Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Two-Teams BG enjoyers on their way to have ''fun'' spawncamping newcomers 58 times

Yes because that is totally new to the 2 team BGs and never happened in 3 way BGs.

It didn't happen for practical reasons. The objective would just get done uncontested by the third team. Even the most deranged seal clubber wouldn't want the BG to end in two and a half minutes.

Most people never really cared about the objective anyway.

What are you talking about? You know that the majority of players in battlegrounds are only there for the rewards. Of course they care about the objective. If we had balanced matches they might even become interested in PVP itself. There is simply no other way for the community to grow.
We know that 3-teams BGs could be balanced. We've all seen it. I miss not knowing which of the three teams was going to win the BG. Those of us with no taste for seal clubbing miss it too.

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 21: Waiting 22 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbSHHFVxKts

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Two-Teams BG enjoyers on their way to have ''fun'' spawncamping newcomers 58 times

Yes because that is totally new to the 2 team BGs and never happened in 3 way BGs.

It didn't happen for practical reasons. The objective would just get done uncontested by the third team. Even the most deranged seal clubber wouldn't want the BG to end in two and a half minutes.

Most people never really cared about the objective anyway.

Not true. I cared about the objective. I always approached Bg's with the mentality that it doesn't matter how many kills you get if you LOSE. What's the point of getting 40 kills if you lose the game? You're a loser. I played to win, always. If that meant running hell bent for a flag in Crazy King or sneaking up on a relic rather than head on'ing the relic guard that's what I did. In deathmatch that meant working on my build to get better, always tweaking, refining, trying different sets, eking out every last bit of damage possible, slotting a team heal. Even when I wasn't in battlegrounds I was working on battlegrounds.

In my opinion, 4v4v4 battlegrounds were MUCH more newcomer friendly BECAUSE of the objectives. I've mentioned previously that I was low level when I started PvP'ing. I could not compete, like at all, head to head with vet battlegrounders. One shot city, little to no damage, baby seal, know nothing, clueless noob. I could go on but you get the gist. I could not compete with them in terms of damage. But you know what I could do? I could capture a flag. I could snag an unguarded relic and score for my team. I could contribute to the win REGARDLESS of my baby seal status. This is simply not true of two team battlegrounds. The no brakes, head to head nature of two team battlegrounds on small maps means there is no room to sneak a relic, no room to run solo to a Crazy King flag, no room to flip a Domination flag on one side of the map while everybody else is on the other.

The 3 team format, a format that allowed strategy and tactics to matter, on maps with room to move around, were inherently more beginner friendly because they allowed you to compete EVEN WHEN YOU COULDNT COMPETE.

That being said, nobody enjoys being a baby seal. While the objectives offered me, and I'm sure other baby battlegrounders a way to feel like they weren't totally useless on their teams, 4v4v4 allowed me to see what was possible. I saw other players getting 30 kills, only dying once, tanking their relic "You shall not pass" Gandalf style, duos splitting off to each side of the map to get BOTH flags employing that thing so many of us miss, which was STRATEGY, Deathmatch Gods absolutely destroying everybody with ease. And I wanted to BE them. And to an extent I did become them. Im by no means elite, still squishier than Id like but damnit, I'm not a baby seal anymore either and that's because I got a taste of what was possible back when OBJECTIVES were my only means of contributing to my team.

You guys remember gankers in the rafters of Arcane University, using teleports in Eld Angavar? Maps with teleports, period and how fun those could be? Riding our mounts in Crazy King in Istirus Outpost? Getting knocked into the lava in Foyada Quarry? Big maps with so many levels and so many options for dynamic game play, maps where newbies could capture a flag w/out getting one shotted? Maps where you could flip a Domination flag and help your team even if you were a baby seal? I miss those maps so much. Objectives were the gateway by which babies got introduced to battlegrounds, the method by which new players felt useful even when they weren't.

So yeah, dude. Gonna have to disagree.

Moonspawn wrote: »

We know that 3-teams BGs could be balanced.

So how do you prevent third party trolls from ruining objectives or competitive play?

I don't think you can. At least in Cyro the map is big enough to mitigate the phenomenon.

The majority of my tri faction BGs memories are of 8v4 garbage fights and "enemy stole the kill"

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Two-Teams BG enjoyers on their way to have ''fun'' spawncamping newcomers 58 times

Yes because that is totally new to the 2 team BGs and never happened in 3 way BGs.

