Battlegrounds: Engagement, MMR, Mode modifications; Other Ideas? Real talk.

McTaterskins · November 2021

I think we're possibly starting to see some root problems here.

One thing that seems to stand out in wider agreement one way or another is that Objective modes need adjustments to be more engaging. Between this thread and holding conversations in game in various guild chats, this seems to be a consensus amongst everyone. "DMers" and "Objective Players" alike.

Lets keep this rolling and get more people engaged in the thread. Keep the conversation focused on debating and possibly forming a consensus on what could bring more engagement to objective modes to a wider range of participants.

I'll edit OP some to highlight this stuff for new thread participants opening it.

thesarahandcompany · November 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

3. Reduce the number of flags in domination down to ONE flag. Reduce the number of flags in crazy king down to ONE flag, though allow the flag to move around the map. Reduce the number of relics down to one, at the center stage similar to chaos ball. Apply a snare and major defile to people holding the chaos ball or a relic. Decrease the number of points holding the chaos ball awards. Chaos ball has a 15 second delay or so until damage starts ticking.

All of this is just Deathmatch with barely an extra rule attached. A team overpowers and they literally sit on one thing. Players hate it when a guild uses it to farm AP from keeps like Bleakers in Cyrodiil. Why would anyone tired of Deathmatch engage in this?

The way objective modes are right now is unengaging. This is how you make them engaging. It's pvp. There's supposed to be fighting and overpowering. It loses its purpose when u can just avoid fights all match.

That’s engaging to Deathmatchers as it caters to what they’re already doing. It’s most certainly not engaging to those who are adverse to Deathmatch but want PVP.

There are a solid number of players in Cyrodiil who run around the map looking to just kill. Groups of several who sit on a resource and wait for people to come in so they can be farmed or kited around the towers. These players build strategies to do just this on end, put up camps, return ad nauseam.

Yes that play is fun for them but it’s extremely not fun for anyone else. What usually happens is players stop engaging and move elsewhere while that group stays to entice more in. In Cyrodiil you can move onto the true objective: capture keeps, accumulate points, get scrolls, etc. by disengaging. In BGs you cannot.

1 flag DOMINATION and CRAZY KING would just be a repeat of tower kiting. Except in this case players cannot go elsewhere and they quit. Deathmatch is for killing. The other modes are for playing to their specific objectives. BGs are supposed to be about focus on a task. If every game is at heart Deathmatch then there really is no reason for the other objectives.

I think you proved a lot of people's points. The point of BGs is to be in a fast paced, action packed, small scale PvP environment. It seems like you can't disengage from combat because you're not supposed to be able to. BGs is meant for people to be in small competitive skirmishes together whether it be just for for kills or to get points from an objective. Otherwise, what is the point of the smaller maps and team play if you're just supposed to run around and avoid eachother to get the objective?
And like you said, if you don't want to be locked in combat all of the time, but still want some PvP or want to earn some points for getting objectives, then by all means head to Cyro and IC.

Where is the intelligence in two groups of 4 battling over a single objective when there are three objectives left unguarded? I’m able to employ such a strategy in BGs precisely because DMers don’t care. And yet they get frustrated when they lose. That’s on them. Just like in Cyrodiil where a faction can try to assault the final keep to get emperor. What is the point for the other factions to defend that single keep when they can diffuse the threat by going where forces aren’t concentrated? Go to another keep on the circle and take it while someone defends.

The DM crowd in BGs currently is extremely single minded. Small skirmishes of all the players stacking on top of one another. 90% of the map unused despite 12 players in there (if you even fill these days). Stack, synergize, kill. This is what DMers want for every mode because it caters to what they like and what they’re built for.

I have no problem with a group of four that can cover all four flags in a Domination match. That takes coordination when you have 8 other players seeking to take them away. But the DM advocates here seem to want to roll that back and remove strategy. Power wins out no matter what. And then it becomes a meta race. It’s boring and the majority of people quit. Those who don’t like Deathmatch quit and those who do like Deathmatch but get sick of a singular playstyle quit.

It just becomes a foot race at that point and a majority of players do not want to play back-cap-the-flag for 15 minutes. Sorry, but we're literally in this position with queues because objective modes are objectively less fun to most players. And that's why there's no one queueing for them really. If you want objective modes to gain popularity, then remove the ability to forgo combat completely in a BG to win. Periodt.

HiImRex · November 2021

The pvp + objective formula has largely been solved by MOBAs.

In a 3 lane map 5v5 with objectives that push closer to enemy spawn, both teams are incentivized to split up between three lanes and go after objectives in a dynamic way. At the same time, team fighting is also encouraged and incentivized by the same system because successfully completing objectives grant a combat bonus to the team.

With only two teams, winning team pushes closer and closer to the losing team’s spawn, intensifying the team fighting naturally as the game progresses. Objectives begin spaced out across three lanes, but the final objective is immediately in front of enemy spawn.

Death timers begin short, encouraging early action and risk taking. Eventually the death timer reach upwards of 45 seconds, making late game team fights either a game finisher or a comeback mechanic; either way, the long late game death timer guarantees a game end in a reasonable amount of time.

ESO doesn’t need any of the fancier trappings of a MOBA. But it can really benefit from copying a MOBA’s game design. IMO blizzards Heroes of the Storm is a good candidate for ESO to ape the design off, since it’s very streamlined.

_adhyffbjjjf12 · November 2021

What makes objective based PVP successful is a healthy player base. Objective based PVP in a PVE based MMORPG is classically the gateway to DM for PVE players. So the question is, why is this not happening?

The problem is evident in that its not friendly to new players, and that means spiky damage and quick deaths while they are unskilled AND poorly geared. Other PVE AAA Mmorpg have resolved this by normalising gear and level so everyone is on a level playing field apart from personal skill (as it should be) so this is the answer for ESO IMO:

- When you enter a BG your level is set to max level, no CP. New players can jump in on day 1 in effect.
- Prior to entering you select from a preset select of gearsets, carefully curated to provide a small set of more balanced sets, potions and food.

Now its an even playing field, and more welcoming to brand new players.

Aldoss · November 2021

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

- When you enter a BG your level is set to max level, no CP. New players can jump in on day 1 in effect.
- Prior to entering you select from a preset select of gearsets, carefully curated to provide a small set of more balanced sets, potions and food.

This destroys the entire basis of building and progressing/curating your toon that draws so many to this game.

All they need to do is have an mmr that actually changes with wins. The mmr we have currently is terrible at sorting out new players from people who can list every skill and know what sets players are wearing from animations or play style.

SkaraMinoc · November 2021

For ESO,

small scale competitive deathmatch arenas should be 2 teams with 1-4 players per team (1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4)
medium scale casual objective battlegrounds should be 2 or 3 teams with 8-12 players per team
large-scale open world PvP should be 3 factions, 100+ players per team (Cyrodiil)
dungeon PvPvE needs to drop end game gear sets (IC gear is mostly trash)

Battlegrounds

2 teams @ 12 players each - Capture the Relic, Domination
3 teams @ 8 players each - Chaosball

Any game mode that encourages sprinting and cheesing around the map should not be allowed.

Crazy King should be removed from the game
Carrying the Chaosball needs to apply a debuff that prevents excessively high movespeed

We need new maps to support an enhanced 2-team battleground experience. We also need larger 3-team maps with water, hills, and even underground (e.g. dungeon battleground such as a 3-team Imperial City Annex 8v8v8 chaosball).

trackdemon5512 · November 2021

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

McTaterskins wrote: »

@thesarahandcompany @trackdemon5512

In regard to Domination:
What if flag number was reduced to 3 and they are placed in positions similar to current capture the relic positions? Wouldn't that cause more fighting and also add the challenge of trying to overpower someone's spawn area? (There are multiple directions you can leave your spawn from so would still be able to flank anyway)

In regard to Crazy King:
Doesn't this get up to 3-4 flags currently? Reduce to 2 but not until 2nd half of game timer? I like this one right up until there are too many flags. But that's just me.

What about adding scored points for KB's inside of flag/capture point radii? Would this perhaps cause more fight engagement over objectives?

DOMINATION: Flag number should be increased from 4 to 5. This actually always encourages individuals to be on the offensive looking to get the 5th flag. At the same time it spreads teams thin weakening defense. Battlefield/COD has long played its maps this way. You can’t have all flags without serious compromise. It makes for incredibly engaging matchups for both veterans and regular players.

One flag is the same as having a Deathmatch and then slapping a flag in the middle where everyone battles. Essentially a King of the Hill. The problem there is as we’ve seen it becomes stale when unbalanced teams or meta builds hold.

CRAZY KING: Crazy King is perfect. It starts off as King of the Hill and then devolves as more flags are added and switched around. It’s a constant debate of whether to defend or advance. The addition and removal of flags in random locations is a great touch. I would not change Crazy King.

Domination and Crazy King are the most balanced out of the PVP BG modes. Theyre all player versus player but demand tactical strategy that isn’t demanding. If you play to the the rules you can win, veteran or amateur. Builds and coordinated teams can give you an advantage BUT not one that overshadows the game mode itself

What also needs to be considered is that Kills in modes besides Deathmatch do not count toward the point win. That can’t change because as soon as it does the BG becomes about who kills the most.

All BGs are inherently objective games. Deathmatch is most kills. Domination and Crazy King are most time in the respective zones coupled with the most people. Relic is simply capture. You shouldn’t be able to win relic if you just kill attackers all day. Chaosball is possession and evade.

Chaosball’s issue is that it very much mirrors the “One Flag” type of Domination advocated above but on the move. We see what happens in that player get frustrated when they can’t make any headway. An individual in all speed gear that can’t be caught or a team with unkillable tanks. Just like a blowout Deathmatch is disheartening, so is a Chaosball game where opposing teams never touch the ball and serve as fodder.

These are practical matters of any fair competitive game. Rules and limitations in place that are strictly adhered to in order to maintain the spirit and purpose of the game. You can’t claim you’re the best figure skater in the world by physically taking your opponents out of the competition and assuming the position by default. That’s not the goal of it all.

I can't see 5 flags improving Domination. It is already a game of running in circles. Extra flags just means more places to run. And there is never a debate about whether to defend the flag or move to the next one in crazy King. Just move to the next white flag as quick as you can. It is not a battleground. It is a foot race. But it is how you win.
Bgs that don't promote conflict and battles are just not well designed. The game should be funnelling players into each other. COD and battlefield do it very well. Being able to run around the outside of a map in a circle to cap empty flags is not how they do it. If I wanted to run as fast as I can from flag to flag and not fight people, I would play sonic at the Olympics.

4 flags means one flag for every individual on a group. The current Domination mode runs very nicely and is quite fun/engaging. If I were to make any change the 5th flag would mean that it’s just baked in for one flag to be certainly weakly guarded. There would always be an impetus to advance for all players

Aldoss wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

- When you enter a BG your level is set to max level, no CP. New players can jump in on day 1 in effect.
- Prior to entering you select from a preset select of gearsets, carefully curated to provide a small set of more balanced sets, potions and food.

This destroys the entire basis of building and progressing/curating your toon that draws so many to this game.

