Maintenance for the week of December 29:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 29
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 29
Thoroughly Unbalanced BGs
sshogrin
✭✭✭✭
BGs are complete crap. Queueing for a "solo" BG seems like going up against a premade group.
I have yet to get into a BG that the teams were balanced.
What the is up with this @ZOS_Kevin ?
Seriously, you either queue into a group that dominates or a team that gets their ass handed to them, there is no in-between.
If queueing into a solo BG, the teams shouldn't seem like one group is a pre-made group, like what's going on.
Fix the BGs please.
I also find it insane that there are some abilities that are hitting for over 30k damage. Things have gotten completely out of control in PvP.
I have yet to get into a BG that the teams were balanced.
What the is up with this @ZOS_Kevin ?
Seriously, you either queue into a group that dominates or a team that gets their ass handed to them, there is no in-between.
If queueing into a solo BG, the teams shouldn't seem like one group is a pre-made group, like what's going on.
Fix the BGs please.
I also find it insane that there are some abilities that are hitting for over 30k damage. Things have gotten completely out of control in PvP.
13
-
IncultaWolf✭✭✭✭✭
✭What's hitting you for 30k damage in pvp? Probably someone with the damage sigil if you're doing 8 v 8, there are power ups that spawn around the map.3 -
gariondavey✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭What are your resists and crit resistance at?PC NA @gariondavey, BG, IC & Cyrodiil Focused Since October 2017 Stamplar (main), Magplar, Magsorc, Stamsorc, StamDK, MagDK, Stamblade, Magblade, Magden, Stamden0 -
fizzylu✭✭✭✭✭
✭Are we talking a single ability hitting for 30k in PvP with no CP???? Because that seems beyond off.0 -
sshogrin✭✭✭✭Are we talking a single ability hitting for 30k in PvP with no CP???? Because that seems beyond off.
yes, single ability hitting for that much. I don't remember what it was. I got hit for over 30k once, 28k another time, both single ability.
I had damage shields up...just seemed way OP, especially considering how one sided things were.0 -
Oblivion_Protocol✭✭✭✭✭Yeah, some glass cannon builds can absolutely hit you for that insane amount of damage even without CP. Those same builds need to crutch on a healer or other support, or run away a lot because they have little to no defense.
As for queuing into solo BGs and running into premade groups, I can pretty confidently say it doesn’t happen. What you’re encountering is a group of PvPers who just know what they’re doing and end up coordinating. I’ve been on those teams where everything just seems to go right without much communication or grouping together beforehand.
Now, I will concede that this presents more of an MMR-matching issue, because less skilled players or players with sub-optimal builds are being thrown against juggernauts.2 -
Chrisilis✭✭✭We've been saying this for two months. The update ruined Bg's. Some people like the 8v8 and 4v4 while many of us are asking them to reinstate classic 4v4v4 where these issues, while present at times, weren't so GLARINGLY OBVIOUS.
The dev feedback letter says they're working on these issues. We'll see.
In the meantime, there are several other forum threads re: this topic with a lot of observations and suggestions re: the current state of the battlegrounds. They're worth a read, better yet voice your opinion on every thread you can find in order to keep the conversation going in the hope they actually listen and DO SOMETHING before they alienate the entire Bg PvP community with these issues.
As for those 30k hits who knows, just another example of how everything went sideways with update 44.5 -
fizzylu✭✭✭✭✭
✭
In all my years doing BGs, I have never been hit for that hard by a single ability and I'm not what would be considered a super tanky build either. An ability+light attack+proc set combo, sure.... but not one ability. I'm going with that had to be done with a powerup, like IncultaWolf mentioned, since I do recall hitting for over 20k with the spammable I was running the last time I had one active.Oblivion_Protocol wrote: »Yeah, some glass cannon builds can absolutely hit you for that insane amount of damage even without CP. Those same builds need to crutch on a healer or other support, or run away a lot because they have little to no defense.
Anyway. The 2 team BGs definitely aren't the greatest experience though and let's just hope they permanently add the option for 4v4v4 back.4 -
OsUfi✭✭✭✭✭
✭Oblivion_Protocol wrote: »Now, I will concede that this presents more of an MMR-matching issue, because less skilled players or players with sub-optimal builds are being thrown against juggernauts.
