The State of the Battlegrounds
seventyfive
✭✭✭
I've always been a battlegrounds enjoyer.
Way I see it, and many others: All gamemodes are worthy of being utilized for a good ole deathmatch.
But I'll still cap a flag here and there out of respect for those who enjoy playing the objective.
Now to the very, very, strange thing I've discovered:
Deathmatches don't work well at all in a 2-sided format.
You would think it would be the optimal gamemode for two sided battlegrounds, but it's precisely the opposite.
Hang on a second. I don't mean temporary issues like the camping of spawn, that can easily be fixed.
Before the update, I enjoyed at least 95% of all battlegrounds I participated in.
I always felt that there was freedom in how to behave and play a battleground, based on the conditions you were put in.
If my team was getting steamrolled, I would try to encourage (lead by example) positioning in a way that puts the leading team in the middle of the fight,
and also "work together with the enemy" to help them take down players of the other enemy team, who happen to be a bigger threat than they are.
Players also hold temporary grudges after they've been taken down by a particular player more than once:
I've been on the both ends of this, and it's actually a good thing in terms of gameplay, because it dynamically adjusts the difficulty for players at the top of a particular match.
Towards the end of a three sided match, competitive-minded players of both the trailing teams will naturally prioritize taking down particular players of the leading team.
And with the larger size of three sided maps, together with the presence of a third team, there is opportunity to disengage fights, reposition and group back up, and then re-enter the fight.
In two-sided battlegrouds, deathmatch in particular, I'm not experiencing freedom to make any impactful, strategic decisions.
There is no room to adjust my experience and gameplay based on how well my teammates perform.
The optimal strategy in two-sided deathmatch is always the same: stay together in a tight formation and fight to the end.
Now that's a fine strategy of course, and it's fun if the teams are evenly matched.
But when they're not evenly matched, there is no fun to be had, and there are no dynamics that naturally counteract the issue.
Considering I usually enjoyed three sided battlegrounds even when my team could be mistaken for bots, this is an unfortunate change.
I've gone from enjoying 95% of battlegrounds to enjoying 60% of them.
Way I see it, and many others: All gamemodes are worthy of being utilized for a good ole deathmatch.
But I'll still cap a flag here and there out of respect for those who enjoy playing the objective.
Now to the very, very, strange thing I've discovered:
Deathmatches don't work well at all in a 2-sided format.
You would think it would be the optimal gamemode for two sided battlegrounds, but it's precisely the opposite.
Hang on a second. I don't mean temporary issues like the camping of spawn, that can easily be fixed.
Before the update, I enjoyed at least 95% of all battlegrounds I participated in.
I always felt that there was freedom in how to behave and play a battleground, based on the conditions you were put in.
If my team was getting steamrolled, I would try to encourage (lead by example) positioning in a way that puts the leading team in the middle of the fight,
and also "work together with the enemy" to help them take down players of the other enemy team, who happen to be a bigger threat than they are.
Players also hold temporary grudges after they've been taken down by a particular player more than once:
I've been on the both ends of this, and it's actually a good thing in terms of gameplay, because it dynamically adjusts the difficulty for players at the top of a particular match.
Towards the end of a three sided match, competitive-minded players of both the trailing teams will naturally prioritize taking down particular players of the leading team.
And with the larger size of three sided maps, together with the presence of a third team, there is opportunity to disengage fights, reposition and group back up, and then re-enter the fight.
In two-sided battlegrouds, deathmatch in particular, I'm not experiencing freedom to make any impactful, strategic decisions.
There is no room to adjust my experience and gameplay based on how well my teammates perform.
The optimal strategy in two-sided deathmatch is always the same: stay together in a tight formation and fight to the end.
Now that's a fine strategy of course, and it's fun if the teams are evenly matched.
But when they're not evenly matched, there is no fun to be had, and there are no dynamics that naturally counteract the issue.
Considering I usually enjoyed three sided battlegrounds even when my team could be mistaken for bots, this is an unfortunate change.
I've gone from enjoying 95% of battlegrounds to enjoying 60% of them.
5
-
seventyfive✭✭✭i’m liking the new 4vs4 competitive now that the bugs were patched
How do you feel about randomness in video games in general, do you feel like it's a positive thing?
I generally tend to steer away from it. But I do also know that the relatively recent mega success of a particular game in the dungeons and dragons genre seems to indicate that there are players on both sides of this coin.
A bit of freedom, a bit of dynamics, and a bit of strategic options, have all been replaced with randomness.
0 -
RomanRex✭✭✭✭✭seventyfive wrote: »i’m liking the new 4vs4 competitive now that the bugs were patched
How do you feel about randomness in video games in general, do you feel like it's a positive thing?
I generally tend to steer away from it. But I do also know that the relatively recent mega success of a particular game in the dungeons and dragons genre seems to indicate that there are players on both sides of this coin.
A bit of freedom, a bit of dynamics, and a bit of strategic options, have all been replaced with randomness.
not crazy about too much randomness, but now it’s part of gaming if kept in check.1 -
Giraffon✭✭✭✭✭
✭Just got in a 4 man for the first time since the change. It was ugly. So ugly. The map was so small you couldn't even spread out. After getting one shotted about 10 times I dropped out only to find the cool down is like 30 minutes or something crazy now. Wasn't the best first impression.Giraffon - Beta Lizard - For the Pact!1 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Two-sided deathmatch has two big things going for it:
No third party trolls who keep helping the 1st place side widen their lead
No more "enemy stole the kill"PC/NA || CP/Cyro || RIP soft caps3 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It seems this is not a "state of the BGs" but merely an opinion that a player preferred the strategy they employed with the 3-way matches, which will not work in a 2-way match.