All they need to do is have an mmr that actually changes with wins. The mmr we have currently is terrible at sorting out new players from people who can list every skill and know what sets players are wearing from animations or play style.

Every other mode has the design and build but it can work there. It absolutely does not work in Small Scale BGs.

You have thousands and thousands of set combinations with unique procs that interact with each other. The only other competitive game that works as so are table top card games and those are run with strictly enforced rule sets so as to provide a fair, competitive atmosphere.

I don’t care if it takes the spice out of life but allowing unique set builds in ESO BGs has absolutely ruined it. If it were a tabletop game unkillable tanks would have been banned. Infinite runners in Chaosball would have be banned. BashCro would have been banned.

Battlegrounds is structured PVP, unlike Cyrodiil’s open world Free PVP. ZOS refuses to structure its BGs and so they’re always broken. It’s not actually competitive. It’s a showcase for what broken builds exist.

thesarahandcompany · November 2021

There's no impetus to advance in domination. I can literally put together a montage of domination runs where someone will literally see you along at a flag, they are one person or even two, and they turn around and run away. Or they'll be on an empty flag and two players will show up to 2v2 on a flag and either one teammate bails or both bail on the fight because the mode doesn't incentivize fighting.

The idea that having one flag, less relics, etc. makes objectives modes "deathmatch with one extra thing" is just false. You could easily remove certain structures in flag games that increase their engagement.

For example, remove the flag penalty where you have to outnumber to a flag to win to where your team has to be the ONLY team on a flag. Something like this forces combat and also makes the deathmatch aspect more engaging to players who like tank builds and can hold out solo against teams for longer durations on flags.

Asking for 5 flags in domination and changing nothing else is a nonstarter for the deathmatch community and if all you're going to offer is that, then we still say just delete objective modes. We can't take the discussion seriously otherwise. lol

auz · November 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

McTaterskins wrote: »

@thesarahandcompany @trackdemon5512

In regard to Domination:
What if flag number was reduced to 3 and they are placed in positions similar to current capture the relic positions? Wouldn't that cause more fighting and also add the challenge of trying to overpower someone's spawn area? (There are multiple directions you can leave your spawn from so would still be able to flank anyway)

In regard to Crazy King:
Doesn't this get up to 3-4 flags currently? Reduce to 2 but not until 2nd half of game timer? I like this one right up until there are too many flags. But that's just me.

What about adding scored points for KB's inside of flag/capture point radii? Would this perhaps cause more fight engagement over objectives?

DOMINATION: Flag number should be increased from 4 to 5. This actually always encourages individuals to be on the offensive looking to get the 5th flag. At the same time it spreads teams thin weakening defense. Battlefield/COD has long played its maps this way. You can’t have all flags without serious compromise. It makes for incredibly engaging matchups for both veterans and regular players.

One flag is the same as having a Deathmatch and then slapping a flag in the middle where everyone battles. Essentially a King of the Hill. The problem there is as we’ve seen it becomes stale when unbalanced teams or meta builds hold.

CRAZY KING: Crazy King is perfect. It starts off as King of the Hill and then devolves as more flags are added and switched around. It’s a constant debate of whether to defend or advance. The addition and removal of flags in random locations is a great touch. I would not change Crazy King.

Domination and Crazy King are the most balanced out of the PVP BG modes. Theyre all player versus player but demand tactical strategy that isn’t demanding. If you play to the the rules you can win, veteran or amateur. Builds and coordinated teams can give you an advantage BUT not one that overshadows the game mode itself

What also needs to be considered is that Kills in modes besides Deathmatch do not count toward the point win. That can’t change because as soon as it does the BG becomes about who kills the most.

All BGs are inherently objective games. Deathmatch is most kills. Domination and Crazy King are most time in the respective zones coupled with the most people. Relic is simply capture. You shouldn’t be able to win relic if you just kill attackers all day. Chaosball is possession and evade.

Chaosball’s issue is that it very much mirrors the “One Flag” type of Domination advocated above but on the move. We see what happens in that player get frustrated when they can’t make any headway. An individual in all speed gear that can’t be caught or a team with unkillable tanks. Just like a blowout Deathmatch is disheartening, so is a Chaosball game where opposing teams never touch the ball and serve as fodder.

These are practical matters of any fair competitive game. Rules and limitations in place that are strictly adhered to in order to maintain the spirit and purpose of the game. You can’t claim you’re the best figure skater in the world by physically taking your opponents out of the competition and assuming the position by default. That’s not the goal of it all.

I can't see 5 flags improving Domination. It is already a game of running in circles. Extra flags just means more places to run. And there is never a debate about whether to defend the flag or move to the next one in crazy King. Just move to the next white flag as quick as you can. It is not a battleground. It is a foot race. But it is how you win.
Bgs that don't promote conflict and battles are just not well designed. The game should be funnelling players into each other. COD and battlefield do it very well. Being able to run around the outside of a map in a circle to cap empty flags is not how they do it. If I wanted to run as fast as I can from flag to flag and not fight people, I would play sonic at the Olympics.

4 flags means one flag for every individual on a group. The current Domination mode runs very nicely and is quite fun/engaging. If I were to make any change the 5th flag would mean that it’s just baked in for one flag to be certainly weakly guarded. There would always be an impetus to advance for all players

Aldoss wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

- When you enter a BG your level is set to max level, no CP. New players can jump in on day 1 in effect.
- Prior to entering you select from a preset select of gearsets, carefully curated to provide a small set of more balanced sets, potions and food.

This destroys the entire basis of building and progressing/curating your toon that draws so many to this game.

All they need to do is have an mmr that actually changes with wins. The mmr we have currently is terrible at sorting out new players from people who can list every skill and know what sets players are wearing from animations or play style.

Every other mode has the design and build but it can work there. It absolutely does not work in Small Scale BGs.

You have thousands and thousands of set combinations with unique procs that interact with each other. The only other competitive game that works as so are table top card games and those are run with strictly enforced rule sets so as to provide a fair, competitive atmosphere.

I don’t care if it takes the spice out of life but allowing unique set builds in ESO BGs has absolutely ruined it. If it were a tabletop game unkillable tanks would have been banned. Infinite runners in Chaosball would have be banned. BashCro would have been banned.

Battlegrounds is structured PVP, unlike Cyrodiil’s open world Free PVP. ZOS refuses to structure its BGs and so they’re always broken. It’s not actually competitive. It’s a showcase for what broken builds exist.

I see what you are saying. That is not how domination is getting played. People just run around looking for an empty flags. There is no incentive to fight for a flag when you can just cap an empty one. I think it would be worse with an extra flag.
Allowing unique builds has not ruined bgs. Introducing stupidly over tuned sets has ruined bgs. Zos is adamant they can't release a DLC without new and more powerful sets. The real power creep in this game is armour sets. Add to that the procs that keep getting bigger and more disgusting like DC and hrothgar and it creates an opportunity for a toxic pvp environment. Even something like deadlands assassin, did it really need 256 weapon damage on the 5th piece with the proc? Probably not. But zos is determined to make the new set bis to sell more units.

trackdemon5512 · November 2021

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

McTaterskins wrote: »

@thesarahandcompany @trackdemon5512

In regard to Domination:
What if flag number was reduced to 3 and they are placed in positions similar to current capture the relic positions? Wouldn't that cause more fighting and also add the challenge of trying to overpower someone's spawn area? (There are multiple directions you can leave your spawn from so would still be able to flank anyway)

In regard to Crazy King:
Doesn't this get up to 3-4 flags currently? Reduce to 2 but not until 2nd half of game timer? I like this one right up until there are too many flags. But that's just me.

What about adding scored points for KB's inside of flag/capture point radii? Would this perhaps cause more fight engagement over objectives?

DOMINATION: Flag number should be increased from 4 to 5. This actually always encourages individuals to be on the offensive looking to get the 5th flag. At the same time it spreads teams thin weakening defense. Battlefield/COD has long played its maps this way. You can’t have all flags without serious compromise. It makes for incredibly engaging matchups for both veterans and regular players.

One flag is the same as having a Deathmatch and then slapping a flag in the middle where everyone battles. Essentially a King of the Hill. The problem there is as we’ve seen it becomes stale when unbalanced teams or meta builds hold.

CRAZY KING: Crazy King is perfect. It starts off as King of the Hill and then devolves as more flags are added and switched around. It’s a constant debate of whether to defend or advance. The addition and removal of flags in random locations is a great touch. I would not change Crazy King.

Domination and Crazy King are the most balanced out of the PVP BG modes. Theyre all player versus player but demand tactical strategy that isn’t demanding. If you play to the the rules you can win, veteran or amateur. Builds and coordinated teams can give you an advantage BUT not one that overshadows the game mode itself

What also needs to be considered is that Kills in modes besides Deathmatch do not count toward the point win. That can’t change because as soon as it does the BG becomes about who kills the most.

All BGs are inherently objective games. Deathmatch is most kills. Domination and Crazy King are most time in the respective zones coupled with the most people. Relic is simply capture. You shouldn’t be able to win relic if you just kill attackers all day. Chaosball is possession and evade.

Chaosball’s issue is that it very much mirrors the “One Flag” type of Domination advocated above but on the move. We see what happens in that player get frustrated when they can’t make any headway. An individual in all speed gear that can’t be caught or a team with unkillable tanks. Just like a blowout Deathmatch is disheartening, so is a Chaosball game where opposing teams never touch the ball and serve as fodder.

These are practical matters of any fair competitive game. Rules and limitations in place that are strictly adhered to in order to maintain the spirit and purpose of the game. You can’t claim you’re the best figure skater in the world by physically taking your opponents out of the competition and assuming the position by default. That’s not the goal of it all.

I can't see 5 flags improving Domination. It is already a game of running in circles. Extra flags just means more places to run. And there is never a debate about whether to defend the flag or move to the next one in crazy King. Just move to the next white flag as quick as you can. It is not a battleground. It is a foot race. But it is how you win.
Bgs that don't promote conflict and battles are just not well designed. The game should be funnelling players into each other. COD and battlefield do it very well. Being able to run around the outside of a map in a circle to cap empty flags is not how they do it. If I wanted to run as fast as I can from flag to flag and not fight people, I would play sonic at the Olympics.

4 flags means one flag for every individual on a group. The current Domination mode runs very nicely and is quite fun/engaging. If I were to make any change the 5th flag would mean that it’s just baked in for one flag to be certainly weakly guarded. There would always be an impetus to advance for all players

Aldoss wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

- When you enter a BG your level is set to max level, no CP. New players can jump in on day 1 in effect.
- Prior to entering you select from a preset select of gearsets, carefully curated to provide a small set of more balanced sets, potions and food.

This destroys the entire basis of building and progressing/curating your toon that draws so many to this game.

All they need to do is have an mmr that actually changes with wins. The mmr we have currently is terrible at sorting out new players from people who can list every skill and know what sets players are wearing from animations or play style.

Every other mode has the design and build but it can work there. It absolutely does not work in Small Scale BGs.

You have thousands and thousands of set combinations with unique procs that interact with each other. The only other competitive game that works as so are table top card games and those are run with strictly enforced rule sets so as to provide a fair, competitive atmosphere.

