Please rebalance Battlegrounds

MindOfTheSwarm · July 2023

Currently the meta is for the two teams in the lead to simply team up and bully the team in third place.

They do this because of the reward system as many just go on to do the dailies and then switch characters.

However, a system that encourages the dominant teams to simply crush the third so that second place can essentially cheat is not healthy for the game mode.

Either add a fourth team to battlegrounds (unlikely).

Or rebalance it so that only first place gets the exp and higher tier rewards,

Or just give everyone rewards regardless of position.

There is no competitiveness in BG now and I have to admit I am guilty of doing it as well as receiving. But I have to be honest with myself and say that even I feel guilty for picking on the weaker team… but not guilty enough to stop doing if I am rewarded for bullying the weakest team.

robpr · July 2023

This won't solve much. It will just become 3 vs 1 instead of 2. You could increase rewards for the objectives but it won't matter if everyone just go into BG to kill stuff (I don't blame them, it is what it is, sometimes entire 3 teams just brawl in the middle while one dude just run around and cap all flags)

The other way is to give a boost for 3rd place team, but I bet there will be someone that finds a way to abuse it to win DMs in the last minute.

Other way that allows weaker team to regroup is to add additional exits from the spawn like that one with teleporter gates. Won't solve much but at least will reduce spawncamping.

There is no real solution here, even if that is not much of an issue as it exists in every pvp game ever where there is single spawn point on the map.

MindOfTheSwarm · July 2023

robpr wrote: »

This won't solve much. It will just become 3 vs 1 instead of 2. You could increase rewards for the objectives but it won't matter if everyone just go into BG to kill stuff (I don't blame them, it is what it is, sometimes entire 3 teams just brawl in the middle while one dude just run around and cap all flags)

The other way is to give a boost for 3rd place team, but I bet there will be someone that finds a way to abuse it to win DMs in the last minute.

Other way that allows weaker team to regroup is to add additional exits from the spawn like that one with teleporter gates. Won't solve much but at least will reduce spawncamping.

There is no real solution here, even if that is not much of an issue as it exists in every pvp game ever where there is single spawn point on the map.

Another option is to have gold tier prizes for multiple first place wins in a row.

Say you get five-7 first place wins in a row with no losses or draws and you get:

Battleground Grand Prize Rewards

Contains between 1000 and 2000 gold.

Contains at least one gold battleground set piece.

Contains a master crafting writ.

Contains 5 random transmute geodes.

50% chance to contain a gold scrying lead.

30% chance to contain one gold upgrade mat or gold enchantment.

Plus a few crafting mats for alchemy and provisioning.

I think this would be a pretty potent incentive to fight for first.

JerBearESO · July 2023

Make BG a fast paced 3v3 already, or at least add that as an option and observe how people like it.

3v3 with fast 5-10 minute rounds would actually be pretty sweet. Entirely fair since only two teams, not long enough to feel terrible if one team is crushing, and we would cut BG queue times in half since half the players are required per round.

3 team play is immensely toxic on so many levels....

CameraBeardThePirate · July 2023

MindOfTheSwarm wrote: »

robpr wrote: »

This won't solve much. It will just become 3 vs 1 instead of 2. You could increase rewards for the objectives but it won't matter if everyone just go into BG to kill stuff (I don't blame them, it is what it is, sometimes entire 3 teams just brawl in the middle while one dude just run around and cap all flags)

The other way is to give a boost for 3rd place team, but I bet there will be someone that finds a way to abuse it to win DMs in the last minute.

Other way that allows weaker team to regroup is to add additional exits from the spawn like that one with teleporter gates. Won't solve much but at least will reduce spawncamping.

There is no real solution here, even if that is not much of an issue as it exists in every pvp game ever where there is single spawn point on the map.

Another option is to have gold tier prizes for multiple first place wins in a row.

Say you get five-7 first place wins in a row with no losses or draws and you get:

Battleground Grand Prize Rewards

Contains between 1000 and 2000 gold.

Contains at least one gold battleground set piece.

Contains a master crafting writ.

Contains 5 random transmute geodes.

50% chance to contain a gold scrying lead.

30% chance to contain one gold upgrade mat or gold enchantment.

Plus a few crafting mats for alchemy and provisioning.