Just like tactics need to be adjusted for the map design of the objective part of the BG, this is no different. It has no bearing on whether it works well or not. Zenimax did not invent XvX instanced PvP, and 2-way death matches happen in many MMORPGs and PvP scenarios, and they work well.
I am not suggesting the BGs we have are a great design; I merely pointed out that this is nothing more than needing to adjust tactics or simply a preference for XvXvX.
0 -
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭seventyfive wrote: »In two-sided battlegrouds, deathmatch in particular, I'm not experiencing freedom to make any impactful, strategic decisions.
There is no room to adjust my experience and gameplay based on how well my teammates perform.
The optimal strategy in two-sided deathmatch is always the same: stay together in a tight formation and fight to the end.
Now that's a fine strategy of course, and it's fun if the teams are evenly matched.
But when they're not evenly matched, there is no fun to be had, and there are no dynamics that naturally counteract the issue
Highlighting this part of your post to say that there is absolutely room to make strategic decisions, even when you get grouped with randos.
The other night my wife and I got paired with two new players with 24k hp. We thought, "oh great, we're F'd", and sure enough the necro was running goliath and the sorc was overloading.
We got steamrolled the first round and didn't get a single kill.
The minute long interim between rounds gave us time to coordinate. I asked the sorc to run silence and the necro to run colossus. I gave them instructions for how to behave and know when we were going to go offensive, and dear lord, did they actually listen!
Ended up winning the 4v4 and it was probably the most satisfying moment in a BG experience I can remember in many months.
I absolutely enjoyed 4v4v4 DM, but I never got anything like the above experience playing them. I'm not suggesting that this anecdotal experience should nullify your feelings on the matter, but more to share that it can happen and when it does, it's glorious.
There's still plenty wrong with this implementation of BGs and I hope this post doesn't come across as condoning how ZOS has gone about doing it.
2 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭seventyfive wrote: »i’m liking the new 4vs4 competitive now that the bugs were patched
How do you feel about randomness in video games in general, do you feel like it's a positive thing?
I generally tend to steer away from it. But I do also know that the relatively recent mega success of a particular game in the dungeons and dragons genre seems to indicate that there are players on both sides of this coin.
A bit of freedom, a bit of dynamics, and a bit of strategic options, have all been replaced with randomness.
PvP is randomness in every game that has PvP. No one can predict what the group of players on the other team will do let.
One must adapt and adjust on the fly.
It is very dynamic and we are all free to determine what strategic options we want to employ. Success in PvP requires the ability to do so.
0 -
sayswhoto✭✭✭Ironically, it looks like 4v4 deathmatch is turning into a heal-fest to rack up medal score. It's more livematch now than deathmatch.2
-
seventyfive✭✭✭seventyfive wrote: »i’m liking the new 4vs4 competitive now that the bugs were patched
How do you feel about randomness in video games in general, do you feel like it's a positive thing?
I generally tend to steer away from it. But I do also know that the relatively recent mega success of a particular game in the dungeons and dragons genre seems to indicate that there are players on both sides of this coin.
A bit of freedom, a bit of dynamics, and a bit of strategic options, have all been replaced with randomness.
PvP is randomness in every game that has PvP. No one can predict what the group of players on the other team will do let.
One must adapt and adjust on the fly.
It is very dynamic and we are all free to determine what strategic options we want to employ. Success in PvP requires the ability to do so.
And which meaningful ways to "adapt and adjust on the fly" that were strictly not part at all of three sided battlegrounds, have you found in the two sided battlegrounds?
Considering I've just concluded several very noticeable such comparisons in the very opposite direction.
All ways you can adapt now were also effective ways to adapt previously.
Now if all the ways to currently adapt were already present, and some were removed,
that leaves us with more randomness.
X dimensional fights have become X-Y dimensional fights.
Edited by seventyfive on November 3, 2024 7:59AM0 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
Healmatch lol. There's no mechanics to split up the ball blobs like the game modes with multiple objectives, and the scoring punishes deaths more than it rewards killing. Crazy King best 2-sided, Deathmatch worst. What a world.Ironically, it looks like 4v4 deathmatch is turning into a heal-fest to rack up medal score. It's more livematch now than deathmatch.PC/NA || CP/Cyro || RIP soft caps0 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭seventyfive wrote: »seventyfive wrote: »i’m liking the new 4vs4 competitive now that the bugs were patched
How do you feel about randomness in video games in general, do you feel like it's a positive thing?
I generally tend to steer away from it. But I do also know that the relatively recent mega success of a particular game in the dungeons and dragons genre seems to indicate that there are players on both sides of this coin.
A bit of freedom, a bit of dynamics, and a bit of strategic options, have all been replaced with randomness.
PvP is randomness in every game that has PvP. No one can predict what the group of players on the other team will do let.
One must adapt and adjust on the fly.
It is very dynamic and we are all free to determine what strategic options we want to employ. Success in PvP requires the ability to do so.
And which meaningful ways to "adapt and adjust on the fly" that were strictly not part at all of three sided battlegrounds, have you found in the two sided battlegrounds?
Considering I've just concluded several very noticeable such comparisons in the very opposite direction.
All ways you can adapt now were also effective ways to adapt previously.
Now if all the ways to currently adapt were already present, and some were removed,
that leaves us with more randomness.
X dimensional fights have become X-Y dimensional fights.
My comment was directly and appropriately related to the comment I quoted. While I have not read every post in this thread and will not, anyone successful in PvP adapts to the fight, and XvX vs XvXvX is no different.
Case in point: @Aldoss posted a great example of a worthy experience in the new BGs. He helped a team adapt to their fight, which led to success.
While my comments do not suggest that Zenimax did a great job, XvX Instanced PvP is successful in many games and works well. Further, as I noted in an earlier post, this thread is more about individual preference and not a statement on the current state of BGs in ESO.
0