CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

The issue with this logic is splitting up will do nothing if the winning team is running, as a team of four, from flag to flag and avoiding fights. They will cap faster as a group of four than 1 or 2 players that are split up, and can just tank a lone player while capping a flag and there's nothing that lone player can do about it.

Yes exactly, and the problem is that teams teams who make the tactical decision to stay and defend are not rewarded for their efforts. It's better to allow teams to simply take the flag and to run off and just cap another undefended one. So really there isn't that much tactical advantage to have teams split; 2 to defend, 2 to scout and take points. Just run as 4 take undefended points, and have the advantage over players trying to defend.

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

Clearly a team doesn't win by 'running away' that's just a passive aggressive attack on the integrity of the other team to somehow justify why they lost. The op is tilted and evidently does not understand how the opponents outplayed them, and if he doesn't want to learn it will keep happening.

The winning team DID just run away the entire match. You can see that quite clearly on the scoreboard by their kills, deaths, damage, and healing numbers. They didn't ever engage in any fights.

Edit, look at the score, the pit daemons were tunnel versioned onto killing the weak team, in the mean time they got outflanked and outplayed. A skilful team would have realised this, ignored the weak drakes and adapted to outplay their real competition in that fight, which is basically what happened, whereas OPs team were stuck feeding at the kill trough and could not change their own behaviour even though they could see what was happening.

That's a lot of assumptions you make. In bg's there are times where you CAN'T just disengage from a fight. If I left a fight, the team is just gonna beat on me from me behind and if I die then I can do nothing about pushing objective.

What if I get caught in a fight I can't just disengage from, a NB trying to gank me, a full team trying to 4v1 me? I cannot simply disengage from those encounters. So I should be punished because I'm not being "skillful" even though I can't control the fact a 4 man team wants to kill me.
That argument doesn't work in BG's, it's not a behavioral thing. There are just times in PVP where you cannot just disengage from a fight.

BG's punish you for wasting your time fighting people, why commit to a fight for 1 minute when game punishes you for not being on objectiv?. The tactic is to very much run away from enemies because then you can earn points that way.
If I'm in chaosball and enemy team choose to attack me, and I defend and win a 4v1 that's meaningless in the grand scheme, I'll still lose because I didn't choose to just run from them. Same can be applied to Capture the relic, if I waste my time fighting enemies, I can neither defend my relic or capture an enemy relic. Which gives enemies time to capture ours while I can do nothing about, most BGS punish you for PVP.

The are glorified run simulators, that's what he's trying to say. There's really no "skill" involved is there, it's either you fight people in PVP and cost yourself the match or avoid PVP and win the objective because the enemies will waste their own time committing to fights. It's just gaming the system, it has nothing to do with "skill"

lol interesting logic, PVPers who enter objective based BG and lose are skilled because they are incapable of disengaging from a fight where they were farming the weak team whereas the team that did manage to ignore farming the weak team won.
There is more to PVP than playing who can gank the other fastest.

2 armies in a war, one outflanks the other and captures the city and wins the war ultimately. The other side cannot believe they lost because their entire army stood in the field and fought hand to hand for the full length of the war and killed lots of people. Awesomesauce general?

That's funny how you assume everyone who's fighting is because they wanna farm players, when that's not always the case. So what if I'm pushing a flag and a 4 man team rolls up to fight me and I'm alone. Do you think that 4 man team is gonna just let me waltz away to flip a flag? No. They're gonna try to kill me, does that make me a PVP farmer of the sorts or a ganker out to farm and get kills? No. Not sure why you assume everyone who's fighting in PVP is just kill farming lol.
Also you make it seem like there's never any time where you engage in a fight that turns out to be 1 minute long and is not worth committing to but you can't just disengage from the fight because the person you're fighting is just gonna keep chasing you. Does that make me a farmer or any less "skilled" than the person who's been avoiding fights? No. It just means one person chose to not fight and I did and that's my mistake because fighting is the losing strat in BG's. But for some reason you have this narrative that anyone who ever fights in pvp is a farmer or ganker lol

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

Clearly a team doesn't win by 'running away' that's just a passive aggressive attack on the integrity of the other team to somehow justify why they lost. The op is tilted and evidently does not understand how the opponents outplayed them, and if he doesn't want to learn it will keep happening.

