn't they test the water somewhere else? The last content we got was the addition of a hammer to cyro, how long ago? There was literally nothing for them in this year's dlc except a couple crappy emotes. We couldn't even get a new bg map, while pve got 4 dungeons a trial and 2 zones. The only thing they got were months of experiments and test, no great performance improvement and some busted new proc sets.
Why would they stay?
I agree that DC was devastating to the morale of players in Cyrodiil. But in BGs it’s arguably a different matter. There was only Deathmatch, no flag games. The worst part about DC was the double pull. So why didn’t the BG population switch tactics and stop stacking on top of each other? That’s what happened in Cyrodiil. Despite the double pulls and large swaths of DC circles players learned to just stop stacking and play spread out. That caught on fairly quickly.
Are we to assume that the DM crowd believes said games should only be played as massive melee blob? That keeping spread apart wasn’t a viable strategy?
And then more importantly, who was using DC in BGs? Clearly it wasn’t the Objective match players as they left. Clearly it also wasn’t casual players coming in and finding the set as a skill balancer. If that were the case BG populations would have gone up, not down.
The ones who were left, the hardcore DMers who love the mode obviously are the only ones who were using such a broken set then. The ones who hated it so vehemently on these forums must have been the ones using it. It seems like a Catch-22. The ones who say the set is ruining battleground, by process of elimination must have been the only ones actively using it there.
PVP has been ignored too long. IC imo is old and dead. What else can be done with it? Cyrodiil has room for change. The hammer and the addition of three keeps plus mile gates/bridges that could be destroyed were great. As divisive as the hammer seems it was a game changer. It would bring an entire map alive. One faction rallies behind it, every other faction rallies to get it. Going from keep to keep is exhilarating. And the temporary map changes can quickly revert.
But you aren’t going to get any major changes/additions to PVP until combat performance is improved and combat is balanced.0 -
auz✭✭✭✭Lol. Pvpers know how the game works. Zos introduces a busted set. It gets abused, people cry on forums, it gets nerfed. It's the circle.
As for why it got used by Pvpers 1, the new sets were so strong you are actually gimped by not using it. 2 zos loves to encourage the toxic arms race that is pvp. Most people don't care how they win, just that they win. Look at gankers and snipers, or allessian/ crimson ww. The majority of pvp is a toxic race to find the most disgusting over powered sets and combine it with the most busted skills they can find. Some would say it's human nature. I believe it is encouraged by a lack of for thought towards balancing from zos and a refusal to listen to player base recommendations from pts or in general. Plus apparently you can't sell a new dlc without over powered sets.2 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭Lol. Pvpers know how the game works. Zos introduces a busted set. It gets abused, people cry on forums, it gets nerfed. It's the circle.
As for why it got used by Pvpers 1, the new sets were so strong you are actually gimped by not using it. 2 zos loves to encourage the toxic arms race that is pvp. Most people don't care how they win, just that they win. Look at gankers and snipers, or allessian/ crimson ww. The majority of pvp is a toxic race to find the most disgusting over powered sets and combine it with the most busted skills they can find. Some would say it's human nature. I believe it is encouraged by a lack of for thought towards balancing from zos and a refusal to listen to player base recommendations from pts or in general. Plus apparently you can't sell a new dlc without over powered sets.
Yup. Alessian, Witch-Knight, Dark Convergence. I made millions and millions getting the gear and selling it for hundreds of thousands. Tale as old as time in ESO. When Sloads came out you can bet I gouged every PVPer asking and they paid. Still today the flavors are constantly Diamonds Victory or Clever Alchemist. And I clearly remember when damage shields were super OP, preventing mag builds from even bleeding. And what did they ask for on top? Armor Master in light became the hot flavor.
This is why Dark Convergence as “the most broken set ever” is a non-factor to me. I’ve heard that a million times before with every other patch and a ton of other sets.
Stamina necromancers with the harmony synergy are super broken. Bash colossus builds that can OHKO entire groups with their AOE bashes are super broken. Ball groups with Earthgore and rapids are super broken. Hitis/Hollowfang with Permafrost Wardens are super broken.
Everything above has been claimed to be the most broken thing ever and the end of ESO PVP.
Dark Convergence was just noticeable for finally shattering this zerg stack mentality in both BGs and CYRO. Before DC every group strategy revolves around stacking on top, moving as one, spam healing/purges/destros and roll over everything.
When ZOS saw how “broken” DC was they shrugged, adjusted it a smidge but left it largely intact. The way it functioned wasn’t a mistake. It was their design to destroy a standard of play that existed for 5 years. And it worked. But players complained en masse because that’s what happens when the rug is pulled out from under you. Instead of adapt they want things to stay the same.