I think this would be a pretty potent incentive to fight for first.

I would be wary of adding too appealing of rewards before rebalancing some of the modes. Things like the Capture the Relic weekend show just how unfun BGs can be when people build to win the objective modes. It is in no way fun or balanced to have to babysit your relic and bash the uber tank spamming the collect button until the game bugs and gives them the relic anyways.

DM has its own issues as well with the entire 3rd party system, but this issue would be somewhat mitigated by a higher population as a higher population would lead to more balanced matches. Something that could be done to try to fix the whole "gang up on the weakest team or try to steal kills" would be to adjust the amount of points you get per kill based on how much you contributed to the kill.

EDIT: don't get me wrong, I want incentivising rewards just as much as anyone else, I just don't want those rewards to start to incentivize unfun tactics that turn matches into a bore.

MindOfTheSwarm · July 2023

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

MindOfTheSwarm wrote: »

robpr wrote: »

This won't solve much. It will just become 3 vs 1 instead of 2. You could increase rewards for the objectives but it won't matter if everyone just go into BG to kill stuff (I don't blame them, it is what it is, sometimes entire 3 teams just brawl in the middle while one dude just run around and cap all flags)

The other way is to give a boost for 3rd place team, but I bet there will be someone that finds a way to abuse it to win DMs in the last minute.

Other way that allows weaker team to regroup is to add additional exits from the spawn like that one with teleporter gates. Won't solve much but at least will reduce spawncamping.

There is no real solution here, even if that is not much of an issue as it exists in every pvp game ever where there is single spawn point on the map.

Another option is to have gold tier prizes for multiple first place wins in a row.

Say you get five-7 first place wins in a row with no losses or draws and you get:

Battleground Grand Prize Rewards

Contains between 1000 and 2000 gold.

Contains at least one gold battleground set piece.

Contains a master crafting writ.

Contains 5 random transmute geodes.

50% chance to contain a gold scrying lead.

30% chance to contain one gold upgrade mat or gold enchantment.

Plus a few crafting mats for alchemy and provisioning.

I think this would be a pretty potent incentive to fight for first.

I would be wary of adding too appealing of rewards before rebalancing some of the modes. Things like the Capture the Relic weekend show just how unfun BGs can be when people build to win the objective modes. It is in no way fun or balanced to have to baby sit your relic and bash the uber tank spamming the collect button until the game bugs and gives them the relic anyways.

DM has its own issues as well with the entire 3rd party system, but this issue would be somewhat mitigated by a higher population as a higher population would lead to more balanced matches. Something that could be done to try to fix the whole "gang up on the weakest team or try to steal kills" would be to adjust the amount of points you get per kill based on how much you contributed to the kill.

EDIT: don't get me wrong, I want incentivising rewards just as much as anyone else, I just don't want those rewards to start to incentivize unfun tactics that turn matches into a bore.

Another option is to give greater points for kills if your are in third place and less points for killing third place teams. Also, I would have Chaos ball changed to only give points if your team makes kills while inside the allied chaos ball area. Changing the game mode from a run away rat race to more of a hit potato mode. You could add a synergy to the ball that allows it to be swapped to a teammate once it has been held for 10 seconds.

Necrotech_Master · July 2023

the best way to rebalance BGs would be to actually have an MMR so if you played a lot your not constantly getting matched with sweaty tryhards

i used to do a lot of BGs, but it feels like 90% of the time now i only get matched with hardcore pvpers which for me is not fun, im not that competitive

tomofhyrule · July 2023

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

the best way to rebalance BGs would be to actually have an MMR so if you played a lot your not constantly getting matched with sweaty tryhards

i used to do a lot of BGs, but it feels like 90% of the time now i only get matched with hardcore pvpers which for me is not fun, im not that competitive

Battlegrounds do have an MMR system, and that's one of the biggest problems with it - the MMR evidently never gets reset.

The problem is that the population is pretty small, so anyone who "used to do a lot of BGs" will have an MMR that matches them up with "sweaty tryhards." So essentially, your MMR is placing you with them because of where you are in that ranking.

I know some players who used to do a lot of BGs and now can't get into a match in under 30 mins of queue time because the MMR is trying to match them exclusively with pro PvPers.