I don’t care if it takes the spice out of life but allowing unique set builds in ESO BGs has absolutely ruined it. If it were a tabletop game unkillable tanks would have been banned. Infinite runners in Chaosball would have be banned. BashCro would have been banned.

Battlegrounds is structured PVP, unlike Cyrodiil’s open world Free PVP. ZOS refuses to structure its BGs and so they’re always broken. It’s not actually competitive. It’s a showcase for what broken builds exist.

I see what you are saying. That is not how domination is getting played. People just run around looking for an empty flags. There is no incentive to fight for a flag when you can just cap an empty one. I think it would be worse with an extra flag.
Allowing unique builds has not ruined bgs. Introducing stupidly over tuned sets has ruined bgs. Zos is adamant they can't release a DLC without new and more powerful sets. The real power creep in this game is armour sets. Add to that the procs that keep getting bigger and more disgusting like DC and hrothgar and it creates an opportunity for a toxic pvp environment. Even something like deadlands assassin, did it really need 256 weapon damage on the 5th piece with the proc? Probably not. But zos is determined to make the new set bis to sell more units.

So again I see someone like Sarah advocating for more combat for all forms of BGs. If I were to be a DM player in a domination match and I see one group getting clearly dominant kills (easily seen on the score screen) why would I run into likely certain death and spend up to 20 seconds at a death screen waiting to get back in and do it again?

In Domination, if I notice that a player is likely to kill me at a flag it’s a waste of my time to go back against them again and again. I can look at them, turn tail, and find a flag I can get. That player is then left to make a decision: either follow and risk losing the objective or stay and defend.

DM players like Sarah clearly don’t like that. They want objective matches to be ant lion traps, luring all players in. That completely eschews strategy. It also only appeases the hardcore DMers who love that but it’s rather clear at this point players are getting sick of Deathmatch, whether they be casuals or hardcore. It’s like a star collapsing in on itself.

auz · November 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

McTaterskins wrote: »

@thesarahandcompany @trackdemon5512

In regard to Domination:
What if flag number was reduced to 3 and they are placed in positions similar to current capture the relic positions? Wouldn't that cause more fighting and also add the challenge of trying to overpower someone's spawn area? (There are multiple directions you can leave your spawn from so would still be able to flank anyway)

In regard to Crazy King:
Doesn't this get up to 3-4 flags currently? Reduce to 2 but not until 2nd half of game timer? I like this one right up until there are too many flags. But that's just me.

What about adding scored points for KB's inside of flag/capture point radii? Would this perhaps cause more fight engagement over objectives?

DOMINATION: Flag number should be increased from 4 to 5. This actually always encourages individuals to be on the offensive looking to get the 5th flag. At the same time it spreads teams thin weakening defense. Battlefield/COD has long played its maps this way. You can’t have all flags without serious compromise. It makes for incredibly engaging matchups for both veterans and regular players.

One flag is the same as having a Deathmatch and then slapping a flag in the middle where everyone battles. Essentially a King of the Hill. The problem there is as we’ve seen it becomes stale when unbalanced teams or meta builds hold.

CRAZY KING: Crazy King is perfect. It starts off as King of the Hill and then devolves as more flags are added and switched around. It’s a constant debate of whether to defend or advance. The addition and removal of flags in random locations is a great touch. I would not change Crazy King.

Domination and Crazy King are the most balanced out of the PVP BG modes. Theyre all player versus player but demand tactical strategy that isn’t demanding. If you play to the the rules you can win, veteran or amateur. Builds and coordinated teams can give you an advantage BUT not one that overshadows the game mode itself

What also needs to be considered is that Kills in modes besides Deathmatch do not count toward the point win. That can’t change because as soon as it does the BG becomes about who kills the most.

All BGs are inherently objective games. Deathmatch is most kills. Domination and Crazy King are most time in the respective zones coupled with the most people. Relic is simply capture. You shouldn’t be able to win relic if you just kill attackers all day. Chaosball is possession and evade.

Chaosball’s issue is that it very much mirrors the “One Flag” type of Domination advocated above but on the move. We see what happens in that player get frustrated when they can’t make any headway. An individual in all speed gear that can’t be caught or a team with unkillable tanks. Just like a blowout Deathmatch is disheartening, so is a Chaosball game where opposing teams never touch the ball and serve as fodder.

These are practical matters of any fair competitive game. Rules and limitations in place that are strictly adhered to in order to maintain the spirit and purpose of the game. You can’t claim you’re the best figure skater in the world by physically taking your opponents out of the competition and assuming the position by default. That’s not the goal of it all.

I can't see 5 flags improving Domination. It is already a game of running in circles. Extra flags just means more places to run. And there is never a debate about whether to defend the flag or move to the next one in crazy King. Just move to the next white flag as quick as you can. It is not a battleground. It is a foot race. But it is how you win.
Bgs that don't promote conflict and battles are just not well designed. The game should be funnelling players into each other. COD and battlefield do it very well. Being able to run around the outside of a map in a circle to cap empty flags is not how they do it. If I wanted to run as fast as I can from flag to flag and not fight people, I would play sonic at the Olympics.

4 flags means one flag for every individual on a group. The current Domination mode runs very nicely and is quite fun/engaging. If I were to make any change the 5th flag would mean that it’s just baked in for one flag to be certainly weakly guarded. There would always be an impetus to advance for all players

Aldoss wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

- When you enter a BG your level is set to max level, no CP. New players can jump in on day 1 in effect.
- Prior to entering you select from a preset select of gearsets, carefully curated to provide a small set of more balanced sets, potions and food.

This destroys the entire basis of building and progressing/curating your toon that draws so many to this game.

All they need to do is have an mmr that actually changes with wins. The mmr we have currently is terrible at sorting out new players from people who can list every skill and know what sets players are wearing from animations or play style.

Every other mode has the design and build but it can work there. It absolutely does not work in Small Scale BGs.

You have thousands and thousands of set combinations with unique procs that interact with each other. The only other competitive game that works as so are table top card games and those are run with strictly enforced rule sets so as to provide a fair, competitive atmosphere.

I don’t care if it takes the spice out of life but allowing unique set builds in ESO BGs has absolutely ruined it. If it were a tabletop game unkillable tanks would have been banned. Infinite runners in Chaosball would have be banned. BashCro would have been banned.

Battlegrounds is structured PVP, unlike Cyrodiil’s open world Free PVP. ZOS refuses to structure its BGs and so they’re always broken. It’s not actually competitive. It’s a showcase for what broken builds exist.

I see what you are saying. That is not how domination is getting played. People just run around looking for an empty flags. There is no incentive to fight for a flag when you can just cap an empty one. I think it would be worse with an extra flag.
Allowing unique builds has not ruined bgs. Introducing stupidly over tuned sets has ruined bgs. Zos is adamant they can't release a DLC without new and more powerful sets. The real power creep in this game is armour sets. Add to that the procs that keep getting bigger and more disgusting like DC and hrothgar and it creates an opportunity for a toxic pvp environment. Even something like deadlands assassin, did it really need 256 weapon damage on the 5th piece with the proc? Probably not. But zos is determined to make the new set bis to sell more units.

So again I see someone like Sarah advocating for more combat for all forms of BGs. If I were to be a DM player in a domination match and I see one group getting clearly dominant kills (easily seen on the score screen) why would I run into likely certain death and spend up to 20 seconds at a death screen waiting to get back in and do it again?

In Domination, if I notice that a player is likely to kill me at a flag it’s a waste of my time to go back against them again and again. I can look at them, turn tail, and find a flag I can get. That player is then left to make a decision: either follow and risk losing the objective or stay and defend.

And that right there is the problem. Why fight for it when you can run around and find an undefended flag? The game by, by design, should be forcing you into combat for the flag. If you die, get your team mates and try again. Avoiding the battle to cap empty flags should not be a option.

thesarahandcompany · November 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

McTaterskins wrote: »

@thesarahandcompany @trackdemon5512

In regard to Domination:
What if flag number was reduced to 3 and they are placed in positions similar to current capture the relic positions? Wouldn't that cause more fighting and also add the challenge of trying to overpower someone's spawn area? (There are multiple directions you can leave your spawn from so would still be able to flank anyway)

In regard to Crazy King:
Doesn't this get up to 3-4 flags currently? Reduce to 2 but not until 2nd half of game timer? I like this one right up until there are too many flags. But that's just me.

What about adding scored points for KB's inside of flag/capture point radii? Would this perhaps cause more fight engagement over objectives?

DOMINATION: Flag number should be increased from 4 to 5. This actually always encourages individuals to be on the offensive looking to get the 5th flag. At the same time it spreads teams thin weakening defense. Battlefield/COD has long played its maps this way. You can’t have all flags without serious compromise. It makes for incredibly engaging matchups for both veterans and regular players.

One flag is the same as having a Deathmatch and then slapping a flag in the middle where everyone battles. Essentially a King of the Hill. The problem there is as we’ve seen it becomes stale when unbalanced teams or meta builds hold.

CRAZY KING: Crazy King is perfect. It starts off as King of the Hill and then devolves as more flags are added and switched around. It’s a constant debate of whether to defend or advance. The addition and removal of flags in random locations is a great touch. I would not change Crazy King.

Domination and Crazy King are the most balanced out of the PVP BG modes. Theyre all player versus player but demand tactical strategy that isn’t demanding. If you play to the the rules you can win, veteran or amateur. Builds and coordinated teams can give you an advantage BUT not one that overshadows the game mode itself

What also needs to be considered is that Kills in modes besides Deathmatch do not count toward the point win. That can’t change because as soon as it does the BG becomes about who kills the most.

All BGs are inherently objective games. Deathmatch is most kills. Domination and Crazy King are most time in the respective zones coupled with the most people. Relic is simply capture. You shouldn’t be able to win relic if you just kill attackers all day. Chaosball is possession and evade.

Chaosball’s issue is that it very much mirrors the “One Flag” type of Domination advocated above but on the move. We see what happens in that player get frustrated when they can’t make any headway. An individual in all speed gear that can’t be caught or a team with unkillable tanks. Just like a blowout Deathmatch is disheartening, so is a Chaosball game where opposing teams never touch the ball and serve as fodder.

These are practical matters of any fair competitive game. Rules and limitations in place that are strictly adhered to in order to maintain the spirit and purpose of the game. You can’t claim you’re the best figure skater in the world by physically taking your opponents out of the competition and assuming the position by default. That’s not the goal of it all.

I can't see 5 flags improving Domination. It is already a game of running in circles. Extra flags just means more places to run. And there is never a debate about whether to defend the flag or move to the next one in crazy King. Just move to the next white flag as quick as you can. It is not a battleground. It is a foot race. But it is how you win.
Bgs that don't promote conflict and battles are just not well designed. The game should be funnelling players into each other. COD and battlefield do it very well. Being able to run around the outside of a map in a circle to cap empty flags is not how they do it. If I wanted to run as fast as I can from flag to flag and not fight people, I would play sonic at the Olympics.

4 flags means one flag for every individual on a group. The current Domination mode runs very nicely and is quite fun/engaging. If I were to make any change the 5th flag would mean that it’s just baked in for one flag to be certainly weakly guarded. There would always be an impetus to advance for all players

Aldoss wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

- When you enter a BG your level is set to max level, no CP. New players can jump in on day 1 in effect.
- Prior to entering you select from a preset select of gearsets, carefully curated to provide a small set of more balanced sets, potions and food.