The winning team DID just run away the entire match. You can see that quite clearly on the scoreboard by their kills, deaths, damage, and healing numbers. They didn't ever engage in any fights.

Edit, look at the score, the pit daemons were tunnel versioned onto killing the weak team, in the mean time they got outflanked and outplayed. A skilful team would have realised this, ignored the weak drakes and adapted to outplay their real competition in that fight, which is basically what happened, whereas OPs team were stuck feeding at the kill trough and could not change their own behaviour even though they could see what was happening.

That's a lot of assumptions you make. In bg's there are times where you CAN'T just disengage from a fight. If I left a fight, the team is just gonna beat on me from me behind and if I die then I can do nothing about pushing objective.

What if I get caught in a fight I can't just disengage from, a NB trying to gank me, a full team trying to 4v1 me? I cannot simply disengage from those encounters. So I should be punished because I'm not being "skillful" even though I can't control the fact a 4 man team wants to kill me.
That argument doesn't work in BG's, it's not a behavioral thing. There are just times in PVP where you cannot just disengage from a fight.

BG's punish you for wasting your time fighting people, why commit to a fight for 1 minute when game punishes you for not being on objectiv?. The tactic is to very much run away from enemies because then you can earn points that way.
If I'm in chaosball and enemy team choose to attack me, and I defend and win a 4v1 that's meaningless in the grand scheme, I'll still lose because I didn't choose to just run from them. Same can be applied to Capture the relic, if I waste my time fighting enemies, I can neither defend my relic or capture an enemy relic. Which gives enemies time to capture ours while I can do nothing about, most BGS punish you for PVP.

The are glorified run simulators, that's what he's trying to say. There's really no "skill" involved is there, it's either you fight people in PVP and cost yourself the match or avoid PVP and win the objective because the enemies will waste their own time committing to fights. It's just gaming the system, it has nothing to do with "skill"

lol interesting logic, PVPers who enter objective based BG and lose are skilled because they are incapable of disengaging from a fight where they were farming the weak team whereas the team that did manage to ignore farming the weak team won.
There is more to PVP than playing who can gank the other fastest.

2 armies in a war, one outflanks the other and captures the city and wins the war ultimately. The other side cannot believe they lost because their entire army stood in the field and fought hand to hand for the full length of the war and killed lots of people. Awesomesauce general?

That's funny how you assume everyone who's fighting is because they wanna farm players, when that's not always the case. So what if I'm pushing a flag and a 4 man team rolls up to fight me and I'm alone. Do you think that 4 man team is gonna just let me waltz away to flip a flag? No. They're gonna try to kill me, does that make me a PVP farmer of the sorts or a ganker out to farm and get kills? No. Not sure why you assume everyone who's fighting in PVP is just kill farming lol.
Also you make it seem like there's never any time where you engage in a fight that turns out to be 1 minute long and is not worth committing to but you can't just disengage from the fight because the person you're fighting is just gonna keep chasing you. Does that make me a farmer or any less "skilled" than the person who's been avoiding fights? No. It just means one person chose to not fight and I did and that's my mistake because fighting is the losing strat in BG's. But for some reason you have this narrative that anyone who ever fights in pvp is a farmer or ganker lol

i'm not assuming anything or have any narrative lol, i was referring to the results discussed at the beginning of the thread. it is evident that killing the weakest of the 3 teams was the primary activity by the Op-s team. The Op complained that the other winning team did not outplay/outflank/out rotate them, but they won automagically by 'running away' When actually all they had to do was to disengage the entirely irrelevant third team (the winning team managed it) and rotate themselves to the next point ahead of the winning team and then engage them instead. They didn't, they farmed kills on the 3rd team (see stats)