The MMR is the biggest issue for me. I'm OK at PvP, always top 1 or 2 on scoreboards in 8v8 and 4v4, but I'm never gonna be the guy that carries teams. If I have a streak of matches with team mates with sub 20k health and one-shot'able gear setups, I can't even get the BG daily reward.
Although I strongly feel medal score needs adjusting, the BG daily reward needs to be a "win or based on medal score". At least in 4x4x4 you would have the fight for second place for the daily if you were on a losing team.
Edited by OsUfi on December 27, 2024 12:02PM1 -
Major_Mangle✭✭✭✭✭The lack of a proper MMR is the biggest issue, but a big reason you see a lot of these 20k HP "squishy" builds is because of the golden pursuit rewards that require you to participate in a BG. People will join a BG, sit at spawn or do the bare minimum of activity to not be considered AFK by the system and get the golden pursuit done. I honestly think ZOS should stop put Endeavors/Golden pursuit activities that includes BG´s. If you gonna join a BG it should be because you actually want to PvP and show up with a proper build (or at least an attempt to). I´d honestly consider it griefing to show up in some sub 25k HP PvE build in a BG because you´re most likely gonna be part of why your team performs poorly (at least that´s the case in my experience).Ps4 EU 2016-2020
PC/EU: 2020 -5 -
OsUfi✭✭✭✭✭
✭Major_Mangle wrote: »The lack of a proper MMR is the biggest issue, but a big reason you see a lot of these 20k HP "squishy" builds is because of the golden pursuit rewards that require you to participate in a BG. People will join a BG, sit at spawn or do the bare minimum of activity to not be considered AFK by the system and get the golden pursuit done. I honestly think ZOS should stop put Endeavors/Golden pursuit activities that includes BG´s. If you gonna join a BG it should be because you actually want to PvP and show up with a proper build (or at least an attempt to). I´d honestly consider it griefing to show up in some sub 25k HP PvE build in a BG because you´re most likely gonna be part of why your team performs poorly (at least that´s the case in my experience).
But then you'd lose people like me, who dipped a toe into Midyear Mayhem back in 2019/2020'ish, then spent every Friday for the following 3-4 years in Cyro.
A working MMR, like we're meant to have, would resolve this issue on its own.2 -
Major_Mangle✭✭✭✭✭Major_Mangle wrote: »The lack of a proper MMR is the biggest issue, but a big reason you see a lot of these 20k HP "squishy" builds is because of the golden pursuit rewards that require you to participate in a BG. People will join a BG, sit at spawn or do the bare minimum of activity to not be considered AFK by the system and get the golden pursuit done. I honestly think ZOS should stop put Endeavors/Golden pursuit activities that includes BG´s. If you gonna join a BG it should be because you actually want to PvP and show up with a proper build (or at least an attempt to). I´d honestly consider it griefing to show up in some sub 25k HP PvE build in a BG because you´re most likely gonna be part of why your team performs poorly (at least that´s the case in my experience).
But then you'd lose people like me, who dipped a toe into Midyear Mayhem back in 2019/2020'ish, then spent every Friday for the following 3-4 years in Cyro.
A working MMR, like we're meant to have, would resolve this issue on its own.
I think there is a difference if you go into PvP with the intention to actually PvP compared to those I´m referring to (should´ve been more clear about that). Those I´m referring to are those you join a BG and basically sit at spawn doing bare minimum and not participating until the game forcefully throw them down from spawn. Not being "good" (however you want to define that) at PvP is fine. Joining a PvP area with no intention of actually doing PvP is "less fine" in my opinion.
Edit: And yes, a working MMR should´ve been the #1 priority when reworking BG´s.Edited by Major_Mangle on December 27, 2024 12:41PMPs4 EU 2016-2020
PC/EU: 2020 -3 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭
✭Tldr, while mmr and 2 teams are significant issues, the real issue is that zos doesn't seem to engage their community before making significant changes and they need to do it way, WAY earlier than pts... and the people making the changes seem to have a different vision of what good actually is and this vision is ruining the game for many of us die hard players.