Has your experience been that this happened at the same rate in 3 team modes as it does in this 2 team mode?

My experience is that this happened in both, but happens probably 10 times as frequently now, but that's just me.

One player having a significantly higher K/D than the rest of the BG? Probably actually happens less often now.

One Team being very dominant (which wasnt really even the case in that BG). Happened a lot in both. Probably a bit more in the new BGs.

These are two VERY different things, spawn camping and having high kda.

The other team would not get 70 kills if they would be stuck in their spawn.

I don't really understand this comment. I do not spawn camp; never have.

However, i conistently get 10-30 kills, if not more. Depending on the competency of my opponent(s), by playing objectives. Not counting dm. Because you are limited to twelve in 4v4 and some number in 8v8. This is not spawn camping. This has more to do with non-sweaties playing bgs for the rewards and repeatedly getting killed AT THE OBJECTIVE or FOR THE OBJECTIVE, and mmr perhaps needing some adjustments.

Spawn camping should be addressed, but was. As i have stated, much less of an issue woth three teams.

I was talking specifically about that BG in the screenshot. OP said that the other team was being spawncamped in that BG.

Spawn camping should definitely be addressed, but is from my experience barely an issue in 8v8. In 4v4 it definitely is and that would need some fixing, but its also simply what happens in a competitive mode if your team is just considerably worse than the opposing team (which it shouldnt be with proper MMR).

Chrisilis wrote: »

Not true. I cared about the objective. I always approached Bg's with the mentality that it doesn't matter how many kills you get if you LOSE. What's the point of getting 40 kills if you lose the game? You're a loser. I played to win, always. If that meant running hell bent for a flag in Crazy King or sneaking up on a relic rather than head on'ing the relic guard that's what I did. In deathmatch that meant working on my build to get better, always tweaking, refining, trying different sets, eking out every last bit of damage possible, slotting a team heal. Even when I wasn't in battlegrounds I was working on battlegrounds.

Well I might be a bit biased here because most people I played with never cared about the objective so fair enough it might not be most. Its still a lot.

I mostly play BGs with a completely different mentality. I play them to have fun and that for me comes from having good fights and a good KD not from winning a match.
Also I usually did not feel like a "winner" after winning an objective mode BG. Those were boring to me no matter if I won or lost most of the time.

Chrisilis wrote: »

In my opinion, 4v4v4 battlegrounds were MUCH more newcomer friendly BECAUSE of the objectives. I've mentioned previously that I was low level when I started PvP'ing. I could not compete, like at all, head to head with vet battlegrounders. One shot city, little to no damage, baby seal, know nothing, clueless noob. I could go on but you get the gist. I could not compete with them in terms of damage. But you know what I could do? I could capture a flag. I could snag an unguarded relic and score for my team. I could contribute to the win REGARDLESS of my baby seal status. This is simply not true of two team battlegrounds. The no brakes, head to head nature of two team battlegrounds on small maps means there is no room to sneak a relic, no room to run solo to a Crazy King flag, no room to flip a Domination flag on one side of the map while everybody else is on the other.

The 8v8 still allows even completely inexperienced players to take part in taking the objectives.
The 4v4 is a competitive mode. It is in absolutely no way supposed to be designed for seals, noobs or whatever you want to call them.

If a player is not good enough to actually play a significant role in 4v4 they should stay with 8v8 until they actually learn.

Chrisilis wrote: »

The 3 team format, a format that allowed strategy and tactics to matter, on maps with room to move around, were inherently more beginner friendly because they allowed you to compete EVEN WHEN YOU COULDNT COMPETE.

Maybe, if you cant compete you simply shouldn't be able to compete?
PvP is already one of the very few things in this game that still rewards players for actually being good at playing the game.
So if you cant compete you should probably try to get better at the game.

Also strategy and tactics? People didn't strategize, people were running from fights and did objectives that a lot of players absolutely didn't care about.