This destroys the entire basis of building and progressing/curating your toon that draws so many to this game.

All they need to do is have an mmr that actually changes with wins. The mmr we have currently is terrible at sorting out new players from people who can list every skill and know what sets players are wearing from animations or play style.

Every other mode has the design and build but it can work there. It absolutely does not work in Small Scale BGs.

You have thousands and thousands of set combinations with unique procs that interact with each other. The only other competitive game that works as so are table top card games and those are run with strictly enforced rule sets so as to provide a fair, competitive atmosphere.

I don’t care if it takes the spice out of life but allowing unique set builds in ESO BGs has absolutely ruined it. If it were a tabletop game unkillable tanks would have been banned. Infinite runners in Chaosball would have be banned. BashCro would have been banned.

Battlegrounds is structured PVP, unlike Cyrodiil’s open world Free PVP. ZOS refuses to structure its BGs and so they’re always broken. It’s not actually competitive. It’s a showcase for what broken builds exist.

I see what you are saying. That is not how domination is getting played. People just run around looking for an empty flags. There is no incentive to fight for a flag when you can just cap an empty one. I think it would be worse with an extra flag.
Allowing unique builds has not ruined bgs. Introducing stupidly over tuned sets has ruined bgs. Zos is adamant they can't release a DLC without new and more powerful sets. The real power creep in this game is armour sets. Add to that the procs that keep getting bigger and more disgusting like DC and hrothgar and it creates an opportunity for a toxic pvp environment. Even something like deadlands assassin, did it really need 256 weapon damage on the 5th piece with the proc? Probably not. But zos is determined to make the new set bis to sell more units.

So again I see someone like Sarah advocating for more combat for all forms of BGs. If I were to be a DM player in a domination match and I see one group getting clearly dominant kills (easily seen on the score screen) why would I run into likely certain death and spend up to 20 seconds at a death screen waiting to get back in and do it again?

In Domination, if I notice that a player is likely to kill me at a flag it’s a waste of my time to go back against them again and again. I can look at them, turn tail, and find a flag I can get. That player is then left to make a decision: either follow and risk losing the objective or stay and defend.

DM players like Sarah clearly don’t like that. They want objective matches to be ant lion traps, luring all players in. That completely eschews strategy. It also only appeases the hardcore DMers who love that but it’s rather clear at this point players are getting sick of Deathmatch, whether they be casuals or hardcore. It’s like a star collapsing in on itself.

Can you not mischaracterize or speculate what I want? The amount of strategy involved in the highest echelons of deathmatch fights surpasses all strategy required in objectives modes because of how they're currently designed. I find the idea of "ant lion traps" to be completely the opposite of what I want, and fully reject your mischaracterization of my intentions in PVP.

Thanks.

thesarahandcompany · November 2021

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

McTaterskins wrote: »

@thesarahandcompany @trackdemon5512

In regard to Domination:
What if flag number was reduced to 3 and they are placed in positions similar to current capture the relic positions? Wouldn't that cause more fighting and also add the challenge of trying to overpower someone's spawn area? (There are multiple directions you can leave your spawn from so would still be able to flank anyway)

In regard to Crazy King:
Doesn't this get up to 3-4 flags currently? Reduce to 2 but not until 2nd half of game timer? I like this one right up until there are too many flags. But that's just me.

What about adding scored points for KB's inside of flag/capture point radii? Would this perhaps cause more fight engagement over objectives?

DOMINATION: Flag number should be increased from 4 to 5. This actually always encourages individuals to be on the offensive looking to get the 5th flag. At the same time it spreads teams thin weakening defense. Battlefield/COD has long played its maps this way. You can’t have all flags without serious compromise. It makes for incredibly engaging matchups for both veterans and regular players.

One flag is the same as having a Deathmatch and then slapping a flag in the middle where everyone battles. Essentially a King of the Hill. The problem there is as we’ve seen it becomes stale when unbalanced teams or meta builds hold.

CRAZY KING: Crazy King is perfect. It starts off as King of the Hill and then devolves as more flags are added and switched around. It’s a constant debate of whether to defend or advance. The addition and removal of flags in random locations is a great touch. I would not change Crazy King.

Domination and Crazy King are the most balanced out of the PVP BG modes. Theyre all player versus player but demand tactical strategy that isn’t demanding. If you play to the the rules you can win, veteran or amateur. Builds and coordinated teams can give you an advantage BUT not one that overshadows the game mode itself

What also needs to be considered is that Kills in modes besides Deathmatch do not count toward the point win. That can’t change because as soon as it does the BG becomes about who kills the most.

All BGs are inherently objective games. Deathmatch is most kills. Domination and Crazy King are most time in the respective zones coupled with the most people. Relic is simply capture. You shouldn’t be able to win relic if you just kill attackers all day. Chaosball is possession and evade.

Chaosball’s issue is that it very much mirrors the “One Flag” type of Domination advocated above but on the move. We see what happens in that player get frustrated when they can’t make any headway. An individual in all speed gear that can’t be caught or a team with unkillable tanks. Just like a blowout Deathmatch is disheartening, so is a Chaosball game where opposing teams never touch the ball and serve as fodder.

These are practical matters of any fair competitive game. Rules and limitations in place that are strictly adhered to in order to maintain the spirit and purpose of the game. You can’t claim you’re the best figure skater in the world by physically taking your opponents out of the competition and assuming the position by default. That’s not the goal of it all.

I can't see 5 flags improving Domination. It is already a game of running in circles. Extra flags just means more places to run. And there is never a debate about whether to defend the flag or move to the next one in crazy King. Just move to the next white flag as quick as you can. It is not a battleground. It is a foot race. But it is how you win.
Bgs that don't promote conflict and battles are just not well designed. The game should be funnelling players into each other. COD and battlefield do it very well. Being able to run around the outside of a map in a circle to cap empty flags is not how they do it. If I wanted to run as fast as I can from flag to flag and not fight people, I would play sonic at the Olympics.

4 flags means one flag for every individual on a group. The current Domination mode runs very nicely and is quite fun/engaging. If I were to make any change the 5th flag would mean that it’s just baked in for one flag to be certainly weakly guarded. There would always be an impetus to advance for all players

Aldoss wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

- When you enter a BG your level is set to max level, no CP. New players can jump in on day 1 in effect.
- Prior to entering you select from a preset select of gearsets, carefully curated to provide a small set of more balanced sets, potions and food.

This destroys the entire basis of building and progressing/curating your toon that draws so many to this game.

All they need to do is have an mmr that actually changes with wins. The mmr we have currently is terrible at sorting out new players from people who can list every skill and know what sets players are wearing from animations or play style.

Every other mode has the design and build but it can work there. It absolutely does not work in Small Scale BGs.

You have thousands and thousands of set combinations with unique procs that interact with each other. The only other competitive game that works as so are table top card games and those are run with strictly enforced rule sets so as to provide a fair, competitive atmosphere.

I don’t care if it takes the spice out of life but allowing unique set builds in ESO BGs has absolutely ruined it. If it were a tabletop game unkillable tanks would have been banned. Infinite runners in Chaosball would have be banned. BashCro would have been banned.

Battlegrounds is structured PVP, unlike Cyrodiil’s open world Free PVP. ZOS refuses to structure its BGs and so they’re always broken. It’s not actually competitive. It’s a showcase for what broken builds exist.

I see what you are saying. That is not how domination is getting played. People just run around looking for an empty flags. There is no incentive to fight for a flag when you can just cap an empty one. I think it would be worse with an extra flag.
Allowing unique builds has not ruined bgs. Introducing stupidly over tuned sets has ruined bgs. Zos is adamant they can't release a DLC without new and more powerful sets. The real power creep in this game is armour sets. Add to that the procs that keep getting bigger and more disgusting like DC and hrothgar and it creates an opportunity for a toxic pvp environment. Even something like deadlands assassin, did it really need 256 weapon damage on the 5th piece with the proc? Probably not. But zos is determined to make the new set bis to sell more units.

So again I see someone like Sarah advocating for more combat for all forms of BGs. If I were to be a DM player in a domination match and I see one group getting clearly dominant kills (easily seen on the score screen) why would I run into likely certain death and spend up to 20 seconds at a death screen waiting to get back in and do it again?

In Domination, if I notice that a player is likely to kill me at a flag it’s a waste of my time to go back against them again and again. I can look at them, turn tail, and find a flag I can get. That player is then left to make a decision: either follow and risk losing the objective or stay and defend.

And that right there is the problem. Why fight for it when you can run around and find an undefended flag? The game by, by design, should be forcing you into combat for the flag. If you die, get your team mates and try again. Avoiding the battle to cap empty flags should not be a option.

Exactly this. You can't get better and kill other players if the option to win to always abstain from combat and not learn.

It's not overland content.

Just like dungeons. Trials. Etc. There's varying degrees of understanding to complete the content.

trackdemon5512 · November 2021

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

McTaterskins wrote: »

@thesarahandcompany @trackdemon5512

In regard to Domination:
What if flag number was reduced to 3 and they are placed in positions similar to current capture the relic positions? Wouldn't that cause more fighting and also add the challenge of trying to overpower someone's spawn area? (There are multiple directions you can leave your spawn from so would still be able to flank anyway)

In regard to Crazy King:
Doesn't this get up to 3-4 flags currently? Reduce to 2 but not until 2nd half of game timer? I like this one right up until there are too many flags. But that's just me.

What about adding scored points for KB's inside of flag/capture point radii? Would this perhaps cause more fight engagement over objectives?

DOMINATION: Flag number should be increased from 4 to 5. This actually always encourages individuals to be on the offensive looking to get the 5th flag. At the same time it spreads teams thin weakening defense. Battlefield/COD has long played its maps this way. You can’t have all flags without serious compromise. It makes for incredibly engaging matchups for both veterans and regular players.

One flag is the same as having a Deathmatch and then slapping a flag in the middle where everyone battles. Essentially a King of the Hill. The problem there is as we’ve seen it becomes stale when unbalanced teams or meta builds hold.

CRAZY KING: Crazy King is perfect. It starts off as King of the Hill and then devolves as more flags are added and switched around. It’s a constant debate of whether to defend or advance. The addition and removal of flags in random locations is a great touch. I would not change Crazy King.

Domination and Crazy King are the most balanced out of the PVP BG modes. Theyre all player versus player but demand tactical strategy that isn’t demanding. If you play to the the rules you can win, veteran or amateur. Builds and coordinated teams can give you an advantage BUT not one that overshadows the game mode itself

What also needs to be considered is that Kills in modes besides Deathmatch do not count toward the point win. That can’t change because as soon as it does the BG becomes about who kills the most.

All BGs are inherently objective games. Deathmatch is most kills. Domination and Crazy King are most time in the respective zones coupled with the most people. Relic is simply capture. You shouldn’t be able to win relic if you just kill attackers all day. Chaosball is possession and evade.

Chaosball’s issue is that it very much mirrors the “One Flag” type of Domination advocated above but on the move. We see what happens in that player get frustrated when they can’t make any headway. An individual in all speed gear that can’t be caught or a team with unkillable tanks. Just like a blowout Deathmatch is disheartening, so is a Chaosball game where opposing teams never touch the ball and serve as fodder.

