Then you have the players who drop as soon as they see it's NOT a death match. Frankly I still would like a "no death match queue"

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

There is no population to support quitting for either DM/Objective/Both PVP lovers. The only fair answer as ever is randomisation of BG selection, weighted on player preference selected once a BG group is formed but before map is selected. for e.g if 60% of a formed group wants DM then game rolls a dice with a 60% chance of DM, 40% other etc

Giraffon wrote: »

The problem is well known. Death match players are generally pretty good at one specific element of PvP and that's killing other players. While this is an important element to any PvP match it is not necessarily the objective. When these players channel their energies to the task that their team is pursuing, it's an almost guaranteed win, but when they run off and do their own thing the team can easily end up in third place.

It's really hard to explain it too. Regardless of where they are, they are killing players on other teams so it seems logical that in some way they must be helping. On paper that sounds indisputable, but that's not been my experience. I've seen it many times where a team will absolutely crush everyone with kills, but they ignored the objectives and ended up in 3rd place.

I would prefer to avoid those players.

And many others would prefer to engage in pvp activity where you actually have to outplay another player/s instead of actively avoiding confrontation to optimize the win condition in say CTF. DM only players are generally better at actual pvp yes, but dont presume that they are not good at objective play. There is no 5head strategic depth to the various objective game modes, not that I'm saying you are implying this but often times around here, you have people that like to make up distinctions along the lines of objective players are better team players and DM players are just better PKers, which is a gross ad innacurate generalization made to try and embellish objective mode bgs to be something more intelligent than they really are.

That being said, I would love to see your suggestion put in the game, if only to demonstrate the reality that you will find the majority of your queues will take MUCH longer to pop and thus letting natural selection take its course

The only reason ZOS has settled with the current queuing standard for BGs is becuase

1. They know there are not enough players to justify deviding the pool of players between different BG modes.

2. Doing so reveals the objective truth that non DM bgs have not been successfully implemented and they need to populate the content by forcing all bg participants into game modes they dont want to play. Except that DM is up against 4 obj modes.

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

Yes, sort it out.. nothing like a game starting with only one full team that wipes everyone. Would rather just waited longer

Locking people out for 30 mins is not the solution to this problem. Problem is that people are forced to play BG where they do not want to play. It should be like it was ages ago where u had 3 choices.

WordsOfPower wrote: »

With the queue system reverted to what is was a couple of years ago, when you could tick boxes for Deathmatch, Relics or Flag Games, the DM queue would be instapop, the Flag would be a few minutes, and considerably longer for Relics.

Ethically, there is no reason for forcing people who want to play DM into game modes they don't enjoy just because the other players aren't happy to wait.

Imagine the PvE equivalent of this kind of 'nudging' -

Game: Oh, I see you've queued for vDoM... I'm sorry but we don't have the population to support that, so here's nFG1 instead.

The player base would be in uproar of they did that.

The only reason they're getting away with right now is the BG population is smaller, and the forum population is overwhelming comprised of objective players.

If ZoS don't split the queues, BGs will die altogether. That's just the way it is

Its catch 22, splitting the queues will kill BG as there is not enough players. Until ZOS fixes the underlying problems with gameplay and performance new players will not come and stay. Very similar problem in cyrodill.

The only other fair to all answer in the interim is to do what's successfully implemented in other AAA mmorpg - 1. form a BG group, 2. ask that group what their preferences are, 3 roll a dice but weight the result, so if 80% want DM, there is a 80% chance of rolling for DM etc. In that order.

Giraffon wrote: »

This threat of long queue times is not valid to me. I'd rather be allowed to choose the match type and wait 40 minutes. As it is now, I'm prepared to drop out of the match if I queue in with a bad build for the match type or if team is not pursuing objectives. I don't care about the 15 minutes. I'd just waste 15 minutes in the match anyway under those circumstances.

IMO the purpose of BGs is to get into a PvP match quickly, so a long queue time is very valid concern. Waiting 40 mins for a max 15 min match will get stale for many players. Especially if they're still not guaranteed getting into the mode that they want. At that point players will just accept whatever match just to get some play time, and then what would've been the point of inplementing a system like that? If you're waiting for DM the wait time could be even longer than that for it to even pop up. Once you get into a match, then what? You have to wait another 40 mins. Personally, I would rather be doing something rather than a whole lot of nothing. So the effort of implementing something like this really wouldn't change much of anything for me.

Syrusthevirus187 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

Or the opposite. Have no penalty so we can quit and then requewe until we get the match we want seeing as there is no way to choose.

The idea is to fill the BGs. Not continuously empty them out. If people want to do BGs, let them do it. If they want to keep dropping BG after BG because it was not what they wanted they are also choosing to have a penalty. Zenimax should not cater to these people.