Chrisilis wrote: »

That being said, nobody enjoys being a baby seal. While the objectives offered me, and I'm sure other baby battlegrounders a way to feel like they weren't totally useless on their teams, 4v4v4 allowed me to see what was possible. I saw other players getting 30 kills, only dying once, tanking their relic "You shall not pass" Gandalf style, duos splitting off to each side of the map to get BOTH flags employing that thing so many of us miss, which was STRATEGY, Deathmatch Gods absolutely destroying everybody with ease. And I wanted to BE them. And to an extent I did become them. Im by no means elite, still squishier than Id like but damnit, I'm not a baby seal anymore either and that's because I got a taste of what was possible back when OBJECTIVES were my only means of contributing to my team.

From my experience a lot of players are perfectly fine being baby seals. Most people would rather insult another player for being better than them than actually try to get better themselves.

Chrisilis wrote: »

You guys remember gankers in the rafters of Arcane University, using teleports in Eld Angavar? Maps with teleports, period and how fun those could be? Riding our mounts in Crazy King in Istirus Outpost? Getting knocked into the lava in Foyada Quarry? Big maps with so many levels and so many options for dynamic game play, maps where newbies could capture a flag w/out getting one shotted? Maps where you could flip a Domination flag and help your team even if you were a baby seal? I miss those maps so much. Objectives were the gateway by which babies got introduced to battlegrounds, the method by which new players felt useful even when they weren't.

This I do actually agree with. I think most of the new Maps are not particularly great designed. Especially the 4v4 ones are quite boring at times.
I would also like some more interesting and special Maps, but ZOS added most of those maps to 4v4v4 after they were released, so there is definitely still time for that.

Chrisilis wrote: »

So yeah, dude. Gonna have to disagree.

Fair enough. As I said maybe "most" was an exaggeration.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

What are you talking about? You know that the majority of players in battlegrounds are only there for the rewards. Of course they care about the objective.

What rewards? Battleground rewards are virtually all worthless. Also the new BGs have been out for months already so most players should easily already have most if not all of the (not leaderboard) style pages, which are basically the only rewards actually worth something.
And lots of the people in BGs that are just there for the rewards have been doing literally nothing. So they apparently still dont care enough about the rewards to actually take part in the objective. Before the new "rewards" were added there was effectively nothing rewarding about winning a BG apart from some XP.

Geodes, daily xp, endeavours, golden persuits. Its mostly about the geodes and the daily xp now. You didn't know they grossly increased the amount of transmutation crystals you can get from Battlegrounds?

And don't forget those gold style pages that are bound.

Ooo, and AP. I'm a bit tired of Cyro post PC-EU Ravenwatch destruction a few months back. Can't get back into CP PvP, and Ravenwatch got killed by the perma-Emp squad.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

What are you talking about? You know that the majority of players in battlegrounds are only there for the rewards. Of course they care about the objective.

What rewards? Battleground rewards are virtually all worthless. Also the new BGs have been out for months already so most players should easily already have most if not all of the (not leaderboard) style pages, which are basically the only rewards actually worth something.
And lots of the people in BGs that are just there for the rewards have been doing literally nothing. So they apparently still dont care enough about the rewards to actually take part in the objective. Before the new "rewards" were added there was effectively nothing rewarding about winning a BG apart from some XP.

Geodes, daily xp, endeavours, golden persuits. Its mostly about the geodes and the daily xp now. You didn't know they grossly increased the amount of transmutation crystals you can get from Battlegrounds?

I did know.

I literally constantly have too much transmutation crystals now and don't know where I'm supposed to put the new ones.
So that really does not seems like a particularly interesting reward to me.

Chrisilis wrote: »

I appreciate your point of view Jierdanit. Its clear a lot of people feel a lot of different ways about classic Bg's and a lot of people feel a lot of ways about new Bg's. I don't think any of us are wrong. I'd like to see us all get what we want. Id like the bugs fixed in 4v4 and 8v8, the balance issues addressed etc. so you can play the way you want. I want 4v4v4 back so I can play the way I want. In my mind there really isn't any good reason for everybody to NOT have what they want. It would take so little for ZoS to make the community happy by listening to what we are saying in these forums. Fix the bugs in new Bg's, reinstate old Bg's. That's it. I don't feel like this is to much to ask.

The only "good" reason is not wanting longer queue times for both modes, but I would personally not have an issue with 4v4v4 being brought back as an additional option.