These are practical matters of any fair competitive game. Rules and limitations in place that are strictly adhered to in order to maintain the spirit and purpose of the game. You can’t claim you’re the best figure skater in the world by physically taking your opponents out of the competition and assuming the position by default. That’s not the goal of it all.

I can't see 5 flags improving Domination. It is already a game of running in circles. Extra flags just means more places to run. And there is never a debate about whether to defend the flag or move to the next one in crazy King. Just move to the next white flag as quick as you can. It is not a battleground. It is a foot race. But it is how you win.
Bgs that don't promote conflict and battles are just not well designed. The game should be funnelling players into each other. COD and battlefield do it very well. Being able to run around the outside of a map in a circle to cap empty flags is not how they do it. If I wanted to run as fast as I can from flag to flag and not fight people, I would play sonic at the Olympics.

4 flags means one flag for every individual on a group. The current Domination mode runs very nicely and is quite fun/engaging. If I were to make any change the 5th flag would mean that it’s just baked in for one flag to be certainly weakly guarded. There would always be an impetus to advance for all players

Aldoss wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

- When you enter a BG your level is set to max level, no CP. New players can jump in on day 1 in effect.
- Prior to entering you select from a preset select of gearsets, carefully curated to provide a small set of more balanced sets, potions and food.

This destroys the entire basis of building and progressing/curating your toon that draws so many to this game.

All they need to do is have an mmr that actually changes with wins. The mmr we have currently is terrible at sorting out new players from people who can list every skill and know what sets players are wearing from animations or play style.

Every other mode has the design and build but it can work there. It absolutely does not work in Small Scale BGs.

You have thousands and thousands of set combinations with unique procs that interact with each other. The only other competitive game that works as so are table top card games and those are run with strictly enforced rule sets so as to provide a fair, competitive atmosphere.

I don’t care if it takes the spice out of life but allowing unique set builds in ESO BGs has absolutely ruined it. If it were a tabletop game unkillable tanks would have been banned. Infinite runners in Chaosball would have be banned. BashCro would have been banned.

Battlegrounds is structured PVP, unlike Cyrodiil’s open world Free PVP. ZOS refuses to structure its BGs and so they’re always broken. It’s not actually competitive. It’s a showcase for what broken builds exist.

I see what you are saying. That is not how domination is getting played. People just run around looking for an empty flags. There is no incentive to fight for a flag when you can just cap an empty one. I think it would be worse with an extra flag.
Allowing unique builds has not ruined bgs. Introducing stupidly over tuned sets has ruined bgs. Zos is adamant they can't release a DLC without new and more powerful sets. The real power creep in this game is armour sets. Add to that the procs that keep getting bigger and more disgusting like DC and hrothgar and it creates an opportunity for a toxic pvp environment. Even something like deadlands assassin, did it really need 256 weapon damage on the 5th piece with the proc? Probably not. But zos is determined to make the new set bis to sell more units.

So again I see someone like Sarah advocating for more combat for all forms of BGs. If I were to be a DM player in a domination match and I see one group getting clearly dominant kills (easily seen on the score screen) why would I run into likely certain death and spend up to 20 seconds at a death screen waiting to get back in and do it again?

In Domination, if I notice that a player is likely to kill me at a flag it’s a waste of my time to go back against them again and again. I can look at them, turn tail, and find a flag I can get. That player is then left to make a decision: either follow and risk losing the objective or stay and defend.

And that right there is the problem. Why fight for it when you can run around and find an undefended flag? The game by, by design, should be forcing you into combat for the flag. If you die, get your team mates and try again. Avoiding the battle to cap empty flags should not be a option.

Except in EVERY other domination game ever devised the goal has always been capture the flags and kills a distant second. Domination has ALWAYS been about capture and hold more flags simultaneously than the opponents. In 30 years of video game multiplayer that has always been the deal.

If a player as a combatant can’t focus on both killing while simultaneously capturing and continuously holding multiple flags that’s on them. If they can’t prioritize capture over kills because the former nets more points then again that’s on them.

Like I said before, players on this forum continue to advocate for a shrinking or elimination of objective matches in order to better appeal to the DM crowd. However that just strays farther from what a Domination match must be to actually be Domination.

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

McTaterskins wrote: »

@thesarahandcompany

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

This doesn't get at the fundamental issue that objective modes are unengaging. The DM community has been pretty consistent with its views that we need to quit talking about queues and trying fifty-million-and-one ways to redo the queues, and instead need to talk about ways to make objective modes more engaging and eliminating the three team structure.

We play deathmatch because it's the most engaging form for BG pvp. It's time to move on from endless debate about queues that are just fighting for crumbs in the end.

ZOS needs to deliver new, engaging content. We haven't had a serious PVP update in forever besides some new sets that are never tested appropriately that a barebones mmo released and caused the BG community to die out mostly.

I'd rather just delete objective modes before changing the queue here as you suggest.

What are your thoughts on making the other modes more engaging? Its not so much about redoing the queues again as to how to get more people to queue in the random bucket. Imo, such a thing as you've touched on here would result in populating the random queue.

@ealdwin

ealdwin wrote: »

I also feel that ZOS should at least try what happens when they don't backfill the DM-only queue with the Random queue. Just try it for a patch and see if it has any effect. Merge the Group and Solo Random queues if they have to. Just try it. It's not like they're shy about running tests on live. (cough Cyrodiil cough).

Agreed. Imo couldn't hurt any more than any of the other things that have been endured.

1. Reduce the number of teams in all battleground modes down to two. Make the matches 6v6. In a hypothetical matchup, that would allow for one of every class to be potentially represented in a 6v6 matchup.

2. Improve guard, shields and other tank skills to be useful in BGs, and add a new reported stat in the final BG stats for shielded damage that reports how much damage you shielded an ally from with a shield, set that shields, maims, and guard skill. Add minor evasion to propelling shield. This would give tanks a more viable role in PVP than just holding block and add some semblance of range vs. melee back into the game.

3. Reduce the number of flags in domination down to ONE flag. Reduce the number of flags in crazy king down to ONE flag, though allow the flag to move around the map. Reduce the number of relics down to one, at the center stage similar to chaos ball. Apply a snare and major defile to people holding the chaos ball or a relic. Decrease the number of points holding the chaos ball awards. Chaos ball has a 15 second delay or so until damage starts ticking.

auz · November 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

McTaterskins wrote: »

@thesarahandcompany @trackdemon5512

In regard to Domination:
What if flag number was reduced to 3 and they are placed in positions similar to current capture the relic positions? Wouldn't that cause more fighting and also add the challenge of trying to overpower someone's spawn area? (There are multiple directions you can leave your spawn from so would still be able to flank anyway)

In regard to Crazy King:
Doesn't this get up to 3-4 flags currently? Reduce to 2 but not until 2nd half of game timer? I like this one right up until there are too many flags. But that's just me.

What about adding scored points for KB's inside of flag/capture point radii? Would this perhaps cause more fight engagement over objectives?

DOMINATION: Flag number should be increased from 4 to 5. This actually always encourages individuals to be on the offensive looking to get the 5th flag. At the same time it spreads teams thin weakening defense. Battlefield/COD has long played its maps this way. You can’t have all flags without serious compromise. It makes for incredibly engaging matchups for both veterans and regular players.

One flag is the same as having a Deathmatch and then slapping a flag in the middle where everyone battles. Essentially a King of the Hill. The problem there is as we’ve seen it becomes stale when unbalanced teams or meta builds hold.

CRAZY KING: Crazy King is perfect. It starts off as King of the Hill and then devolves as more flags are added and switched around. It’s a constant debate of whether to defend or advance. The addition and removal of flags in random locations is a great touch. I would not change Crazy King.

Domination and Crazy King are the most balanced out of the PVP BG modes. Theyre all player versus player but demand tactical strategy that isn’t demanding. If you play to the the rules you can win, veteran or amateur. Builds and coordinated teams can give you an advantage BUT not one that overshadows the game mode itself

What also needs to be considered is that Kills in modes besides Deathmatch do not count toward the point win. That can’t change because as soon as it does the BG becomes about who kills the most.

All BGs are inherently objective games. Deathmatch is most kills. Domination and Crazy King are most time in the respective zones coupled with the most people. Relic is simply capture. You shouldn’t be able to win relic if you just kill attackers all day. Chaosball is possession and evade.

Chaosball’s issue is that it very much mirrors the “One Flag” type of Domination advocated above but on the move. We see what happens in that player get frustrated when they can’t make any headway. An individual in all speed gear that can’t be caught or a team with unkillable tanks. Just like a blowout Deathmatch is disheartening, so is a Chaosball game where opposing teams never touch the ball and serve as fodder.

These are practical matters of any fair competitive game. Rules and limitations in place that are strictly adhered to in order to maintain the spirit and purpose of the game. You can’t claim you’re the best figure skater in the world by physically taking your opponents out of the competition and assuming the position by default. That’s not the goal of it all.

I can't see 5 flags improving Domination. It is already a game of running in circles. Extra flags just means more places to run. And there is never a debate about whether to defend the flag or move to the next one in crazy King. Just move to the next white flag as quick as you can. It is not a battleground. It is a foot race. But it is how you win.
Bgs that don't promote conflict and battles are just not well designed. The game should be funnelling players into each other. COD and battlefield do it very well. Being able to run around the outside of a map in a circle to cap empty flags is not how they do it. If I wanted to run as fast as I can from flag to flag and not fight people, I would play sonic at the Olympics.

4 flags means one flag for every individual on a group. The current Domination mode runs very nicely and is quite fun/engaging. If I were to make any change the 5th flag would mean that it’s just baked in for one flag to be certainly weakly guarded. There would always be an impetus to advance for all players

Aldoss wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

- When you enter a BG your level is set to max level, no CP. New players can jump in on day 1 in effect.
- Prior to entering you select from a preset select of gearsets, carefully curated to provide a small set of more balanced sets, potions and food.

This destroys the entire basis of building and progressing/curating your toon that draws so many to this game.

All they need to do is have an mmr that actually changes with wins. The mmr we have currently is terrible at sorting out new players from people who can list every skill and know what sets players are wearing from animations or play style.

Every other mode has the design and build but it can work there. It absolutely does not work in Small Scale BGs.

You have thousands and thousands of set combinations with unique procs that interact with each other. The only other competitive game that works as so are table top card games and those are run with strictly enforced rule sets so as to provide a fair, competitive atmosphere.

I don’t care if it takes the spice out of life but allowing unique set builds in ESO BGs has absolutely ruined it. If it were a tabletop game unkillable tanks would have been banned. Infinite runners in Chaosball would have be banned. BashCro would have been banned.

Battlegrounds is structured PVP, unlike Cyrodiil’s open world Free PVP. ZOS refuses to structure its BGs and so they’re always broken. It’s not actually competitive. It’s a showcase for what broken builds exist.