---
I agree that mmr is rather mysterious and dubious at best, and the two team modes, while enjoyed by some, exposes a lot of issues with balance that can be mitigated by three teams. Zos likely won't revert, instead spend time and money chasing bad changes with more bad changes aimed at addressing the bad changes instead of reverting them and changing course.
However, the real issue, imo. is that zos does not, apparently, get feedback from serious players before they make changes. BEFORE they invest in things... i cannot see any of the bg changes being given positive feedback or the thumbs up by any serious player without significant caveats... This is a much, much more serious and systemic problem than either of the above. These changes cause outrage and, from what I can gather, player retention issues and permeate every aspect of the game.
The game started out as a hit many years ago. Somewhere along the line, the people that built this wonderful and fantastic world handed the keys to their code repository over to people who either didn't get it or just had a different vision that changed the game in ways that keep driving people away. At first. This only impacted bgs with bad/broken sets and skills, but now those people with the keys to the castle decided to kill the very foundation bgs were built on. This is just where we are and there is no sign of this train slowing down or changing direction.
Double however, the other and equally important fundamental problem is that we've gotten lip service about server upgrades to address cyro, general lag, slingshotting and performance for years, none of which have ever really been successful, yet we get more and more garbage proc/pull sets that require more and more server calculations on existing stack which only continue to degrade performance and make the game unplayable for many.
STOP destroying the game.Edited by Thumbless_Bot on December 27, 2024 3:11PM3 -
Sleepsin✭✭✭✭I don't think there are enough people playing BG to make a fair MMR ratings system work.9
-
Cooperharley✭✭✭✭✭
✭Hard to balance something with MMR when nobody is playing it lolPC-NA | @Cooperharley3 -
Chrisilis✭✭✭This whole MMR thing, was it such a hot button issue before the release of 4v4 and 8v8? I started BG' at a fairly low CP300 and was reeaaly out matched.. As you'd expect. But I loved them and stuck with it and got better and I was happy with Bg's the way they were and never even questioned why I was in matches with bad ass PvP gods who only had to look at me to take me out.
Was the mmr system working properly in classic bg's? Was the effect of a poorly designed matchmaking system mitigated by the more forgiving toward newbie 3 team system? If there are as few players as people say there are can it even be fixed?
I never questioned why I was matched up against better players in 4v4v4, I just assumed I had to put in the time like they had, put in the effort like they had. I never ever thought I should be going up against other 300cp players. Then again the old format offered a way for lower level players to compete against the PvP elite and still have fun via more tactical options and bigger maps to move around in.
I am new to forums, I never had anything to say until they took my favorite part of the game away and I rarely skimmed them before update 44 so I don't know if MMR was considered bad before this. I do know I myself never considered it before this at all, I didn't even know it was a thing. I always thought the whole point was to get to their level, not for the bar to be lowered to accommodate me.1 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭
✭I don't think there are enough people playing BG to make a fair MMR ratings system work.
They were infinitely more balanced with three teams.
Mmr was never an issue before.
They ripped the very heart and soul out of battlegrounds with this change. It's more sad than anything.
Edited by Thumbless_Bot on December 28, 2024 1:25AM4 -
Jierdanit✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »
They were absolutely not balanced with three teams either. Most of the BGs were either 1 team dominating both others or 2 teams fighting and the 3rd being constantly spawncamped.
In my experience its a lot more likely to get a balanced Team vs Team BG than it was to get a 4v4v4 were all 3 teams were equally balanced.
Also MMR was an absolute joke in 4v4v4 as well, you were simply stuck in "high MMR" after playing a certain amount of matches, no matter how good you were at the game.Edited by Jierdanit on December 28, 2024 1:10PMPC/EU, StamSorc Main3 -
OsUfi✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »
They were absolutely not balanced with three teams either. Most of the BGs were either 1 team dominating both others or 2 teams fighting and the 3rd being constantly spawncamped.
In my experience its a lot more likely to get a balanced Team vs Team BG than it was to get a 4v4v4 were all 3 teams were equally balanced.