Since the BG community is so small, it really should reset MMR every season or so. Yes, that means that the more hardcore players would get matched with the newbies at the beginning of the season, but then it would at least keep queues moving for a while.

Twohothardware · July 2023

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

the best way to rebalance BGs would be to actually have an MMR so if you played a lot your not constantly getting matched with sweaty tryhards

i used to do a lot of BGs, but it feels like 90% of the time now i only get matched with hardcore pvpers which for me is not fun, im not that competitive

I thought Battlegrounds already had some sort of MMR system but apparently not. I went 40-0 in the match I played last night for the daily reward and it’s clear it’s a lot of PvE players that barely touch Cyrodiil.

Necrotech_Master · July 2023

Twohothardware wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

the best way to rebalance BGs would be to actually have an MMR so if you played a lot your not constantly getting matched with sweaty tryhards

i used to do a lot of BGs, but it feels like 90% of the time now i only get matched with hardcore pvpers which for me is not fun, im not that competitive

I thought Battlegrounds already had some sort of MMR system but apparently not. I went 40-0 in the match I played last night for the daily reward and it’s clear it’s a lot of PvE players that barely touch Cyrodiil.

there is no MMR, its effectively "number of total games you played on that character"

if your on a new toon, but you are experienced, your gonna be matched with players well below your skill level

if your like me, who only moderately ok at pvp, but i have some toons ive played BGs on and off since the BG system was implemented, theres many times i get matched against players who have meta builds and frankly unkillable 90% of the time

chessalavakia_ESO · July 2023

If you were to change it, I'd suggest trying having the daily reward depend on the score gap between the place you got and first with players being unable to receive the daily reward if they left the prior match.

To start with, I'd try using a within 200 point rule (two point for Capture the Relic) .

Some hypothetical score examples:

500 - 400 -300 = Everybody gets the daily.

2-1-0 = Everybody gets the daily.

500- 310-220 = Only first and second get the daily.

3-1-0 = Only first and second get the daily.

500-200-100 = Only first gets the daily.

3-0-0 = Only first gets the daily.

This system would likely still be somewhat flawed as at times the optimal strategy to prevent the other side from running up the score would still be going for the weaker team and at times it would be too generous about providing rewards but, I think it would cut down on situations where your incentive is to just hold the other team back and let the first place team blow you both away.

OBJnoob · July 2023

So... I kinda like the 3 teams thing. It screws things up but that's what I like about it. Everybody is right when they say that it doesn't make for a super fair and competitive match, but I'm not so sure it's meant to be that. I really, really wish they'd add arenas or group duels or something so that there was another outlet for this need. I agree it's needed. But I think what battlegrounds currently is is needed too. It's basically a replacement for cyrodiil because it works worth a crap. Cyrodiil has 3 teams. And objectives. And killing. And green teams and purple teams and orange teams, if you know what I mean. It's not super competitive either. People are in there doing all sorts of things on all sorts of builds.

But that's just me responding to some of the comments obviously. As far as the original suggestion... I like the idea of giving rewards only to the winning team. For one thing it just addresses the problem perfectly and doesn't effect much else. Now the 2nd place team wants to team up with 3 and take down 1. Also... Though I may not be as competative as some I am competative. So honestly maybe only the winner shoulda got prizes all along, LOL

chessalavakia_ESO · July 2023

OBJnoob wrote: »

So... I kinda like the 3 teams thing. It screws things up but that's what I like about it. Everybody is right when they say that it doesn't make for a super fair and competitive match, but I'm not so sure it's meant to be that. I really, really wish they'd add arenas or group duels or something so that there was another outlet for this need. I agree it's needed. But I think what battlegrounds currently is is needed too. It's basically a replacement for cyrodiil because it works worth a crap. Cyrodiil has 3 teams. And objectives. And killing. And green teams and purple teams and orange teams, if you know what I mean. It's not super competitive either. People are in there doing all sorts of things on all sorts of builds.

But that's just me responding to some of the comments obviously. As far as the original suggestion... I like the idea of giving rewards only to the winning team. For one thing it just addresses the problem perfectly and doesn't effect much else. Now the 2nd place team wants to team up with 3 and take down 1. Also... Though I may not be as competative as some I am competative. So honestly maybe only the winner shoulda got prizes all along, LOL

I think if just the winner got it you'd hit an increase in toxicity issues, leavers, and a loss of population.