Look, I know some DMers would love to blame DC and New World for the failure of the DM Only queue. But there is no hard proof that either were the reason for the failure. No numbers to say how many players went to New World. No data out there to show how prevalent DC was or if it’s usage was greater than any other broken set previously utilized.
What is out there is confirmed data that previous tests in which the queues for BGs were altered suffered no ill effects from broken sets or competing game. Only this test dropped the active population to unhealthy lows. And what is known about this test is that anyone who wanted objective games at any time weren’t able to play. If during this current experiment with the biased queue the same problem arises then you really can’t blame DC and New World twice in a row.
*PS* - some throwback to the sentiment when the Necro Bash builds came out and how hated it was. Watch the embedded video in the first post and then tell me that Dark Convergence was somehow more broken than that. https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/479634/strongest-build-in-the-history-of-esoEdited by trackdemon5512 on November 15, 2021 6:36AM1 -
auz✭✭✭✭That's it. The flavour of the month. Gotta keep up. Lol.
When was witch-knight any more over powered than it is now? I don't remember that. I do remember being straight onto it for my stam dk. Got lucky and found a sharp maul for 10k. Was like Christmas.
I agree dc is a learning curve. My biggest gripe with it is it empowered ball groups to do what they were doing anyway. How could they think a set that stacks everyone in a neat pile was the thing to break them up? Add to that being able to be pulled into another as soon as you get out of one and being able to be pulled into a multi person ult dump I think qualifies it as game breaking.
As for quantifiable numbers, surely your eyes count as evidence? Every man and his dog was running dc and hrothgar. You were at a disadvantage for not running them. Your burst was not going to compare to with the ease if those two sets.Combined with NW of course the population was going to drop. It was billed as a pvp centric game. And if zos shared their numbers I believe we would see that. I know half my main guild went over to it. I did too. We would know for sure if zos shared info on the number of players logging in and playing bgs. But guessing that NW release had no effect on bg numbers because zos won't release the numbers is flawed in itself and an assumption based on your own opinion.0 -
auz✭✭✭✭Also there should be a few new bash cro is busted threads popping up any time now. 3 bashes per second hitting for over 5k each in pvp with a 5k proc thrown in for good measure? Lol. What could go wrong?0
-
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »Are we to assume that the DM crowd believes said games should only be played as massive melee blob? That keeping spread apart wasn’t a viable strategy?
Imagine pre-nerf Hrothgar leaps and DC spam on flags...
This argument that DM automatically turns into a blob is old and unbecoming. DM "blobs" inherently move because the right positioning is not pre-determined by the game. I won a TDM from a duo of magsorcs earlier who were steamrolling by effectively moving the fight away from the open middle to the small columns at the bottom of the spawn points in Foyada.
Imagine what would have happened with 6+ DC procs during the first 30 seconds of a Crazy King....
Imagine Hrothgar leaps onto chaosball tanks...
I feel like you're just trolling at this point and maybe I'm an idiot for taking the bait.
Edited by Aldoss on November 15, 2021 8:08AM1 -
luen79rwb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭With this broken queue system all I will do is give it a few more tries, I'll be dropping all DM matches and if it keeps on going I'm just going to quit trying.
Btw, no "welcomeo to ESO" video is gonna entice me to queue again. [snip]
[edited for baiting]Edited by ZOS_Icy on November 15, 2021 1:40PMPC/DC/NAserver
V16 sorc - V16 temp - V16 dk - V1 nb - V1 temp - V1 dk0 -
RedTalon✭✭✭✭✭luen79rwb17_ESO wrote: »With this broken queue system all I will do is give it a few more tries, I'll be dropping all DM matches and if it keeps on going I'm just going to quit trying.
Btw, no "welcomeo to ESO" video is gonna entice me to queue again. [snip]
You will get dms only, I did randoms all week during last cycle and only got one chaos ball rest where all dm, and quiting at the start often just lands you back in the same match after the five min cool down
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on November 15, 2021 1:41PM0 -
ValarMorghulis1896✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭...I just don't understand the people here who are still defending ZOS who are not able to fix a totally broken BG queue system... [snip]
[edited for bashing]Edited by ZOS_Icy on November 15, 2021 2:14PM"It is often said that before you die your life passes before your eyes. It is in fact true. It's called living." Terry Pratchett“I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worthwhile?" Death thought about it. "CATS", he said eventually. "CATS ARE NICE.” Terry Pratchett3