I see what you are saying. That is not how domination is getting played. People just run around looking for an empty flags. There is no incentive to fight for a flag when you can just cap an empty one. I think it would be worse with an extra flag.
Allowing unique builds has not ruined bgs. Introducing stupidly over tuned sets has ruined bgs. Zos is adamant they can't release a DLC without new and more powerful sets. The real power creep in this game is armour sets. Add to that the procs that keep getting bigger and more disgusting like DC and hrothgar and it creates an opportunity for a toxic pvp environment. Even something like deadlands assassin, did it really need 256 weapon damage on the 5th piece with the proc? Probably not. But zos is determined to make the new set bis to sell more units.

So again I see someone like Sarah advocating for more combat for all forms of BGs. If I were to be a DM player in a domination match and I see one group getting clearly dominant kills (easily seen on the score screen) why would I run into likely certain death and spend up to 20 seconds at a death screen waiting to get back in and do it again?

In Domination, if I notice that a player is likely to kill me at a flag it’s a waste of my time to go back against them again and again. I can look at them, turn tail, and find a flag I can get. That player is then left to make a decision: either follow and risk losing the objective or stay and defend.

And that right there is the problem. Why fight for it when you can run around and find an undefended flag? The game by, by design, should be forcing you into combat for the flag. If you die, get your team mates and try again. Avoiding the battle to cap empty flags should not be a option.

Except in EVERY other domination game ever devised the goal has always been capture the flags and kills a distant second. Domination has ALWAYS been about capture and hold more flags simultaneously than the opponents. In 30 years of video game multiplayer that has always been the deal.

If a player as a combatant can’t focus on both killing while simultaneously capturing and continuously holding multiple flags that’s on them. If they can’t prioritize capture over kills because the former nets more points then again that’s on them.

Like I said before, players on this forum continue to advocate for a shrinking or elimination of objective matches in order to better appeal to the DM crowd. However that just strays farther from what a Domination match must be to actually be Domination.

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

McTaterskins wrote: »

@thesarahandcompany

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

This doesn't get at the fundamental issue that objective modes are unengaging. The DM community has been pretty consistent with its views that we need to quit talking about queues and trying fifty-million-and-one ways to redo the queues, and instead need to talk about ways to make objective modes more engaging and eliminating the three team structure.

We play deathmatch because it's the most engaging form for BG pvp. It's time to move on from endless debate about queues that are just fighting for crumbs in the end.

ZOS needs to deliver new, engaging content. We haven't had a serious PVP update in forever besides some new sets that are never tested appropriately that a barebones mmo released and caused the BG community to die out mostly.

I'd rather just delete objective modes before changing the queue here as you suggest.

What are your thoughts on making the other modes more engaging? Its not so much about redoing the queues again as to how to get more people to queue in the random bucket. Imo, such a thing as you've touched on here would result in populating the random queue.

@ealdwin

ealdwin wrote: »

I also feel that ZOS should at least try what happens when they don't backfill the DM-only queue with the Random queue. Just try it for a patch and see if it has any effect. Merge the Group and Solo Random queues if they have to. Just try it. It's not like they're shy about running tests on live. (cough Cyrodiil cough).

Agreed. Imo couldn't hurt any more than any of the other things that have been endured.

1. Reduce the number of teams in all battleground modes down to two. Make the matches 6v6. In a hypothetical matchup, that would allow for one of every class to be potentially represented in a 6v6 matchup.

2. Improve guard, shields and other tank skills to be useful in BGs, and add a new reported stat in the final BG stats for shielded damage that reports how much damage you shielded an ally from with a shield, set that shields, maims, and guard skill. Add minor evasion to propelling shield. This would give tanks a more viable role in PVP than just holding block and add some semblance of range vs. melee back into the game.

3. Reduce the number of flags in domination down to ONE flag. Reduce the number of flags in crazy king down to ONE flag, though allow the flag to move around the map. Reduce the number of relics down to one, at the center stage similar to chaos ball. Apply a snare and major defile to people holding the chaos ball or a relic. Decrease the number of points holding the chaos ball awards. Chaos ball has a 15 second delay or so until damage starts ticking.

I am not debating the objective of domination. I know how domination works.
The difference between those games and this game is the maps funnel you into points where you have to fight for the flag. I have no problem with objective games that promote conflict. But bgs domination at the moment don't do that. In fact you can score a lot better and faster by not fighting at all. That is not good game design. That is why so many were asking for DM queue. Because so many of the objective games do not encourage fighting and/ or actively reward not fighting or troll builds.

ealdwin · November 2021

Alright, here's an alternate idea regarding Domination.

Rather than change the number of flags on the field, make each flag weighted differently point wise. So, each of the 3 outer ring flags might be worth 1X points for holding onto them and the center flag might be worth 2X points for holding onto it.

Objective modes should promote strategy. Picking and choosing fights in order to determine what the best outcome for victory is. But, they should also promote fights and conflict. If decreasing to one flag simply changes the game to "mindless" clashes in the center, but too many flags means a game of ring-around-the-rosy where fights are less likely to happen, then perhaps the issue isn't the number of flags, but rather that they don't encourage fights.

By making the center flag more valuable, it means that beating the team holding it requires controlling all of the outer flags. Or, it means assaulting the center flag and taking it over. The weight would increase the number of pushes for the center ideally, since maintaining the outer ring would mean more spread (and therefore less sturdy) defense.

It's an idea.

(Also, ZOS, needs to test having the Random Queue not backfill the DM only queue.)

McTaterskins · November 2021

Really enjoying this conversation.

I think some roots have been identified here throughout.

The debate seems to be on what the proper level of engagement should be and how to get there. It also seems that a rather consistently agreed upon point would be that there needs to be a real MMR system in order to place any modifications that would help objective modes lead to more combat engagement.

I'll make an update to the OP. Lets keep this going. Perhaps some new contributors to the conversation will join.

Side note:
My friends and I only queued random on Xbox NA this weekend as an experiment. Late Saturday night, we got a string of consecutive Capture the Relic, Crazy King, and Chaos ball games. Sunday, we saw 2 crazy kings. The rest were all death match.

Was probably about 30 games over the weekend. All in all:
2 Relic
2 Chaos Ball
1 Domination
3 Crazy King
22 Death Match

Funny part? At least 2 of those matches saw 2 teams just DMing at one of the spawns. - Weird given that it was all random queue, right?

The rest of the matches were an OK mix of people DMing and doing the objectives. Reality? A lot of people squirrel into DM'ing anyway. Lol.

Thoughts on that? Amongst the other discussion points.

trackdemon5512 · November 2021

ealdwin wrote: »

Alright, here's an alternate idea regarding Domination.

Rather than change the number of flags on the field, make each flag weighted differently point wise. So, each of the 3 outer ring flags might be worth 1X points for holding onto them and the center flag might be worth 2X points for holding onto it.

Objective modes should promote strategy. Picking and choosing fights in order to determine what the best outcome for victory is. But, they should also promote fights and conflict. If decreasing to one flag simply changes the game to "mindless" clashes in the center, but too many flags means a game of ring-around-the-rosy where fights are less likely to happen, then perhaps the issue isn't the number of flags, but rather that they don't encourage fights.

By making the center flag more valuable, it means that beating the team holding it requires controlling all of the outer flags. Or, it means assaulting the center flag and taking it over. The weight would increase the number of pushes for the center ideally, since maintaining the outer ring would mean more spread (and therefore less sturdy) defense.

It's an idea.

(Also, ZOS, needs to test having the Random Queue not backfill the DM only queue.)

I get what your saying but even currently it’s 4 flags for 3 teams of 4 players each. 1 flag per player on a team.

If players going after objectives are able to slink around to other flags that are perpetually empty because no one else is on them that’s not on the developer. That’s on the players who just want to fight.

Players who want fewer flags to lead other players to their group completely miss the point of a domination match which is to Divide and Conquer. Yes you are given an advantage of flipping a flag faster by staying as a group but that’s offset by the group only getting one flag at a time. You can split that power up and get more flags but it leaves you more vulnerable.

DM players here would just like to stay as that mindless powerful prebuilt mob and win king-of-the-hill type matches rather than engage in any actual strategy. I’m completely against that because it’s essentially exactly how Deathmatches are right now with their unhealthy behavior being fed by a funnel system.

_adhyffbjjjf12 · November 2021

McTaterskins wrote: »

Really enjoying this conversation.

I think some roots have been identified here throughout.

The debate seems to be on what the proper level of engagement should be and how to get there. It also seems that a rather consistently agreed upon point would be that there needs to be a real MMR system in order to place any modifications that would help objective modes lead to more combat engagement.

I'll make an update to the OP. Lets keep this going. Perhaps some new contributors to the conversation will join.

Side note:
My friends and I only queue random on Xbox NA this weekend. Late Saturday night, we got a string of consecutive Capture the Relic, Crazy King, and Chaos ball games. Sunday, we saw 2 crazy kings. The rest were all death match.

Was probably about 30 games over the weekend. All in all:
2 Relic
2 Chaos Ball
1 Domination
3 Crazy King
22 Death Match

Funny part? At least 2 of those matches saw 2 teams just DMing at one of the spawns. - Weird given that it was all random queue, right?

The rest of the matches were an OK mix of people DMing and doing the objectives. Reality? A lot of people squirrel into DM'ing anyway. Lol.

Thoughts on that? Amongst the other discussion points.

Objective based PVP is basically DM enriched with additional layers of complexity i.e in the distant past there was just DM, then things evolved.

Aldoss · November 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Except in EVERY other domination game ever devised the goal has always been capture the flags and kills a distant second. Domination has ALWAYS been about capture and hold more flags simultaneously than the opponents. In 30 years of video game multiplayer that has always been the deal.

In 30 years of domination type video games, how many of those had 3 teams?

Halo? Kill players, cap flags.
COD? Kill players, cap flags.
Battlefield? Kill players, cap flags.
LoL/DotA? Kill players, kill towers.
Fortnite/PUBG/Apex Legends? Kill players, don't die.

This is the most confusing debate, arguing that PvP modes need less PvP...

It's like debating that the rules of chess should be changed so that you can win without ever taking your opponents pieces.

To me, it's clear that the poor game design implemented by ZOS actively works against the pursuit of teaching, learning, and growing new comers into the PvP aspect of the game. It's a haven that rewards someone for abstaining and avoiding PvP, directly working against the goal of growing the PvP community.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

In Domination, if I notice that a player is likely to kill me at a flag it’s a waste of my time to go back against them again and again.

Tell me this, if you were equipped with the knowledge as to how to engage, survive, and possibly kill that defender, would you? Should this game not reward someone for pursuing that knowledge?

McTaterskins · November 2021

Aldoss wrote: »

Tell me this, if you were equipped with the knowledge as to how to engage, survive, and possibly kill that defender, would you? Should this game not reward someone for pursuing that knowledge?

This is a good point. - What do you think gets it there?

Magio_ · November 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

I’m able to employ such a strategy in BGs precisely because DMers don’t care. And yet they get frustrated when they lose. That’s on them.