My impression is that a significant chunk of the players doing battlegrounds are just doing their daily because the rewards are decent and easy to get.

If you need to win instead of just needing to get second the time investment to get the rewards will be significantly increased which may turn people off of participating.

Right now, if you do a Battleground and someone else on your team or you performs poorly it isn't a total deal breaker for your team as second is still in reach. But, if you need first and you or someone else is bad your team is probably screwed. When it's obvious your team isn't going to win some people will leave that are after the daily and the players backfilling aren't going to be happy. Some players will likely get vocal about it on chat.

Further, a portion of the people in Battlegrounds just like killing people and ignore the objectives most of the time. They already are a bit annoying at times but, if you need to win for the daily it's going to become decidedly more frustrating.

Estin · July 2023

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

the best way to rebalance BGs would be to actually have an MMR so if you played a lot your not constantly getting matched with sweaty tryhards

i used to do a lot of BGs, but it feels like 90% of the time now i only get matched with hardcore pvpers which for me is not fun, im not that competitive

Battlegrounds do have an MMR system, and that's one of the biggest problems with it - the MMR evidently never gets reset.

The problem is that the population is pretty small, so anyone who "used to do a lot of BGs" will have an MMR that matches them up with "sweaty tryhards." So essentially, your MMR is placing you with them because of where you are in that ranking.

I know some players who used to do a lot of BGs and now can't get into a match in under 30 mins of queue time because the MMR is trying to match them exclusively with pro PvPers.

Since the BG community is so small, it really should reset MMR every season or so. Yes, that means that the more hardcore players would get matched with the newbies at the beginning of the season, but then it would at least keep queues moving for a while.

The MMR getting reset every 3-4 months would be beneficial to BGs tbh. Your character basically becomes unplayable for BGs after playing for a while either because of queue times, or because the MMR is matching you with players who are a lot more experienced than you only because you played a lot of matches. Even if all those matches were losses, you're still going to be paired with more experienced players. But I don't see anything like this happening. ZOS would just make a new proc set to put paper over the problems you would encounter at high MMR which would only make the problems worse.

gariondavey · July 2023

Dm and chaosball can be 3 team but capture the relic, crazy king and domination should be 2 team

Daily bg should give 10 xmutes

We should have a premade lobby to organize games

MindOfTheSwarm · July 2023

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

So... I kinda like the 3 teams thing. It screws things up but that's what I like about it. Everybody is right when they say that it doesn't make for a super fair and competitive match, but I'm not so sure it's meant to be that. I really, really wish they'd add arenas or group duels or something so that there was another outlet for this need. I agree it's needed. But I think what battlegrounds currently is is needed too. It's basically a replacement for cyrodiil because it works worth a crap. Cyrodiil has 3 teams. And objectives. And killing. And green teams and purple teams and orange teams, if you know what I mean. It's not super competitive either. People are in there doing all sorts of things on all sorts of builds.

But that's just me responding to some of the comments obviously. As far as the original suggestion... I like the idea of giving rewards only to the winning team. For one thing it just addresses the problem perfectly and doesn't effect much else. Now the 2nd place team wants to team up with 3 and take down 1. Also... Though I may not be as competative as some I am competative. So honestly maybe only the winner shoulda got prizes all along, LOL

I think if just the winner got it you'd hit an increase in toxicity issues, leavers, and a loss of population.

My impression is that a significant chunk of the players doing battlegrounds are just doing their daily because the rewards are decent and easy to get.

If you need to win instead of just needing to get second the time investment to get the rewards will be significantly increased which may turn people off of participating.

Right now, if you do a Battleground and someone else on your team or you performs poorly it isn't a total deal breaker for your team as second is still in reach. But, if you need first and you or someone else is bad your team is probably screwed. When it's obvious your team isn't going to win some people will leave that are after the daily and the players backfilling aren't going to be happy. Some players will likely get vocal about it on chat.

Further, a portion of the people in Battlegrounds just like killing people and ignore the objectives most of the time. They already are a bit annoying at times but, if you need to win for the daily it's going to become decidedly more frustrating.

