Battlegrounds: Engagement, MMR, Mode modifications; Other Ideas? Real talk.
-
_adhyffbjjjf12✭✭✭✭✭DahliaNightshade wrote: »I read everything you guys wrote and I am enjoying this thread, good discussions, nice ideas.
I read it while at work, so forgive me if I missed this and it's already been written: wouldn't it be good if they removed the need for the third team?
I might be wrong on this, but downscaling BGs from 3 to 2 teams might help in having more BGs going on at once, almost like falsely increasing the population, even though the pool from which players are chosen remains the same.
8 players instead on 12 on every BGs going on should automatically make more BGs possible at once, reducing the time of a queue.
I suppose the idea of having 3 teams comes from the 3 Alliances War, but the teams aren't bound to alliances, so, what is the point of having the third team? Two teams could still have fun, use the maps and play the kind of "Arena gameplay" we have seen in a lot of other games.
There is very little tactical nuance to a 2 team fight especially when there are only 4 players per team. Everything would turn into a DM spam fest at point Y.0 -
McTaterskins✭✭✭✭Hope the folks that had the holiday enjoyed it!
So, this 2 team vs 3 team thing:
Personally, I have no real opinion there. I could go either way. Although I would agree with @_adhyffbjjjf12, only 4 players on a team in a 2 team setup might not be great?
What if the 12 person game was held and it were 6?
As some point out in these discussions, the 3 team basis is assumedly due to the 3 alliance war setup.
We should run down pros and cons of 2 team vs 3 team.0 -
CameraBeardThePirate✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Personally, I like the 3 team set up in DM. While it might not be as streamlined or competitive as other head to head game modes from other games, I think the 3 team setup adds a layer to DMs. On guild pre-made nights, comms are all about trying to judge when to engage/when another team might 3rd party.
I totally understand if this isn't everyone's cup of tea, because it can certainly turn some matches into a game of chicken, but I like it.
What I DON'T like is how the 3 team system ruins engagement in objective modes. Why fight as the third team in crazy king if you can just run to the unguarded flags and cap while the other two teams are fighting? However, i don't think decreasing teams to 2 is necessary. The objective modes just need to reduce the flags/objectives so that the game plays more like musical chairs. If there is always at least one fewer objective to capture than teams, combat is encouraged.
There's been arguments in this thread for 1 flag and arguments against 1 flag, I personally thing Dom/CK should cap at 2 flags (MAYBE 3 for CK) because 1 flag would likely turn a little stagnant in unbalanced matches; with 2 or 3 flags, there's always an option for teams to go to another flag and move the fight. Regardless, objective modes should NOT have more objectives than there are teams, because then there will always be an uncontested objective no matter what. Imagine if Overwatch or Team Fortress 2's KOTH modes had 3 hills; the match would just be running from point to point the entire time.
In an arena setting, the number of objectives should always be less than the number of teams.4 -
McTaterskins✭✭✭✭CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »Personally, I like the 3 team set up in DM. While it might not be as streamlined or competitive as other head to head game modes from other games, I think the 3 team setup adds a layer to DMs. On guild pre-made nights, comms are all about trying to judge when to engage/when another team might 3rd party.
I totally understand if this isn't everyone's cup of tea, because it can certainly turn some matches into a game of chicken, but I like it.
What I DON'T like is how the 3 team system ruins engagement in objective modes. Why fight as the third team in crazy king if you can just run to the unguarded flags and cap while the other two teams are fighting? However, i don't think decreasing teams to 2 is necessary. The objective modes just need to reduce the flags/objectives so that the game plays more like musical chairs. If there is always at least one fewer objective to capture than teams, combat is encouraged.
There's been arguments in this thread for 1 flag and arguments against 1 flag, I personally thing Dom/CK should cap at 2 flags (MAYBE 3 for CK) because 1 flag would likely turn a little stagnant in unbalanced matches; with 2 or 3 flags, there's always an option for teams to go to another flag and move the fight. Regardless, objective modes should NOT have more objectives than there are teams, because then there will always be an uncontested objective no matter what. Imagine if Overwatch or Team Fortress 2's KOTH modes had 3 hills; the match would just be running from point to point the entire time.
In an arena setting, the number of objectives should always be less than the number of teams.
I dig this write up. Nice points!0 -
HiImRex✭✭✭✭✭2 team ESO BGs on a moba lite map 🔥
So many design elements already figured out to a science
Let’s not reinvent the wheel here ZOS. A little game named SMITE still makes more money off their players than ESO pvp players with an uglier, clunkier game of unknown IP with less features because the moba design is gold and can be adapted to almost any action based combat system
The hardest part, classes/items/builds/ etc is already there. The combat engine is there. The pve is there and eso pve is phenomenal. The capture points are there, even guarded by npcs just like in Mobas.