What? PvP'ers don't care about losing ESO objective modes. If you want to make us feel like we lost, outkill us. Winning or losing them has no value cuz it's objectively bad PvP. If ESO objective modes were good PvP, "DMers" would enjoy playing them and objective modes probably wouldn't have the population problem they have now.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

I have no problem with a group of four that can cover all four flags in a Domination match. That takes coordination when you have 8 other players seeking to take them away. But the DM advocates here seem to want to roll that back and remove strategy. Power wins out no matter what. And then it becomes a meta race. It’s boring and the majority of people quit. Those who don’t like Deathmatch quit and those who do like Deathmatch but get sick of a singular playstyle quit.

If you believe DM takes no strategy, you've just not discovered it. Maybe that's why you don't like it? See, I know the best strategy to Objective Modes. The problem is it's boring to me. I'm sure I can speak for the hundreds of people in the DM BG community I'm part of. It's exactly as you've posted. Wait for people to engage in combat and instead of joining in, you go look for an empty flag. I'm sorry, but that's not fun for the majority of PvPers.

Aldoss wrote: »

In 30 years of domination type video games, how many of those had 3 teams?

Halo? Kill players, cap flags.
COD? Kill players, cap flags.
Battlefield? Kill players, cap flags.
LoL/DotA? Kill players, kill towers.
Fortnite/PUBG/Apex Legends? Kill players, don't die.

This is the most confusing debate, arguing that PvP modes need less PvP...

3 teams creates a huge problem, but to be honest that's not the end of it all. Imagine if someone on the Terrorist team in CS:GO could make a build loadout that made them be able to tank but do no damage and just be able to place the bomb while being shot at by the whole enemy team without dying. That's what ESO objectives are. Unbalanced, unengaging and unfun for the majority.

trackdemon5512 · November 2021

Aldoss wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Except in EVERY other domination game ever devised the goal has always been capture the flags and kills a distant second. Domination has ALWAYS been about capture and hold more flags simultaneously than the opponents. In 30 years of video game multiplayer that has always been the deal.

In 30 years of domination type video games, how many of those had 3 teams?

Halo? Kill players, cap flags.
COD? Kill players, cap flags.
Battlefield? Kill players, cap flags.
LoL/DotA? Kill players, kill towers.
Fortnite/PUBG/Apex Legends? Kill players, don't die.

This is the most confusing debate, arguing that PvP modes need less PvP...

It's like debating that the rules of chess should be changed so that you can win without ever taking your opponents pieces.

To me, it's clear that the poor game design implemented by ZOS actively works against the pursuit of teaching, learning, and growing new comers into the PvP aspect of the game. It's a haven that rewards someone for abstaining and avoiding PvP, directly working against the goal of growing the PvP community.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

In Domination, if I notice that a player is likely to kill me at a flag it’s a waste of my time to go back against them again and again.

Tell me this, if you were equipped with the knowledge as to how to engage, survive, and possibly kill that defender, would you? Should this game not reward someone for pursuing that knowledge?

@McTaterskins

Well I have to debate internally don’t I?

Does it take more time to engage said player(s), attempt to get the flag knowing full well other teammates of theirs could show up, and make this a possibly futile effort?

Or is it faster to go for an undefended flag, flip it, and get points towards winning?

The first option has combat but no guarantee of success and no points gained for the team effort while in fighting on said flag. If said player(s) had high sustain/self heals and procs I’m wasting my time.

The second option has low resistance. Sure I let my opponents hold onto their current objectives but Im more likely to guarantee my team stays competitive by at least accumulating some points rather than none. And after I have the unguarded flag I can group up with my team and attempt that guarded flag. OR I could stay on the one flag I potentially took and accumulate points.

Should I not be rewarded for critically analyzing the situation and making the best decision so as to keep my team gaining points?

If I die that’s up to 20 seconds my team is short a player. 20 seconds one flag can’t be defended or assaulted by my character. 20 seconds potentially wasted.

Deathmatchers make the same exact strategy calculations in their matches. If my 3 team members are dead after an engagement, does one rush in kamikaze style to hopefully get a kill? Or do they fall back, wait to regroup and attempt a proper assault?

I know I always retreat because I have no idea when the respawn clock will reset. It’s not like console has an HUD setting showing the periodic refresh. If I die at the wrong time my team could respawn without me and instead of a regrouped 4vX it’s now 3vX.

These are the things constantly going through the mind in a proper battleground match. But apparently from the Deathmatch crowd here all they want to do is dumb down the other modes and just make them battle royales.

ealdwin · November 2021

Alternate Idea Regarding Capture the Relic

ESO's symbol is an Ouroboros, no? Change CTR to operate along those guidelines. For example:

Orange can capture Green's Relic, but not Purple's
Green can capture Purple's Relic, but not Orange's
Purple can capture Orange's Relic, but not Green's

No longer would one team be able to just grab relics while the other two are fighting. You either get lucky and your target team lowers their defenses, or you have to overpower their defenses to get the relic.

(Assuming that changing the structure of BGs from three teams to two teams would be a larger technical feat for ZOS than changing the rules of the mode)

(Also, ZOS needs to test separating the Random Queue from the DM only so the Random queue no longer backfills the DM only bucket.)

auz · November 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Except in EVERY other domination game ever devised the goal has always been capture the flags and kills a distant second. Domination has ALWAYS been about capture and hold more flags simultaneously than the opponents. In 30 years of video game multiplayer that has always been the deal.

In 30 years of domination type video games, how many of those had 3 teams?

Halo? Kill players, cap flags.
COD? Kill players, cap flags.
Battlefield? Kill players, cap flags.
LoL/DotA? Kill players, kill towers.
Fortnite/PUBG/Apex Legends? Kill players, don't die.

This is the most confusing debate, arguing that PvP modes need less PvP...

It's like debating that the rules of chess should be changed so that you can win without ever taking your opponents pieces.

To me, it's clear that the poor game design implemented by ZOS actively works against the pursuit of teaching, learning, and growing new comers into the PvP aspect of the game. It's a haven that rewards someone for abstaining and avoiding PvP, directly working against the goal of growing the PvP community.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

In Domination, if I notice that a player is likely to kill me at a flag it’s a waste of my time to go back against them again and again.

Tell me this, if you were equipped with the knowledge as to how to engage, survive, and possibly kill that defender, would you? Should this game not reward someone for pursuing that knowledge?

@McTaterskins

Well I have to debate internally don’t I?

Does it take more time to engage said player(s), attempt to get the flag knowing full well other teammates of theirs could show up, and make this a possibly futile effort?

Or is it faster to go for an undefended flag, flip it, and get points towards winning?

The first option has combat but no guarantee of success and no points gained for the team effort while in fighting on said flag. If said player(s) had high sustain/self heals and procs I’m wasting my time.

The second option has low resistance. Sure I let my opponents hold onto their current objectives but Im more likely to guarantee my team stays competitive by at least accumulating some points rather than none. And after I have the unguarded flag I can group up with my team and attempt that guarded flag. OR I could stay on the one flag I potentially took and accumulate points.

Should I not be rewarded for critically analyzing the situation and making the best decision so as to keep my team gaining points?

If I die that’s up to 20 seconds my team is short a player. 20 seconds one flag can’t be defended or assaulted by my character. 20 seconds potentially wasted.

Deathmatchers make the same exact strategy calculations in their matches. If my 3 team members are dead after an engagement, does one rush in kamikaze style to hopefully get a kill? Or do they fall back, wait to regroup and attempt a proper assault?

I know I always retreat because I have no idea when the respawn clock will reset. It’s not like console has an HUD setting showing the periodic refresh. If I die at the wrong time my team could respawn without me and instead of a regrouped 4vX it’s now 3vX.

These are the things constantly going through the mind in a proper battleground match. But apparently from the Deathmatch crowd here all they want to do is dumb down the other modes and just make them battle royales.

You are being rewarded for your 'critical' thinking.
And you have just successfully avoided a fight in a bg. Well done.
Do you really think you are 'out smarting' the other teams? Or are they just having fun and don't care?
Your critical strategy is not genius. It is as basic and tedious a strategy as you can get.
And once again, no one is debating how to win domination. We are saying domination is crap, because running away from the fight is the best strategy.

trackdemon5512 · November 2021

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Except in EVERY other domination game ever devised the goal has always been capture the flags and kills a distant second. Domination has ALWAYS been about capture and hold more flags simultaneously than the opponents. In 30 years of video game multiplayer that has always been the deal.

In 30 years of domination type video games, how many of those had 3 teams?

Halo? Kill players, cap flags.
COD? Kill players, cap flags.
Battlefield? Kill players, cap flags.
LoL/DotA? Kill players, kill towers.
Fortnite/PUBG/Apex Legends? Kill players, don't die.

This is the most confusing debate, arguing that PvP modes need less PvP...

It's like debating that the rules of chess should be changed so that you can win without ever taking your opponents pieces.

To me, it's clear that the poor game design implemented by ZOS actively works against the pursuit of teaching, learning, and growing new comers into the PvP aspect of the game. It's a haven that rewards someone for abstaining and avoiding PvP, directly working against the goal of growing the PvP community.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

In Domination, if I notice that a player is likely to kill me at a flag it’s a waste of my time to go back against them again and again.

Tell me this, if you were equipped with the knowledge as to how to engage, survive, and possibly kill that defender, would you? Should this game not reward someone for pursuing that knowledge?

@McTaterskins

Well I have to debate internally don’t I?

Does it take more time to engage said player(s), attempt to get the flag knowing full well other teammates of theirs could show up, and make this a possibly futile effort?

Or is it faster to go for an undefended flag, flip it, and get points towards winning?

The first option has combat but no guarantee of success and no points gained for the team effort while in fighting on said flag. If said player(s) had high sustain/self heals and procs I’m wasting my time.

The second option has low resistance. Sure I let my opponents hold onto their current objectives but Im more likely to guarantee my team stays competitive by at least accumulating some points rather than none. And after I have the unguarded flag I can group up with my team and attempt that guarded flag. OR I could stay on the one flag I potentially took and accumulate points.

Should I not be rewarded for critically analyzing the situation and making the best decision so as to keep my team gaining points?

If I die that’s up to 20 seconds my team is short a player. 20 seconds one flag can’t be defended or assaulted by my character. 20 seconds potentially wasted.

Deathmatchers make the same exact strategy calculations in their matches. If my 3 team members are dead after an engagement, does one rush in kamikaze style to hopefully get a kill? Or do they fall back, wait to regroup and attempt a proper assault?

I know I always retreat because I have no idea when the respawn clock will reset. It’s not like console has an HUD setting showing the periodic refresh. If I die at the wrong time my team could respawn without me and instead of a regrouped 4vX it’s now 3vX.

These are the things constantly going through the mind in a proper battleground match. But apparently from the Deathmatch crowd here all they want to do is dumb down the other modes and just make them battle royales.

You are being rewarded for your 'critical' thinking.
And you have just successfully avoided a fight in a bg. Well done.
Do you really think you are 'out smarting' the other teams? Or are they just having fun and don't care?
Your critical strategy is not genius. It is as basic and tedious a strategy as you can get.
And once again, no one is debating how to win domination. We are saying domination is crap, because running away from the fight is the best strategy.

It doesn’t have to be brilliant. I’m winning because I still “outsmarted” the other team. DM players seem to be frustrated that they lose a match where even though they get the most kills they failed because they ignored the objective.

I win. I get my top rewards each day. I don’t have to come back.