It was also easier to get the BG daily as you could fight it out for second place. I've had some staggeringly bad streaks in new BGs where I just don't't have time to play enough matches to get a win and get the BG daily reward. Again, good MMR should fix this.Also MMR was an absolute joke in 4v4v4 as well, you were simply stuck in "high MMR" after playing a certain amount of matches, no matter how good you were at the game.
On the flipside, this was absolutely an issue. It seemed to go up based on matches played and never came back down. So even as a filthy casual if you played a BG daily every day, you'd eventually get to the point where you'd just be stuck fighting a bunch of former emperors and overlords with massive waits to get into matches in the first place.
2 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »
They were absolutely not balanced with three teams either. Most of the BGs were either 1 team dominating both others or 2 teams fighting and the 3rd being constantly spawncamped.
In my experience its a lot more likely to get a balanced Team vs Team BG than it was to get a 4v4v4 were all 3 teams were equally balanced.
Also MMR was an absolute joke in 4v4v4 as well, you were simply stuck in "high MMR" after playing a certain amount of matches, no matter how good you were at the game.
Your experience is just as important as mine. It's interesting and drastically different than mine. My initial thought was that I would love to see clips of your consistent, balanced two team gameplay. But really, it's perception and two people can see the same thing differently. Which, we obviously do.
The real answer is to.... drumroll.... let people play the way they want. You should be able to queue for two team and I should be able to queue for 3 team. And, if were going to bring up low population, I would rather get one or two good bgs in a two/three hour span than 8 or 10 terrible ones. Because... that's the way i want to play.Edited by Thumbless_Bot on December 28, 2024 3:47PM2 -
Jierdanit✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Your experience is just as important as mine. It's interesting and drastically different than mine. My initial thought was that I would love to see clips of your consistent, balanced two team gameplay. But really, it's perception and two people can see the same thing differently. Which, we obviously do.
The real answer is to.... drumroll.... let people play the way they want. You should be able to queue for two team and I should be able to queue for 3 team. And, if were going to bring up low population, I would rather get one or two good bgs in a two/three hour span than 8 or 10 terrible ones. Because... that's the way i want to play.
I never said the two team BGs are balanced. Most of the time they are not.
Im just saying that the old BGs were not either. And that a BG where all 3 teams were balanced was something i barely ever saw while doing probably on average 5-10 BGs per day for the last 2 years.
Having the option to queue for both would be fine, would be a lot better if they also fixed the issues that both modes still have.Edited by Jierdanit on December 29, 2024 2:57PMPC/EU, StamSorc Main3 -
moo_2021✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »They were infinitely more balanced with three teams.
Mmr was never an issue before.
They ripped the very heart and soul out of battlegrounds with this change. It's more sad than anything.
It was much easier to win regardless of mmr in objective modes because one team could avoid engagement.
And many people wanted DMs exclusively because 3 teams with those modes didn't encourage pvp but fast runners and stealth.0 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Your experience is just as important as mine. It's interesting and drastically different than mine. My initial thought was that I would love to see clips of your consistent, balanced two team gameplay. But really, it's perception and two people can see the same thing differently. Which, we obviously do.
The real answer is to.... drumroll.... let people play the way they want. You should be able to queue for two team and I should be able to queue for 3 team. And, if were going to bring up low population, I would rather get one or two good bgs in a two/three hour span than 8 or 10 terrible ones. Because... that's the way i want to play.
I never said the two team BGs are balanced. Most of the time they are not.
Im just saying that the old BGs were not either. And that a BG where all 3 teams were balanced was something i barely ever saw while doing probably on average 5-10 BGs per day for the last 2 years.
Having the option to queue for both would be fine, would be a lot better if they also fixed that issues that both modes still have.
I never said 3 teams were balanced. I said they were more balanced than 2 teams. Zos has made something complex and layered into so.ething flat and boring with even more lopsided matches.3 -
Solantris✭✭✭This whole MMR thing, was it such a hot button issue before the release of 4v4 and 8v8? I started BG' at a fairly low CP300 and was reeaaly out matched.. As you'd expect. But I loved them and stuck with it and got better and I was happy with Bg's the way they were and never even questioned why I was in matches with bad ass PvP gods who only had to look at me to take me out.