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

1. Can’t choose game mode
2. Can have a bad match due to BGs having too few players, such as a 1v4v4 where it’s a waste of time
3. Game can simply crash

But yeah, lock someone out of their account for 30min right? 😂

To the question, yes; Very much so if and when they abandon a match. People abandoning matches contribute to taht 1v4v4 example provided.

To the rest, I never said there was no room for improvement It is clear from these attempts Zenimax has made there is not a population for choosing what BG we want, and the last iteration that heavily used those that queued for a random BG to fill the DM matches was the second-worst design we have had. The worst was the DM-only period.

I did say back then that the separate DM queue would be fine if it did not draw from those that choose a random queue even if the DM queue was notably long, but that is not a direction Zenimax chose to go.

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

1. Can’t choose game mode
2. Can have a bad match due to BGs having too few players, such as a 1v4v4 where it’s a waste of time
3. Game can simply crash

But yeah, lock someone out of their account for 30min right? 😂

To the question, yes; Very much so if and when they abandon a match. People abandoning matches contribute to taht 1v4v4 example provided.

To the rest, I never said there was no room for improvement It is clear from these attempts Zenimax has made there is not a population for choosing what BG we want, and the last iteration that heavily used those that queued for a random BG to fill the DM matches was the second-worst design we have had. The worst was the DM-only period.

I did say back then that the separate DM queue would be fine if it did not draw from those that choose a random queue even if the DM queue was notably long, but that is not a direction Zenimax chose to go.

I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying but a 30-min account wide lockout is strict even for competitive ranked PvP-only games.

Games with popular PvP are successful because they have proper balance, fun game modes + map design, often unique ways to play, etc. I usually think back to Halo 3.

With BGs the issue is that ZOS does everything the opposite. Poor combat balance within BGs, poorly implemented game modes + map designs, and no unique ways to play unless you want to be useless. I could write paragraphs detailing what I mean but don’t want to bore you - point is almost no one cares to play it anymore.

Massive changes are needed to turn BGs into something special that tens of thousands of players per server would regularly enjoy. A new penalty isn’t even in the same ballpark of what is needed imo.

i think the 2 biggest changes that could improve BGs would be smaller map sizes, like the colosseum or map with the lava are about the right size for a 4v4v4

the other one would be to just have ability to queue into specific game modes, if every game mode had represented queue, and random could pull from all of the above, then that would be similar to what we have on dungeons, and random queue would still be needed for the big xp bonus (like dungeons), but would allow people to queue into specific modes to work on achievement (or preference such as DM)

Amottica wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

1. Can’t choose game mode
2. Can have a bad match due to BGs having too few players, such as a 1v4v4 where it’s a waste of time
3. Game can simply crash

But yeah, lock someone out of their account for 30min right? 😂

To the question, yes; Very much so if and when they abandon a match. People abandoning matches contribute to taht 1v4v4 example provided.

To the rest, I never said there was no room for improvement It is clear from these attempts Zenimax has made there is not a population for choosing what BG we want, and the last iteration that heavily used those that queued for a random BG to fill the DM matches was the second-worst design we have had. The worst was the DM-only period.

I did say back then that the separate DM queue would be fine if it did not draw from those that choose a random queue even if the DM queue was notably long, but that is not a direction Zenimax chose to go.

I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying but a 30-min account wide lockout is strict even for competitive ranked PvP-only games.

Games with popular PvP are successful because they have proper balance, fun game modes + map design, often unique ways to play, etc. I usually think back to Halo 3.

With BGs the issue is that ZOS does everything the opposite. Poor combat balance within BGs, poorly implemented game modes + map designs, and no unique ways to play unless you want to be useless. I could write paragraphs detailing what I mean but don’t want to bore you - point is almost no one cares to play it anymore.

Massive changes are needed to turn BGs into something special that tens of thousands of players per server would regularly enjoy. A new penalty isn’t even in the same ballpark of what is needed imo.

a 15-minute account-wide lockout would be fine. It does need to be account-wide though.

I do agree that the BG design is lacking in ESO. When "capture the flag" does not really include defending the flag or any real reason or reward to do so there is a problem. I also think that a three-team design may be creating complications with how the designs play out. An 8v8 could bring more interesting and beneficial designs. The 4v4 design can remain for DM matches.

Sticking the capture the flag BG, we should be required to hold multiple locations to gain more points than other teams and maybe even to gain points at all. There should be rewards for players who take time to defend a point in addition to rewards for players in the current design. This creates a solid objective-based BG while also having players engage in combat.

This is just one example or idea I have.

so the idea you have is basically 100% exactly the same as domination mode right now, you have to capture flags for points, you get points for defending flags, more flags is more points

capture the relic is ESO variant of capture the flag and that does need some work for defending, because you only get points (combat medals) for killing someone carrying your relic, and returning your relic than preventing someone from taking it in the first place