Yet the Deathmatchers remain salty. If they lose to such a basic strategy then really that’s on them.

auz · November 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Except in EVERY other domination game ever devised the goal has always been capture the flags and kills a distant second. Domination has ALWAYS been about capture and hold more flags simultaneously than the opponents. In 30 years of video game multiplayer that has always been the deal.

In 30 years of domination type video games, how many of those had 3 teams?

Halo? Kill players, cap flags.
COD? Kill players, cap flags.
Battlefield? Kill players, cap flags.
LoL/DotA? Kill players, kill towers.
Fortnite/PUBG/Apex Legends? Kill players, don't die.

This is the most confusing debate, arguing that PvP modes need less PvP...

It's like debating that the rules of chess should be changed so that you can win without ever taking your opponents pieces.

To me, it's clear that the poor game design implemented by ZOS actively works against the pursuit of teaching, learning, and growing new comers into the PvP aspect of the game. It's a haven that rewards someone for abstaining and avoiding PvP, directly working against the goal of growing the PvP community.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

In Domination, if I notice that a player is likely to kill me at a flag it’s a waste of my time to go back against them again and again.

Tell me this, if you were equipped with the knowledge as to how to engage, survive, and possibly kill that defender, would you? Should this game not reward someone for pursuing that knowledge?

@McTaterskins

Well I have to debate internally don’t I?

Does it take more time to engage said player(s), attempt to get the flag knowing full well other teammates of theirs could show up, and make this a possibly futile effort?

Or is it faster to go for an undefended flag, flip it, and get points towards winning?

The first option has combat but no guarantee of success and no points gained for the team effort while in fighting on said flag. If said player(s) had high sustain/self heals and procs I’m wasting my time.

The second option has low resistance. Sure I let my opponents hold onto their current objectives but Im more likely to guarantee my team stays competitive by at least accumulating some points rather than none. And after I have the unguarded flag I can group up with my team and attempt that guarded flag. OR I could stay on the one flag I potentially took and accumulate points.

Should I not be rewarded for critically analyzing the situation and making the best decision so as to keep my team gaining points?

If I die that’s up to 20 seconds my team is short a player. 20 seconds one flag can’t be defended or assaulted by my character. 20 seconds potentially wasted.

Deathmatchers make the same exact strategy calculations in their matches. If my 3 team members are dead after an engagement, does one rush in kamikaze style to hopefully get a kill? Or do they fall back, wait to regroup and attempt a proper assault?

I know I always retreat because I have no idea when the respawn clock will reset. It’s not like console has an HUD setting showing the periodic refresh. If I die at the wrong time my team could respawn without me and instead of a regrouped 4vX it’s now 3vX.

These are the things constantly going through the mind in a proper battleground match. But apparently from the Deathmatch crowd here all they want to do is dumb down the other modes and just make them battle royales.

You are being rewarded for your 'critical' thinking.
And you have just successfully avoided a fight in a bg. Well done.
Do you really think you are 'out smarting' the other teams? Or are they just having fun and don't care?
Your critical strategy is not genius. It is as basic and tedious a strategy as you can get.
And once again, no one is debating how to win domination. We are saying domination is crap, because running away from the fight is the best strategy.

It doesn’t have to be brilliant. I’m winning because I still “outsmarted” the other team. DM players seem to be frustrated that they lose a match where even though they get the most kills they failed because they ignored the objective.

I win. I get my top rewards each day. I don’t have to come back.

Yet the Deathmatchers remain salty. If they lose to such a basic strategy then really that’s on them.

Again, not debating the merits of your strategy. Discussing if said strategy is appropriate to be the consistently winning strategy or best strategy to create an engaging pvp encounter/ game mode.
As you have just said you are only in bgs for the daily reward, I really don't think bgs should be designed around opinions like this. And there is probably not much point in continuing this conversation. For what it is worth, I hope you get your game modes to suit your casual requirements, so you can get your rewards and avoid the 'meta' pvpers that will hopefully be engaging in meaningful, well thought out combat in newly designed game modes. And no, we are not salty at you for winning ring around the rosy. If we cared we would have tried and we would have beat you.

Magio_ · November 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

It doesn’t have to be brilliant. I’m winning because I still “outsmarted” the other team. DM players seem to be frustrated that they lose a match where even though they get the most kills they failed because they ignored the objective.

I win. I get my top rewards each day. I don’t have to come back.

Yet the Deathmatchers remain salty. If they lose to such a basic strategy then really that’s on them.

Everybody knows the meta to winning Objective Modes. It's boring to the majority who want to PvP. Nobody is salty they're losing a mode that requires us to be bored out of our mind to win. Jfc, is that what you actually believe? [snip]

PvPers don't want to queue for boring PvP. Many PvErs avoid any PvP like the plague. ESO's Objective Mode BGs are in an awkward middle ground where it can't pull enough people from either side to consistently queue up for them and can't afford their own specific queue.

ZOS can keep Objective Modes the way they presently are for all PvPers care, just don't expect to get your queue anytime soon because if objective modes get their own queue, it will never pop. That's a statement by ZOS after seeing not enough people are using the Random Queue.

P.S. I can't fathom caring about the daily or even weekly rewards as they are now.

[edited for flaming]

trackdemon5512 · November 2021

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

auz wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Except in EVERY other domination game ever devised the goal has always been capture the flags and kills a distant second. Domination has ALWAYS been about capture and hold more flags simultaneously than the opponents. In 30 years of video game multiplayer that has always been the deal.

In 30 years of domination type video games, how many of those had 3 teams?

Halo? Kill players, cap flags.
COD? Kill players, cap flags.
Battlefield? Kill players, cap flags.
LoL/DotA? Kill players, kill towers.
Fortnite/PUBG/Apex Legends? Kill players, don't die.

This is the most confusing debate, arguing that PvP modes need less PvP...

It's like debating that the rules of chess should be changed so that you can win without ever taking your opponents pieces.

To me, it's clear that the poor game design implemented by ZOS actively works against the pursuit of teaching, learning, and growing new comers into the PvP aspect of the game. It's a haven that rewards someone for abstaining and avoiding PvP, directly working against the goal of growing the PvP community.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

In Domination, if I notice that a player is likely to kill me at a flag it’s a waste of my time to go back against them again and again.

Tell me this, if you were equipped with the knowledge as to how to engage, survive, and possibly kill that defender, would you? Should this game not reward someone for pursuing that knowledge?

@McTaterskins

Well I have to debate internally don’t I?

Does it take more time to engage said player(s), attempt to get the flag knowing full well other teammates of theirs could show up, and make this a possibly futile effort?

Or is it faster to go for an undefended flag, flip it, and get points towards winning?

The first option has combat but no guarantee of success and no points gained for the team effort while in fighting on said flag. If said player(s) had high sustain/self heals and procs I’m wasting my time.

The second option has low resistance. Sure I let my opponents hold onto their current objectives but Im more likely to guarantee my team stays competitive by at least accumulating some points rather than none. And after I have the unguarded flag I can group up with my team and attempt that guarded flag. OR I could stay on the one flag I potentially took and accumulate points.

Should I not be rewarded for critically analyzing the situation and making the best decision so as to keep my team gaining points?

If I die that’s up to 20 seconds my team is short a player. 20 seconds one flag can’t be defended or assaulted by my character. 20 seconds potentially wasted.

Deathmatchers make the same exact strategy calculations in their matches. If my 3 team members are dead after an engagement, does one rush in kamikaze style to hopefully get a kill? Or do they fall back, wait to regroup and attempt a proper assault?

I know I always retreat because I have no idea when the respawn clock will reset. It’s not like console has an HUD setting showing the periodic refresh. If I die at the wrong time my team could respawn without me and instead of a regrouped 4vX it’s now 3vX.

These are the things constantly going through the mind in a proper battleground match. But apparently from the Deathmatch crowd here all they want to do is dumb down the other modes and just make them battle royales.

You are being rewarded for your 'critical' thinking.
And you have just successfully avoided a fight in a bg. Well done.
Do you really think you are 'out smarting' the other teams? Or are they just having fun and don't care?
Your critical strategy is not genius. It is as basic and tedious a strategy as you can get.
And once again, no one is debating how to win domination. We are saying domination is crap, because running away from the fight is the best strategy.

It doesn’t have to be brilliant. I’m winning because I still “outsmarted” the other team. DM players seem to be frustrated that they lose a match where even though they get the most kills they failed because they ignored the objective.

I win. I get my top rewards each day. I don’t have to come back.

Yet the Deathmatchers remain salty. If they lose to such a basic strategy then really that’s on them.

Again, not debating the merits of your strategy. Discussing if said strategy is appropriate to be the consistently winning strategy or best strategy to create an engaging pvp encounter/ game mode.
As you have just said you are only in bgs for the daily reward, I really don't think bgs should be designed around opinions like this. And there is probably not much point in continuing this conversation. For what it is worth, I hope you get your game modes to suit your casual requirements, so you can get your rewards and avoid the 'meta' pvpers that will hopefully be engaging in meaningful, well thought out combat in newly designed game modes. And no, we are not salty at you for winning ring around the rosy. If we cared we would have tried and we would have beat you.

I’m not exploiting a broken set or some kind of overlooked exploit.

I win EASILY because Deathmatch players in Domination don’t want to play to objective. They would rather fight and die between flags than on them. They would rather have fights come to them than pursue others.

It doesn’t have to be an amazing convoluted plan to win. It’s so simple that anyone can do it and as such more people enjoy it.

And yes, I laugh super hard when an opposing team loses Domination when one player has 30+ kills but under 1000 medal points because they decided to play faux Deathmatch. Meanwhile I played to win and came out on top, with the most points, just because I went to flags that they refused to defend.

Those modes shouldn’t be changed to appease a population that refuses to play to objective and loses just because of that.

And if you’re wondering which players are frustrated by the Deathmatchers in Flag Games it’s your teammates who lost because one or several members of their team wouldn’t do the bare minimum and either defend or advance on flags.

[Edit to remove bait]

McTaterskins · November 2021

I do see Track's points. However, I see the other points.

No one is debating the best way to win an objective mode. However, as Track points out, even though people are faux DM'ing in an objective mode, some do in fact get salty or complain at the loss or lack of medals.

This still leads in a circle pointing toward proper engagement for all players in an objective mode.

As @trackdemon5512 points out, the better strategy in many cases is to go to an undefended point. However, the problem seems to be, in regards to the debate, that as many others in favor of consistent combat (or "DM'ing" as some put it) point out, its is avoiding combat.

As Track seems to point out or, in my assumption, elude to in some manner, some folks aren't running BiS builds, higher skilled, etc., so the more productive approach is in fact to head toward that undefended spot.

While I, and I don't think anyone else is arguing otherwise, see that as an obvious good thing for those that aren't geared up and high skilled, it doesn't really land well received on the other side of the fence.

While we've seen much discussion on minor adjustments to game modes, I personally am coming to the conclusion that a better MMR or "Match Making" system would be more helpful than most things at this point.

Am I wrong here? Have I missed any context from anyone? Does anyone not agree with a definite change or refinement to the MMR system being needed?

At every which way this discussion churns, elements of the issue seem to creep in. Even without intending to.

Can I throw this in the thread update notes?