Was the mmr system working properly in classic bg's? Was the effect of a poorly designed matchmaking system mitigated by the more forgiving toward newbie 3 team system? If there are as few players as people say there are can it even be fixed?
I never questioned why I was matched up against better players in 4v4v4, I just assumed I had to put in the time like they had, put in the effort like they had. I never ever thought I should be going up against other 300cp players. Then again the old format offered a way for lower level players to compete against the PvP elite and still have fun via more tactical options and bigger maps to move around in.
I am new to forums, I never had anything to say until they took my favorite part of the game away and I rarely skimmed them before update 44 so I don't know if MMR was considered bad before this. I do know I myself never considered it before this at all, I didn't even know it was a thing. I always thought the whole point was to get to their level, not for the bar to be lowered to accommodate me.
This is a brilliant comment.
Matchmaking has been the same for many years, but the old format was indeed more forgiving.1 -
Solantris✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Your experience is just as important as mine. It's interesting and drastically different than mine. My initial thought was that I would love to see clips of your consistent, balanced two team gameplay. But really, it's perception and two people can see the same thing differently. Which, we obviously do.
The real answer is to.... drumroll.... let people play the way they want. You should be able to queue for two team and I should be able to queue for 3 team. And, if were going to bring up low population, I would rather get one or two good bgs in a two/three hour span than 8 or 10 terrible ones. Because... that's the way i want to play.
I never said the two team BGs are balanced. Most of the time they are not.
Im just saying that the old BGs were not either. And that a BG where all 3 teams were balanced was something i barely ever saw while doing probably on average 5-10 BGs per day for the last 2 years.
Having the option to queue for both would be fine, would be a lot better if they also fixed that issues that both modes still have.
I never said 3 teams were balanced. I said they were more balanced than 2 teams. Zos has made something complex and layered into so.ething flat and boring with even more lopsided matches.
They were not, in fact, more balanced. The impact of the imbalance was less, but it was just as imbalanced. Two people could steamroll just as hard as they can now, it's just that the perspective from the other side of the table has changed. It used to be split across two teams. Now, it's just the one team. So the one team feels the brunt. But things are not mechanically any different than they used to be, in terms of matchmaking.4 -
licenturion✭✭✭✭✭
✭The biggest issue with 8vs8 is that you usually know the first minute of the match who will win because of MMR and team balance.
With the old format you could at least still battle for the 2nd place (which is also a win because you get your daily XP) and that would keep the match more interesting until the end usually.
The new format is also worse for PvE players who just play for the daily XP. (lets not kid ourselves, there are a lot of those)
- In the old format you had 66 percent chance to win the reward
- In the new format you have 50 percent chance to win the reward
So PVE people will have to play longer for their reward, which results in even longer uneven matchmaking.1 -
silky_soft✭✭✭✭✭
✭Power sigil is the best. I can't compete on ping. But I can do some really silly damage with that sigil. 30k is not impossible, but pretty rare. Maybe in WW ball game with group buffs. Mostly hit people for between 7k to 14k with it. If I get a miss match in a lower grade match I'll be doing over 20k easy. Lots of one shots.
The old mmr was silly. You just make another character and bam your playing against low tier again.
There is kind of a mmr structure now, I can get upwards of 30 mins for a que. But most of the time they'll stay under 15 mins. There is just so little in the population you'll see same people lots.This recent update has made me sad. Sad for the game. Sad for the community. Sad to pay whatever it is now. I want the previous eso back.0 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Your experience is just as important as mine. It's interesting and drastically different than mine. My initial thought was that I would love to see clips of your consistent, balanced two team gameplay. But really, it's perception and two people can see the same thing differently. Which, we obviously do.
The real answer is to.... drumroll.... let people play the way they want. You should be able to queue for two team and I should be able to queue for 3 team. And, if were going to bring up low population, I would rather get one or two good bgs in a two/three hour span than 8 or 10 terrible ones. Because... that's the way i want to play.
I never said the two team BGs are balanced. Most of the time they are not.
Im just saying that the old BGs were not either. And that a BG where all 3 teams were balanced was something i barely ever saw while doing probably on average 5-10 BGs per day for the last 2 years.