You don’t even need to make a full featured moba map. Just start by copying a map off League of Legenda or Heroes of the Storm.
Let the BG community play test it on PTR. Release it to us and we will spend money to make it worth your while, probably.
0 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Eh, this is probably the worst time of the year to properly gauge the death of a pvp mode:
- New DLC, zone which means new, quest, set and achievement farming.
- Major gear set changes, which means farming new gear
- Curated sets collection, which means many are farming new gear.
- Thanksgiving break among other holidays in the US and abroad, lots of travel and what not.
- Dungeon event, which means people are doing dungeons for gear and for event rewards.
- And in another Month, more holidays and travel for people.
All of that combines for a very unfavorable pvp environment. Even myself, prior to the DLC drop, was working on Grand Overlord. Once the DLC dropped, I did zero PVP until this past Saturday. So nearly 3 weeks of no PVP, at all, to focus on farming gear, completing a new zone, doing dungeons during the event, etc.
So yeah, this is just really really bad timing imo, and we really won't have any idea where things really stand until January or so.1 -
Magio_✭✭✭✭Last night was one of the best most active nights for sweaty BGs, but they're dying. Lol ok buddy.1
-
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Eh, this is probably the worst time of the year to properly gauge the death of a pvp mode:
- New DLC, zone which means new, quest, set and achievement farming.
- Major gear set changes, which means farming new gear
- Curated sets collection, which means many are farming new gear.
- Thanksgiving break among other holidays in the US and abroad, lots of travel and what not.
- Dungeon event, which means people are doing dungeons for gear and for event rewards.
- And in another Month, more holidays and travel for people.
All of that combines for a very unfavorable pvp environment. Even myself, prior to the DLC drop, was working on Grand Overlord. Once the DLC dropped, I did zero PVP until this past Saturday. So nearly 3 weeks of no PVP, at all, to focus on farming gear, completing a new zone, doing dungeons during the event, etc.
So yeah, this is just really really bad timing imo, and we really won't have any idea where things really stand until January or so.
It’s never optimal. Players made the same points about the last test.
Problem is there is always some broken set, some activity, something pulling players in another direction. A healthy multiplayer scene means none of that matters but ZOS PVP has been anything but healthy for years, regardless of what metrics they use to define as “healthy”.
If you can’t even retain those that have stuck through to now then you’re doing something wrong ZOS.1 -
mmtaniac✭✭✭✭✭Deathmatch start to become tankfiesta where kill someone is chore. We need more thing like this to return to old tank fiesta where every players use Bloodspawn.0 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »
Eh, this is probably the worst time of the year to properly gauge the death of a pvp mode:
- New DLC, zone which means new, quest, set and achievement farming.
- Major gear set changes, which means farming new gear
- Curated sets collection, which means many are farming new gear.
- Thanksgiving break among other holidays in the US and abroad, lots of travel and what not.
- Dungeon event, which means people are doing dungeons for gear and for event rewards.
- And in another Month, more holidays and travel for people.
All of that combines for a very unfavorable pvp environment. Even myself, prior to the DLC drop, was working on Grand Overlord. Once the DLC dropped, I did zero PVP until this past Saturday. So nearly 3 weeks of no PVP, at all, to focus on farming gear, completing a new zone, doing dungeons during the event, etc.
So yeah, this is just really really bad timing imo, and we really won't have any idea where things really stand until January or so.
It’s never optimal. Players made the same points about the last test.
Problem is there is always some broken set, some activity, something pulling players in another direction. A healthy multiplayer scene means none of that matters but ZOS PVP has been anything but healthy for years, regardless of what metrics they use to define as “healthy”.
If you can’t even retain those that have stuck through to now then you’re doing something wrong ZOS.
I agree it is never optimal. I just think that the timing this time around is particularly jarring. These same changes made during the Q1 DLC would have gone over better imo, especially when a Dungeon event and new zone wasn't running.
It also doesn't help that it comes off the heels of a particularly brutal set introduction. One that I personally find ok, but a ton of people stopped pvping altogether due to hrothgar and DC. Which unfortunately hit at the same time as when the DM queue test began.
So yeah, while there is hardly ever truly optimal times to do these types of things, they definitely picked a very inopportune time to do all of this.1 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »
Eh, this is probably the worst time of the year to properly gauge the death of a pvp mode:
- New DLC, zone which means new, quest, set and achievement farming.
- Major gear set changes, which means farming new gear
- Curated sets collection, which means many are farming new gear.
- Thanksgiving break among other holidays in the US and abroad, lots of travel and what not.
- Dungeon event, which means people are doing dungeons for gear and for event rewards.
- And in another Month, more holidays and travel for people.
All of that combines for a very unfavorable pvp environment. Even myself, prior to the DLC drop, was working on Grand Overlord. Once the DLC dropped, I did zero PVP until this past Saturday. So nearly 3 weeks of no PVP, at all, to focus on farming gear, completing a new zone, doing dungeons during the event, etc.