Chrisilis wrote: »

Don't you think the main reason for new Bg's is to draw in new players? To revitalize the bg pvp community? I certainly don't think it was a gift to the existing community or we'd all be posting happily about how great the new Bg's are. New pvpers have to start somewhere... 8v8 is probably not a bad place for this since its fairly chaotic and doesnt really demand much skill or attention to ones build. I think 4v4v4 would be the next logical step in BG progression after 8v8, should they reinstate it, as that format requires more skill, experience, attention to build. You are absolutely correct in that 4v4 is no place for the newbie.. they're gonna have a bad time. But it would make a lot of sense to have competitive 4v4 be something to work toward after 8v8 and 4v4v4. A logical progression of pvp accomplishment.

I think plenty of previous BG players did ask for 2 team BGs and are quite happy about the new modes. So to a certain extent its absolutely a gift to the existing community.

In general though I think it was supposed to be to draw in new players. Which in my opinion is already a bad decision. At least if we are talking about PvE players. From what I have seen most ESO pve players hate PvP so badly that they would never touch it.
So in my opinion instead of trying to make PvE players get into PvP they should make PvP actually enjoyable to people who want to do it.

Chrisilis wrote: »

I appreciate your point of view Jierdanit. Its clear a lot of people feel a lot of different ways about classic Bg's and a lot of people feel a lot of ways about new Bg's. I don't think any of us are wrong. I'd like to see us all get what we want. Id like the bugs fixed in 4v4 and 8v8, the balance issues addressed etc. so you can play the way you want. I want 4v4v4 back so I can play the way I want. In my mind there really isn't any good reason for everybody to NOT have what they want. It would take so little for ZoS to make the community happy by listening to what we are saying in these forums. Fix the bugs in new Bg's, reinstate old Bg's. That's it. I don't feel like this is to much to ask.

I don't know how to snip out quotes Jierdanit but you wrote:

"Maybe, if you cant compete you simply shouldn't be able to compete?
PvP is already one of the very few things in this game that still rewards players for actually being good at playing the game.
So if you cant compete you should probably try to get better at the game."

Don't you think the main reason for new Bg's is to draw in new players? To revitalize the bg pvp community? I certainly don't think it was a gift to the existing community or we'd all be posting happily about how great the new Bg's are. New pvpers have to start somewhere... 8v8 is probably not a bad place for this since its fairly chaotic and doesnt really demand much skill or attention to ones build. I think 4v4v4 would be the next logical step in BG progression after 8v8, should they reinstate it, as that format requires more skill, experience, attention to build. You are absolutely correct in that 4v4 is no place for the newbie.. they're gonna have a bad time. But it would make a lot of sense to have competitive 4v4 be something to work toward after 8v8 and 4v4v4. A logical progression of pvp accomplishment.

Anyway. Lets all hope Zos is listening, recognizes how passionate we all are on this subject, and rewards our passion by letting us all play the way we want.

Agree. They should bring 4v4v4 back. This way, we can all play the way we want. I would rather get one good bg every half hour than five terrible ones that last a nanosecond. This sentiment permeates my bg guild. But it is not universal, so i think queue times would be about as good as they are now.

I would also rather go 10-0 or 10-2 with all my sweaty bg veteran comrades in 4v4v4 than go 50-0 in the toxic soup that is 8v8 or go to a 0-0 tie break in the 4v4 dm toxic soup. Lastly, I get nothing out of continuously x-ing players who don't know what they are doing. Some people do. To each their own.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Yawn... You can count the teams here:

Seems your team actively helped to prolong the match so you could club as many baby seals as possible. Revolting. Wouldn't have happened if there was a separate DM queue, or if the mode (cpt the relic) was revamped in this way: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670577/revamping-three-teams-battegrounds#latest

Decimus wrote: »

KDR wise there's not much of a difference when a BG doesn't end in 2 minutes.

Some of us just don't enjoy many, many BGs ending in 2 minutes as someone with 20k health runs from Point A to Point B... or being forced to do that yourself in order to win a BG and skip the more engaging PvP.

My suggestions fix all that. But even if they don't revamp the 3-teams BGs exactly as I have suggested, they really should take a long, hard look at both the land grab modes, and Capture the Relic.

Decimus wrote: »

Also for those wanting "both"... you think you do, but you don't - you'd wind up spending hours in queue as 10% of the current BG population would move back to 3-way queue and the rest of us would just have slightly longer queues for virtually no reason.

Sounds like just developer time wasted to me for something that's just going to have people demanding the removal of team vs team bc "their 3-way queues are too long".