Having the option to queue for both would be fine, would be a lot better if they also fixed that issues that both modes still have.
I never said 3 teams were balanced. I said they were more balanced than 2 teams. Zos has made something complex and layered into so.ething flat and boring with even more lopsided matches.
They were not, in fact, more balanced. The impact of the imbalance was less, but it was just as imbalanced. Two people could steamroll just as hard as they can now, it's just that the perspective from the other side of the table has changed. It used to be split across two teams. Now, it's just the one team. So the one team feels the brunt. But things are not mechanically any different than they used to be, in terms of matchmaking.
So, by spreading things out across two teams you say there is the same imbalance as three... however, you prove my point with, "it used to be split across two teams".
Let us break this down. It will really help drive my point home
Let us use a real life example. Let us use a teeter totter or see-saw. There are two really sweaty heavy skilled players at one end. Along with two lightweight zerglings who just got a lucky pairing. At the other end are four players who, for whatever reason, are getting the floor mopped with their faces. To use the analogy, every time the round starts, the two sweaties are so heavy they rocket all four people on the other team out of Nirn's atmosphere. By adding four more people to that side, you get relatively more... drumroll... [feel free to enter the word here]. Now they may still get shot into the sky, but it is, by definition, more balanced, because as you say, and I am paraphrasing. The weight disparity is spread across more teams.
This holds even when you take into account that there are really three sides to the seesaw with three teams fighting each other. Lets imagine the seesaw looks like a Y or a Mercedes symbol. Or peace symbol. The two teams will still help balance out the sweaties, MORE THAN one. There might still be imbalance, But it is less, and therefore, by definition, three teams are more balanced.
2 -
Jierdanit✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Your experience is just as important as mine. It's interesting and drastically different than mine. My initial thought was that I would love to see clips of your consistent, balanced two team gameplay. But really, it's perception and two people can see the same thing differently. Which, we obviously do.
The real answer is to.... drumroll.... let people play the way they want. You should be able to queue for two team and I should be able to queue for 3 team. And, if were going to bring up low population, I would rather get one or two good bgs in a two/three hour span than 8 or 10 terrible ones. Because... that's the way i want to play.
I never said the two team BGs are balanced. Most of the time they are not.
Im just saying that the old BGs were not either. And that a BG where all 3 teams were balanced was something i barely ever saw while doing probably on average 5-10 BGs per day for the last 2 years.
Having the option to queue for both would be fine, would be a lot better if they also fixed that issues that both modes still have.
I never said 3 teams were balanced. I said they were more balanced than 2 teams. Zos has made something complex and layered into so.ething flat and boring with even more lopsided matches.
They were not, in fact, more balanced. The impact of the imbalance was less, but it was just as imbalanced. Two people could steamroll just as hard as they can now, it's just that the perspective from the other side of the table has changed. It used to be split across two teams. Now, it's just the one team. So the one team feels the brunt. But things are not mechanically any different than they used to be, in terms of matchmaking.
So, by spreading things out across two teams you say there is the same imbalance as three... however, you prove my point with, "it used to be split across two teams".
Let us break this down. It will really help drive my point home
Let us use a real life example. Let us use a teeter totter or see-saw. There are two really sweaty heavy skilled players at one end. Along with two lightweight zerglings who just got a lucky pairing. At the other end are four players who, for whatever reason, are getting the floor mopped with their faces. To use the analogy, every time the round starts, the two sweaties are so heavy they rocket all four people on the other team out of Nirn's atmosphere. By adding four more people to that side, you get relatively more... drumroll... [feel free to enter the word here]. Now they may still get shot into the sky, but it is, by definition, more balanced, because as you say, and I am paraphrasing. The weight disparity is spread across more teams.
This holds even when you take into account that there are really three sides to the seesaw with three teams fighting each other. Lets imagine the seesaw looks like a Y or a Mercedes symbol. Or peace symbol. The two teams will still help balance out the sweaties, MORE THAN one. There might still be imbalance, But it is less, and therefore, by definition, three teams are more balanced.
It only works that way if the weaker teams team up against the stronger team though.