OP got 8 dominator medals, which you only get from flipping 8 flags, no? Which means he was doing the objective in the game. Nothing implies that they were farming other than kills, 10 kills isn't hard to do in a game mode. Plus judging from points they BARELY lost the game, which means they probably got stuck in 1 long fight that cost them the game. Which still means avoiding fights means you win the game.
The argument would work if they were team 3 with 136 points, but you don't get 456 points on your team without actually trying to win, nothing is evident they were kill farming. Chances are they just got caught in a fight at most flags they were at. Considering they got "Defender' and "protector" medals reinforces that idea.


If the scores were 30+ kills or 30 assists I would say they were kill farming because, getting 30 kills farming is easy to do. Now THIS is a case of just farming kills in the game

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

fact is a team won because they outplayed the other 2 teams. the other teams can either learn from that or not. Making excuses and saying they won because they 'run away' is obviously deluded and just means they are going to keep losing as they fail to adapt and improve.

The only fact is that they did run away from every fight. It's what happened, therefore it is a fact. Saying they outplayed us is your opinion. If you think that running away from fights the entire match is outplaying the other teams, so be it. But you can't state that it's a fact because that's subjective. The only fact is what actually occurred during the match: that the team that won did so by running from empty flag to empty flag and avoiding fights.

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

I can state is a fact, because they did in fact win, and you get ZERO points for running, they did not 'run from a fight' they rotated to the next objective efficiently because they knew the other team could not cope with the strategy. If the losing team had the vision the to read the fight and adapt then they would have got to the flags FIRST and engaged (why did they not do that?) , but they thought it was more important to get kills against weakest team out of the 3. As I said, many teams are going to beat them if they cant adapt.

BTW the comment 'running from a fight' is a perfect tell on what went wrong with the team mindset.

I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that red was the weakest team. They really didn't die that much. To me it looks like they lost because they also didn't just run around and collect flags. Purple very well could have been the weakest team, but we'll never know because they only ran to flags, as is evident by the top scorer's 0-0-0 ratio. As other's have demonstrated, the leaderboards for farming matches look a great deal different with high kill and death numbers, numbers being in the 20s or 30s. If OP'S team only wanted to farm players I doubt purple would have gotten away as scot free as they did (having played on teams with and against OP they wouldnt have lol).

IMO the ability to freely run around, out in the open to undefended flags, without a thought is not tactical thinking. Players can do that with their eyes closed. Having to actively think about when to defend, and when to attack, or when to distract an enemy is strategic play. If you want to sneak around, it should be difficult, and require some forethought. The way the modes and maps are designed now matches don't require any of these things. They are not challenging enough. And those who actually play strategically and defend their objectives should be rewarded much more for their efforts.

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

I can state is a fact, because they did in fact win, and you get ZERO points for running, they did not 'run from a fight' they rotated to the next objective efficiently because they knew the other team could not cope with the strategy. If the losing team had the vision the to read the fight and adapt then they would have got to the flags FIRST and engaged (why did they not do that?) , but they thought it was more important to get kills against weakest team out of the 3. As I said, many teams are going to beat them if they cant adapt.

BTW the comment 'running from a fight' is a perfect tell on what went wrong with the team mindset.

I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that red was the weakest team. They really didn't die that much. To me it looks like they lost because they also didn't just run around and collect flags. Purple very well could have been the weakest team, but we'll never know because they only ran to flags, as is evident by the top scorer's 0-0-0 ratio. As other's have demonstrated, the leaderboards for farming matches look a great deal different with high kill and death numbers, numbers being in the 20s or 30s. If OP'S team only wanted to farm players I doubt purple would have gotten away as scot free as they did (having played on teams with and against OP they wouldnt have lol).

IMO the ability to freely run around, out in the open to undefended flags, without a thought is not tactical thinking. Players can do that with their eyes closed. Having to actively think about when to defend, and when to attack, or when to distract an enemy is strategic play. If you want to sneak around, it should be difficult, and require some forethought. The way the modes and maps are designed now matches don't require any of these things. They are not challenging enough. And those who actually play strategically and defend their objectives should be rewarded much more for their efforts.