The vast majority of players would choose the 3-teams BGs because it would be easier to obtain the increased rewards. 8/12 would get the goods, sometimes all 12. The fact that they weren't just one team mindlessly farming the other would help too. They were more balanced, even with all of their easily solvable problems.

Or instead of trying to fix something that's fundamentally broken like 3-way PvP they could just do what every other successful game has done with their competitive PvP format and make it team vs team... oh wait, that's exactly how it is now.

Screenshot was a reply to a completely ludicrous statement about 3-way BGs being more "balanced" when the whole word can be thrown out the window when you introduce fights where you might be 1-4v8 instead of having equal numbers vs equal numbers. My KDR records for every class (stamina and magicka) are still from the "super balanced" 3-way format - also the most tilting and frustrating BGs are from that format.

If you're worried about not getting rewards in BGs anymore there's a very simple solution to that: participation rewards for the losing team as well. This is something done in many MMOs, Throne and Liberty being the latest example where you get a participation box even if you don't win the fight for a world boss or get the best contribution during an event.

Decimus wrote: »

Or instead of trying to fix something that's fundamentally broken like 3-way PvP they could just do what every other successful game has done with their competitive PvP format and make it team vs team... oh wait, that's exactly how it is now.

I can't speak for other games. I just know that 3-teams BGs CAN work in ESO's combat, because I've seen it.

Decimus wrote: »

Screenshot was a reply to a completely ludicrous statement about 3-way BGs being more "balanced" when the whole word can be thrown out the window when you introduce fights where you might be 1-4v8 instead of having equal numbers vs equal numbers. My KDR records for every class (stamina and magicka) are still from the "super balanced" 3-way format - also the most tilting and frustrating BGs are from that format.

If even one of your teammates had not agreed to partake in the grotesquery (for the entire 15 minutes), the match would have just ended quickly, one way or another. Your team wanted to DM, in a separate DM queue. And I can't fault them for that. This was the greatest source of imbalance in the old BGs. People who did not want to play the objective being forced into objective matches. It's why there is no way around the need for a separate DM only queue.

If you point out exactly what wouldn't work with my suggestions I could channel your hatred for 3-teams BGs to identify and fix their fundamental problems. We could accomplish great and wonderful things together.

Decimus wrote: »

If you're worried about not getting rewards in BGs anymore there's a very simple solution to that: participation rewards for the losing team as well. This is something done in many MMOs, Throne and Liberty being the latest example where you get a participation box even if you don't win the fight for a world boss or get the best contribution during an event.

I don't much care for the rewards either, because I'm here for the pvp, but I do recognize their importance. I was just explaining why people would choose the old BGs instead of the new ones if they were put side by side. The most realistic way for the community to grow is if people came for the rewards, as they are doing right now, but stayed for the PVP. If they don't find balanced matches, they won't stay.

BGs suffer from trying to make all of the different PvP styles of play fit into the same game. DM, objective, and balanced competitive fights are all distinct, so just separate them. Just make BGs have only 2 queues and then expand dueling to include teams.

1. Solo queue, deathmatch only, 16 players free for all, MMR from KDA, timed matches. This would be the place for those who hate cross healing/shielding, want to quickly get in fights, and test their 1vX skills.
2. Group queue, objectives only, 4v4v4, MMR from team wins only. This is the place for those who want to play healers, support, tanks, speed runners, etc.
3. Expand the dueling system to support groups up to 4v4 so the competitive crowd can control the rulesets however they want to make balanced competitive fights (cp or nocp, no streak, no proc sets, etc). Or leaves duels and implement custom lobbies.

And please don’t try to use rewards to get everyone to play the same mode. The gameplay experience should be the primary motivation. And if it’s not, the ZOS needs to take a look in the mirror.

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

But, generally speaking, 2 teams has been bland, simple, dull and predictable. It has been a significant downgrade to the repeatability and likely turning newer players off to them.

So boring. I've seriously started playing and giving my money to DCUO again it's so boring.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

I have also seen it, for 7 years - and for 7 years I've been saying BGs in this game could actually be a popular form of PvP in this game as well, rather than an activity only enjoyed by a small minority.

The facts are that BGs did not have enough player base and this is why you saw ZOS make changes necessary to revitalize it.

It's now enjoyed by an even smaller minority, and the rest is after transmutation geodes.