But people already leave if they are in third. No one sticks around if they are defo gonna get third.

JerBearESO · July 2023

.

gariondavey wrote: »

Dm and chaosball can be 3 team but capture the relic, crazy king and domination should be 2 team

Daily bg should give 10 xmutes

We should have a premade lobby to organize games

3 team chaos ball creates a bottleneck in many cases where the two teams without the ball constantly crash in on each other trying to reach the ball. Ball team ends up lightly defending against the remains of that mess.....

True examination of the structure of 3 teams reveals it to be problematic against the basic concept of PvP. If you win you must acknowledge that it was most likely from the enemy teams targeting each other moreso than you; if you lose it was most like to them targeting your team moreso than each other. Not always, but the great majority of the time the match was entirely botched by this, not casual, but anti competitive structure. Don't pretend it's just casual. It works against itself....

OBJnoob · July 2023

So I know this isn't the best comparison but, as an example, I play a lot of PubG. 25 teams of 4, thrown onto a huge map which grows more and more confined to force combat until only one team remains.

3rd partying, as it's called in PubG, is a huge part of the game. Two teams are fighting eachother, taking cover from eachother but perhaps not from you, and you can occasionally get free kills this way. You could say it isn't fair-- but everyone's dealing with the same thing so how not? You could say it isn't competitive-- but some teams are consistently good while some are consistently bad so why is that?

What becomes important and skillful is coordination, positioning, situational awareness, and timing. It doesn't diminish the importance of winning your 1v1s. You have to do it all. And I don't think this is terribly dissimilar from the qualities found in 3-team BGs. I just don't think certain people appreciate the intricacies very much. They'd rather fight and have fighting be the only goal. Which-- okay-- that should definitely be a thing. Be an option. But someone's personal preference doesn't change the fact that other things are neat too. Fun for some. Skillful and important to some.

I would be okay with some modes being 2 teams and some being 3. I'm open to compromise. But I do disagree with the way you separated them @gariondavey. Shouldn't DM be one of the ones with 2? Isn't that what you really want? A raw fighting competition?

I'm struggling to think of others that would be good as 2. Not Chaosball. Chaosball with 2 teams is just DM. Not capture the relic. If you gotta kill all 4 players to get the relic then isn't running it back just obligatory and pointless?

I think... Maybe delete Domination, cuz there's too many flags for only 2 teams, and make Crazy King 2 teams.

Que times would be a little faster if half the modes needed 4 less players, and DM would happen more often if 1 mode was removed.

Tyrant_Tim · July 2023

@OBJnoob, the difference between getting third partied in a game as massive as a battle royale, and getting third partied in a game like ESO, is that you wont have the weakest team in the lobby picking the winner on a Battle Royale, whereas a very distressed team, with even one player having a prejudice towards another, or a specific team, will completely throw the balance of the match out of line for the entirety of it.

Not even considering overly emotional players with their prejudices about their “right way to play,” very often on Xbox NA, our platform, you will have a team in second that is struggling to compete with the first place team, getting targeted by the weakest team as a means to steal second place, instead of going after the top team and teaming up with 2nd place to balance the lobby out.

In a perfect world where everyone believes in equity, having third party content makes sense, what we have is a very imperfect system, which is why dueling is as popular as it is, it’s the only guarantee you have for a fair fight in terms of player count.

JerBearESO · July 2023

Tyrant_Tim wrote: »

@OBJnoob, the difference between getting third partied in a game as massive as a battle royale, and getting third partied in a game like ESO, is that you wont have the weakest team in the lobby picking the winner on a Battle Royale, whereas a very distressed team, with even one player having a prejudice towards another, or a specific team, will completely throw the balance of the match out of line for the entirety of it.

Not even considering overly emotional players with their prejudices about their “right way to play,” very often on Xbox NA, our platform, you will have a team in second that is struggling to compete with the first place team, getting targeted by the weakest team as a means to steal second place, instead of going after the top team and teaming up with 2nd place to balance the lobby out.

In a perfect world where everyone believes in equity, having third party content makes sense, what we have is a very imperfect system, which is why dueling is as popular as it is, it’s the only guarantee you have for a fair fight in terms of player count.