This times a million. If our team wanted to farm the kill counts wouldve gotten ugly. We weren't farming, we were going to flags to flip them. Purple would cap a flag, we would go to that flag to take it from them (they would already be gone by the time we got there) and Red would meet us at the flag. We'd kill Red to take the flag, and in the 45 seconds that fight would take, Purple had already run from flag to flag capping the rest. We were punished because when Red came to fight over a flag we were taking, we fought back instead of running away to an empty flag.

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

so the answer is you should have got to the flags first.

Literally proving the point of this entire topic.

In effect there was no engagement because the losing teams were never on the part of the map that actually mattered. Put it this way, this is what happened:

Winning team arrives at flag at optimal moment - other teams should have done same, they didn't so winning team had no-one to engage with, they ofc take point and move on. Team 2 and 3 arrive late and instead of moving on they start fighting on the wrong point against the wrong team. When they arrived late at point they should have immediately abandoned it and rotated to catch the winning team. The team complaining of poor engagement actually cause the problem by never being at the correct place at the right time, but don't seem to want to take responsibility for their own actions.

I prefer objective match modes-- I will fight (and risk getting slaughtered) IF it makes the most tactical sense. I will also stand and fight at the 1st contested point I take in flag games because I want to get a feel for what my opponents are capable of. I want to see how many gankblades there are. I can't get that information WITHOUT fighting-- so I do. I let what I learn inform my decisions for the rest of the match.

Multiple Gankblades and/or & Heavy Hitters: The name of the game is SPEED. I can't survive the punishment coming my way if I'm caught without my team (or sometimes even if I am. A few BG teams have literal Beastmode, and some others are God-tier DPS). I go to where the other team isn't, cap the flag, and lay down some long lasting DOTS to make it look like someone is still there as I take off. Why? It's not uncommon for gankblades to booby trap a flag-- and DOTs force them out of stealth. Heavy hitters or gankblades are also going to buff up & get their rotation going to bring the hammer of smiting down HARD on ....an empty flag. This burns their resources, and the snares I set down further slow them. They're now in prime position to encounter the other team, and their entire first volley was wasted, while I move on to another point and cap it.

Single Gankblade, mid teir DPS: Depending on how many flags are claimed, and whether I can see most of the map & who's fighting where, I will stake my claim and fight. The cooldown timer on respawn, even the 16 sec one, doesn't take as long as a protracted battle for a point. I will try to make it too costly in terms of time, resources, and flags for them to stick around-- if they don't get the hint, I will either run as soon as the other team rolls up and get away while the battle royale commences behind me, or stop fighting and die, so that I can respawn and run to a less crowded area and cap objectives while the other teams are distracted.

I tend to function as a spoiler, distraction, or key flag scorer in land grab games. I've always got my eyes set on the next objective. If you really want to kill me, you absolutely can--but you'll actually be helping me out. I play mostly tanks and healers, sprinting from point to point is NOT my friend. If I'm standing my ground and fighting-- it's to distract you from my 3 teammates across the map who just took your point & are moving to the next. If there's a flag in my team's colors glowing bright with a lot of DOT's---but no visible players, have I already moved on or are there stealthed opponents lurking? If I see a full team rolling up on me, I'll either boobytrap the flag & run, or move ever so slightly off of it and prepare to be curb-stomped, but at least I kept the flag for the extra tick my team needed to win.

I get the OP is frustrated that they played objectives and still lost, but it seems (as has been mentioned previously), that while they played objectives to some degree-- they failed to read the map or take into account how many flags were in play. Standing on the flags and fighting isn't always best-- sometimes, running to the next flag is the better option, and if you simply MUST stand and fight--position the battle slightly OFF the the flag, so it stays yours longer. Flag colors change based on the proximity of players (and how may) in respective teams. IF they're not right around the flag, it won't flip for them, and it won't show as contested--you can hold it.