...and this is what is commonly known as copium. It's been months since the update, and still seeing multiple lobbies at a time.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

There is no solution to a fundamental problem. You cannot fix two teams focusing one team, creating an experience imbalanced to its core.

Capture the Relic? Two teams fight, one team runs to empty objective, repeatedly caps it and wins the BG. If one person stays behind, then one team fights 3v4 (imbalanced) while some poor soul tries 1v4 (imbalanced) to prevent opponents from capturing the Relic.

There is no solution, the mere existence of the third team and their actions ruins the experience.

Deathmatch? Three teams fight, but the damage doesn't distribute evenly - squishies/less experienced PvPers get farmed because the first one to reach 32 kills wins, experienced players ignore each other*. One team (the one with the most squishies/less experienced PvPers) will get focused the most and has a miserable time. Oh, and people from 3rd team will steal your kills even if you did most of the work.

Capture the Flag? Again, two teams fight while 3rd team runs to empty flags. Even if there is only one flag (beginning of Crazy King) the experience is imbalanced as one team will get focused more than the others (same as Deathmatch basically).

*Note: there's also for a long time been an etiquette amongst the top PvPers to kinda just ignore each other unless it's a fair equal numbers fight - common sense: no one likes an unfair fight and if a good player has to fight another good player outnumbered there's no chance of winning & no sense of satisfaction/accomplishment for the outnumbering party. This etiquette has also kept things relatively drama/toxicity free.


Fundamental problems, not fixable.

I meant identifying problems with my suggestions for revamped BGs: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670577/revamping-three-teams-battegrounds#latest
With what you said, I guess we could talk about Deathmatch, the only mode I left up to a mysterious MMR that's supposed to magically solve all our problems, feed our children, pay our bills, and take us to paradise. Do you notice how Chaosball and ''Escort the payload'' would be different, but the actual fighting would be kind of similar? If the MMR isn't cutting it for DM, I think it's possible to establish a similar relation between DM and the revamped Capt the Relic. But first you need to understand how awesome the new relic mode would be. I'll wait.

<snip>

Unless you don't consider it a problem that two teams are focusing one team and causing an unfair situation to occur for the team being 8v4'd - if someone wants this kind of an experience they can go to Cyrodiil where everyone is free to form a ball group and run after outnumbered players.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Yes, and here's where I'll use your own logic against you:

If that was the case, wouldn't people only queue for 4v4 & ignore 8v8 since you can only get Galeskirmish Gladiator style pages by placing on the weekly leaderboard? 4v4 is even the first queue option presented to people (which is a mistake in my opinion), leading to a lot of people queueing for it by accident... yet 8v8 has by far larger player base.

Could it perhaps be that a lot of people just find 8v8... fun?

You're right about the rewards & unbalanced matches though, but there's very simple solutions to both of those problems that don't involve returning to a failed model that had vast majority of people get those rewards (there's been style page rewards for years and years) and then go back to Cyrodiil/IC/dueling for their PvP.

The boredom is not as brutal in 8v8, and the chances of victory for a newcomer are MUCH higher. The vast majority really is only subjecting themselves to this lopsided torture because of the increased rewards. I thought it was obvious, but if proof is necessary, they could just put the old BGs alongside the new.

...and this here is more copium. You don't get "increased" rewards in 4v4, it is the only way to get those rewards - and 4v4 queue is significantly longer than the 8v8 queue despite only requiring 8 people per match rather than 16, so I don't know what you're going on about "vast majority".

The chances of a victory for a newcomer also aren't at all higher in 4v4 than they are in 8v8 - they're literally 50/50. Saying this as someone who farmed the whole Galeskirmish Gladiator style playing 7 different characters.

The problem is, the chances for a top PvPer are also too close to a 50/50 in 4v4 - if you get into the team with people who don't know what they're doing and you have people who know how to push half their buttons in the opponent team, you are going to lose that battleground - period.

They can fix that by restructuring the format, having multiple rounds & shuffling teams inbetween, then providing rating points based on how many rounds were won.

Since you mentioned earlier not being able to speak for other games, here's a good example of a properly functioning system: https://youtu.be/Fp4PqTUjo98?si=GjHXqVoHw4epowCL

<snipped for Cursing and Profanity/Abusive Language and Disruptive Behavior>