Yes exactly

OBJnoob · July 2023

Well that's fine. I did say earlier I would like only the first place team to get rewards-- which would incentivize 3rd and 2nd teaming up to try and overtake 1st. An idea which wasn't mine but gets my vote, and makes even more sense in the scenario in was describing where half the modes only have two teams. You'd pretty much have to make that change anyway.

Honestly I don't believe I see a whole lot of that on Xbox NA. It seems to me like the 3rd place team is pretty helpless most of the time, and only manages anything at all if 2nd and 1st focus eachother too aggressively. In DM, obviously, the 3rd place team becomes the focus and both teams are trying to farm them fastest for points-- but now I'm saying DM could be only 2 teams. I'm not sure any of the other modes really exhibit this behavior-- but still I'm trying to agree with agreeable ideas.

So ultimately maybe that wasn't a great example. Nevertheless there are some loose parallels that cross over for me and that I find enjoyable.

But that wasn't really supposed to be the substance of my post.

My contribution to this discussion is: Delete Domination. Make Crazy King and DM 2 teams only. Give prizes for only first place.

We can disagree on reasons but maybe still agree on solutions. I thought most people were going to like those ideas. They were parroted back from the discussion itself, lol.

JerBearESO · July 2023

OBJnoob wrote: »

Well that's fine. I did say earlier I would like only the first place team to get rewards-- which would incentivize 3rd and 2nd teaming up to try and overtake 1st. An idea which wasn't mine but gets my vote, and makes even more sense in the scenario in was describing where half the modes only have two teams. You'd pretty much have to make that change anyway.

Honestly I don't believe I see a whole lot of that on Xbox NA. It seems to me like the 3rd place team is pretty helpless most of the time, and only manages anything at all if 2nd and 1st focus eachother too aggressively. In DM, obviously, the 3rd place team becomes the focus and both teams are trying to farm them fastest for points-- but now I'm saying DM could be only 2 teams. I'm not sure any of the other modes really exhibit this behavior-- but still I'm trying to agree with agreeable ideas.

So ultimately maybe that wasn't a great example. Nevertheless there are some loose parallels that cross over for me and that I find enjoyable.

But that wasn't really supposed to be the substance of my post.

My contribution to this discussion is: Delete Domination. Make Crazy King and DM 2 teams only. Give prizes for only first place.

We can disagree on reasons but maybe still agree on solutions. I thought most people were going to like those ideas. They were parroted back from the discussion itself, lol.

I could be happy with this middle ground, so long as chaos ball was given some kind of anti turtle at base mechanic since that's where the bottleneck problem starts. It could periodically place a large AoE debuff in the area so the holder must keep moving.

All in all having some 2 team modes would be awesome

Edit: another chaos ball solution is for it to deal greater damage the further it gets from map center, so the holder must stay relatively in the center which prevents the at base bottleneck as well

OBJnoob · July 2023

I'd like certain ledges to be made inaccessible so the chaosball holder can't post up on it, only attacked by one lucky acrobat at a time. Other than that I don't really find anything else problematic. I see what you're saying, but I think it's the responsibility of any team to try not to get themselves pinched, and also to try and focus the objective instead of farming meaningless kills around it.

I think it's wise to carry the chaosball to your own spawn and I'm fine with this remaining the chief strategy. It is the homefield respawn advantage that attempts to counteract the numbers disadvantage-- because really, 8 other people should be at least trying to focus the ball carrier. And even when they get pulled away, the surrounding ambient AoE pressure is normally consistantly severe near the ball and does ultimately result in it being dropped.

There are perhaps times when some 50k HP warden holds the ball and it really seems as though they will never fall, and this is unfortunate and lame, but ultimately my experience tells me that these circumstances normally include the other teams not really having enough damage anyway. I have never run a super HP tank/healer build myself, but I have had some pretty stout toons. And I find that two teams comparable to my own, in addition to the chaosball damage itself, results in a maximum carry time of about 200 points. And to be honest 200 is probably a stretch. I bet the times I held it that long were examples of much weaker enemy teams.

BUT. That's just talk for the sake of talking. I agree with where this discussion is going. I think some very good ideas have been brought up here and I'm happy to be a part of it without needless arguing. Now if only our agreement meant anything