PS: DM afficionados-- I'm sorry ZOS took away your Q. I hope they return it to you. I'm thrilled objective games are truly back, but they shouldn't have taken away the DM only Q in the process.

Adh.. You are missing kind crucial ingredient on your analysis, which negates the points you have been making -

The success of the winning team who did not fight is not really down to them being skilful in picking the right places to run.

It is MORE about the fact that the red team ENABLED the flags to be uncontested by engaging Purple elsewhere.

You seem to take immense pride in the ability of objective players to capture uncontested objectives, but in no other competitive context that I can think of is this possible.

It's like saying that a team that reached the World Cup final on account of byes, and then won because the team they were playing were exhausted from real games, had good strategy.

It's chance, and if you can't see that, then I really don't think there is any point in us real PvP players discussing with you any longer. OP is 100% right.

Yesterday I played in a relic game. I single handedly defended my teams relic and killed everyone who came near (OP Templar). This was usually 2 or 3 purples. My own team fought almost constantly with Greens, and match was won by 1 or 2 Purples who stole relics while this battle was taking place.

Purple gave up trying to get my relic and profited from the fact that the other two teams were busy with one another.

According to your logic, players from my team (red) or greens should have switched their attention to the thiefs waltzing in to grab the Green relic.

In this case, Green would have had their relic taken by my peeps and it would have been one sided in OUR favour, or else my team would have had even more difficulty and the Reds would have had to choose between abandoning their relic and coming to me to die, or THEY would have replaced Purples as the opportunists.

It's all completely nonsensical and promotes either stalemates or uncontested grabs.

If there were ever 3 teams of decent PvP players AND they actually tried to do only the objectives WHILST staying alive to do so, it would be 2v2 on every flag and very unlikely to produce any kind of meaningful result.

BUT, as has been said many times in this thread and others, it's the presence of players that are allergic to PvP that skews these games, in combination with the bad setup.

Crazy King is slightly more tactical, but Domination and Relic is simply not conducive to either meaningful objective play OR PvP combat.

If Domination had only 2 flags, or if there were only two teams, this game mode that you love so much where you can avoid combat and feel like a winner, simply wouldn't be possible.

It's the same as these PvE players that take keeps uncontested in Cyro and think they are doing PvP.

It's OBVIOUS, to everyone not in denial, that the player base of BGs is too divided, and that's we need 2 different queues OR a rethink of the game modes.

If that DOESN'T happen then real PvP players will stop playing BGs, or they will farm players and further create friction and divide.

Objective players have the most to benefit from split queues. You will wait 20 mins to run from flag to flag uncontested and we will pop almost immediately to be able to do skilful small scale PvP

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

man your post just boils down to 'real pvp players do DM' try reading his post and not applying your own narrative on top. its 2022, every single successful mmorpg has objective based PVP at its heart. no smoke without fire as they say.

The answer to this is ideally separate queues but eso does not have the player base for this because of underlying gameplay issues. So the answer is to do what is successfully done in other games, weight the dice roll when selecting a map type and keep a random element in there so everyone gets what they want over time.

You are wrong.
The poster above you is correct.

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

its 2022, every single successful mmorpg has objective based PVP at its heart. no smoke without fire as they say.

Ah, and we return to the question that never gets answered:

How many teams do those games use?

Aldoss wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

its 2022, every single successful mmorpg has objective based PVP at its heart. no smoke without fire as they say.

Ah, and we return to the question that never gets answered:

How many teams do those games use?

You do have a point, 2 teams in most, and that may well be the root cause of some issues in ESO along with the performance issues, spammy gameplay, and elitism we see in these chats. I play a ton of BGs every night in GW2 and gameplay is smooth and fights often swing dramatically if a team adjusts mid fight which is a sign of healthy fights. GW2 also has wvw which works brilliantly with 3 sides, but obviously that's different, and it doesn't have the same chronic performance issues.