Which from personal experience happened far less often than the 2 stronger teams teaming up to bully the weakest team.
So yes 2/3rds of the players would have "fun" that way while the other 3rd has even less of a chance than in 2 team BGs.PC/EU, StamSorc Main0 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Your experience is just as important as mine. It's interesting and drastically different than mine. My initial thought was that I would love to see clips of your consistent, balanced two team gameplay. But really, it's perception and two people can see the same thing differently. Which, we obviously do.
The real answer is to.... drumroll.... let people play the way they want. You should be able to queue for two team and I should be able to queue for 3 team. And, if were going to bring up low population, I would rather get one or two good bgs in a two/three hour span than 8 or 10 terrible ones. Because... that's the way i want to play.
I never said the two team BGs are balanced. Most of the time they are not.
Im just saying that the old BGs were not either. And that a BG where all 3 teams were balanced was something i barely ever saw while doing probably on average 5-10 BGs per day for the last 2 years.
Having the option to queue for both would be fine, would be a lot better if they also fixed that issues that both modes still have.
I never said 3 teams were balanced. I said they were more balanced than 2 teams. Zos has made something complex and layered into so.ething flat and boring with even more lopsided matches.
They were not, in fact, more balanced. The impact of the imbalance was less, but it was just as imbalanced. Two people could steamroll just as hard as they can now, it's just that the perspective from the other side of the table has changed. It used to be split across two teams. Now, it's just the one team. So the one team feels the brunt. But things are not mechanically any different than they used to be, in terms of matchmaking.
So, by spreading things out across two teams you say there is the same imbalance as three... however, you prove my point with, "it used to be split across two teams".
Let us break this down. It will really help drive my point home
Let us use a real life example. Let us use a teeter totter or see-saw. There are two really sweaty heavy skilled players at one end. Along with two lightweight zerglings who just got a lucky pairing. At the other end are four players who, for whatever reason, are getting the floor mopped with their faces. To use the analogy, every time the round starts, the two sweaties are so heavy they rocket all four people on the other team out of Nirn's atmosphere. By adding four more people to that side, you get relatively more... drumroll... [feel free to enter the word here]. Now they may still get shot into the sky, but it is, by definition, more balanced, because as you say, and I am paraphrasing. The weight disparity is spread across more teams.
This holds even when you take into account that there are really three sides to the seesaw with three teams fighting each other. Lets imagine the seesaw looks like a Y or a Mercedes symbol. Or peace symbol. The two teams will still help balance out the sweaties, MORE THAN one. There might still be imbalance, But it is less, and therefore, by definition, three teams are more balanced.
It only works that way if the weaker teams team up against the stronger team though.
Which from personal experience happened far less often than the 2 stronger teams teaming up to bully the weakest team.
So yes 2/3rds of the players would have "fun" that way while the other 3rd has even less of a chance than in 2 team BGs.
Two strong teams and one weak team is still more balanced than one weak team and one strong team. Think of it this way, if there were 99 strong teams and 1 weak team it would be more balanced. 98 as well, but slightly less so. Also, it would be more balanced if there were 99 weak teams and one strong team. 98 as well. 97. 96 etc... down to 3 teams with either teo strong or weak teams... more teams means there will generally be more balance.
It might stink being the weakest team but that can't be helped.
All two team format does is exacerbate the already glaring imbalance in classes, skill and skills. But zos will never fix this, only make things more imbalanced because I really don't think they know how to create balance. Think of the long list of absurd changes they've made over the years.
So. Imho, the only way to create more balance is to add more teams.Edited by Thumbless_Bot on December 29, 2024 8:40PM1 -
Theignson✭✭✭✭✭
✭I've noticed this. I have a lot of PvP experience, I always go in solo, and sometimes end up in groups with several other veterans, pitted against a lot of inexperienced players.
It isn't very fun destroying them and then seeing them up on the spawn point unwilling to come down.
Also I've been in the other seat and had teams that got destroyed. It is not fun at all.
On the other hand sometimes the groups are pretty close and it is fun.
4 GOs, and bunches of prefects etc-- all classes...I've wasted a lot of time in PVP over the last 8 years1