So yeah, this is just really really bad timing imo, and we really won't have any idea where things really stand until January or so.
It’s never optimal. Players made the same points about the last test.
Problem is there is always some broken set, some activity, something pulling players in another direction. A healthy multiplayer scene means none of that matters but ZOS PVP has been anything but healthy for years, regardless of what metrics they use to define as “healthy”.
If you can’t even retain those that have stuck through to now then you’re doing something wrong ZOS.
I agree it is never optimal. I just think that the timing this time around is particularly jarring. These same changes made during the Q1 DLC would have gone over better imo, especially when a Dungeon event and new zone wasn't running.
It also doesn't help that it comes off the heels of a particularly brutal set introduction. One that I personally find ok, but a ton of people stopped pvping altogether due to hrothgar and DC. Which unfortunately hit at the same time as when the DM queue test began.
So yeah, while there is hardly ever truly optimal times to do these types of things, they definitely picked a very inopportune time to do all of this.
We will see just how much players are willing to engage in BGs come MidYear Mayhem in January. ZOS may get an earful from the casuals about all DM if things aren’t adjusted.3 -
McTaterskins✭✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »
We will see just how much players are willing to engage in BGs come MidYear Mayhem in January. ZOS may get an earful from the casuals about all DM if things aren’t adjusted.
This could very well be a very good point.0 -
gariondavey✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »Personally, I like the 3 team set up in DM. While it might not be as streamlined or competitive as other head to head game modes from other games, I think the 3 team setup adds a layer to DMs. On guild pre-made nights, comms are all about trying to judge when to engage/when another team might 3rd party.
I totally understand if this isn't everyone's cup of tea, because it can certainly turn some matches into a game of chicken, but I like it.
What I DON'T like is how the 3 team system ruins engagement in objective modes. Why fight as the third team in crazy king if you can just run to the unguarded flags and cap while the other two teams are fighting? However, i don't think decreasing teams to 2 is necessary. The objective modes just need to reduce the flags/objectives so that the game plays more like musical chairs. If there is always at least one fewer objective to capture than teams, combat is encouraged.
There's been arguments in this thread for 1 flag and arguments against 1 flag, I personally thing Dom/CK should cap at 2 flags (MAYBE 3 for CK) because 1 flag would likely turn a little stagnant in unbalanced matches; with 2 or 3 flags, there's always an option for teams to go to another flag and move the fight. Regardless, objective modes should NOT have more objectives than there are teams, because then there will always be an uncontested objective no matter what. Imagine if Overwatch or Team Fortress 2's KOTH modes had 3 hills; the match would just be running from point to point the entire time.
In an arena setting, the number of objectives should always be less than the number of teams.
Excellent postPC NA @gariondavey, BG, IC & Cyrodiil Focused Since October 2017 Stamplar (main), Magplar, Magsorc, Stamsorc, StamDK, MagDK, Stamblade, Magblade, Magden, Stamden3 -
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »
We will see just how much players are willing to engage in BGs come MidYear Mayhem in January. ZOS may get an earful from the casuals about all DM if things aren’t adjusted.
If ZOS cared about people complaining on the forums, this would be a much different game by now, and likely not in a good way. It seems to me that ZOS has quite the thick skin when it comes to complainers of this game and its various intracacies.
People will complain about anything and everything. I'm not sure why it's relevant to this topic that a group of non-PvPers will complain about a PvP mode that they're "being forced to participate" in, theoretically without even trying to actually PvP.
1 -
_adhyffbjjjf12✭✭✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »
We will see just how much players are willing to engage in BGs come MidYear Mayhem in January. ZOS may get an earful from the casuals about all DM if things aren’t adjusted.
If ZOS cared about people complaining on the forums, this would be a much different game by now, and likely not in a good way. It seems to me that ZOS has quite the thick skin when it comes to complainers of this game and its various intracacies.
People will complain about anything and everything. I'm not sure why it's relevant to this topic that a group of non-PvPers will complain about a PvP mode that they're "being forced to participate" in, theoretically without even trying to actually PvP.
yup like "Mist form mitigation MUST be tied to vamp stage" in your other thread right? Caring about something and raising it in a forum is not a bad thing, and ZOS should have half an eye on things, feedback is good.Edited by _adhyffbjjjf12 on December 1, 2021 5:25PM1 -
ZOS_GregoryVmodGreetings all,
After removing a few comments, we would like to remind everyone that all posts should be kept civil, constructive, and within the guidelines of the Community Rules. If there may be any questions in regards to the rules, please take a few moments to review them here.
Thank you for your understanding,
-Greg-The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited - ZeniMax Online Studios
Forum Rules | Code of Conduct | Terms of Service | Home Page | Help Site0