Maintenance for the week of September 1:
• [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 2, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 3, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 3, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 2, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 3, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 3, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
Revamping Three-Teams Battegrounds
Moonspawn
✭✭✭✭
Chaosball
PROBLEMS
Capture the Relic
PROBLEMS
Cut through the boredom and jump to the fun part right from the get go. A player from each team would be randomly selected as the ''relic holder'', and the goal of the match would be to kill the other team's relic holder while protecting your own. When the relic holder dies ''the light'' would jump to another player of the team after 30 seconds, the new relic holder. (This player would obviously need to be ejected from spawn after a period of time.) It would, in a way, be similar to the current 8v8 chaosball.
This mode would function like an extremely high level Deathmatch from the olden days, but with training wheels. Imagine a 3 teams DM, but the softest target of every team is being indicated by the relic. In the worst possible scenario, the two stronger teams would be compelled to fight in the spawn of the softer team, but because of the relic's debuff, this fight would never stalemate to the point of not being worth it. They would fight, relic holders would die, jump to other players, and the new holders would die too. It would be impossible to trap the softer team.
Crazy King and Domination
PROBLEMS
Deathmatch
Forcing the DM sweatlords into the same match as the newcomers just trying to get the daily rewards is exactly what makes both these groups stop playing altogether. Simply creating a separate Deathmatch Queue would make the game mode unrecognizable and more balanced than ever.
___________________________
If a meaningful number of trolls still decide to ignore the revamped objectives no matter what, a new Unique Debuff would have to go in effect whenever they move too far away from the objective.
New Unique Debuff effects:
EDIT 1: Leaving the Debuff zone should grant 3 seconds of damage immunity. This is to prevent camping at the edge of the zone.
Edited by Moonspawn on March 7, 2025 10:04AM PROBLEMS
- Ball carrier could move around the map at high speed. Would be all but impossible to catch.
- Players could take the ball to cheesy places where they couldn't be damaged OR where you had to give up your life to damage them.
- Reduce ball carrier speed by 30%
- Fix cheesy places.
- (OPTIONAL): Unique Debuff that prevents fighting if you move more than 40 meters away from the ball. Debuff's effects will be explained at the end.
Capture the Relic
PROBLEMS
- Standing around guarding a relic is boring.
- Pointlessly parsing a tank who is guarding a relic is boring.
- Having your relic stolen through the wall, or because the grabbing animation didn't play correctly is boring.
Cut through the boredom and jump to the fun part right from the get go. A player from each team would be randomly selected as the ''relic holder'', and the goal of the match would be to kill the other team's relic holder while protecting your own. When the relic holder dies ''the light'' would jump to another player of the team after 30 seconds, the new relic holder. (This player would obviously need to be ejected from spawn after a period of time.) It would, in a way, be similar to the current 8v8 chaosball.
This mode would function like an extremely high level Deathmatch from the olden days, but with training wheels. Imagine a 3 teams DM, but the softest target of every team is being indicated by the relic. In the worst possible scenario, the two stronger teams would be compelled to fight in the spawn of the softer team, but because of the relic's debuff, this fight would never stalemate to the point of not being worth it. They would fight, relic holders would die, jump to other players, and the new holders would die too. It would be impossible to trap the softer team.
Crazy King and Domination
PROBLEMS
- While two teams fight, the third team flips the flags. This becomes a huge problem if the fight stalemates.
- The objective would be a single flag, one that slowly moves around the map. It would essentially become ''Escort payload mode''. This would work better in ESO than in a lot of other games that already have the mode.
- (OPTIONAL): Unique Debuff that prevents fighting if you move more than 40 meters away from the flag. Debuff's effects will be explained at the end.
Deathmatch
Forcing the DM sweatlords into the same match as the newcomers just trying to get the daily rewards is exactly what makes both these groups stop playing altogether. Simply creating a separate Deathmatch Queue would make the game mode unrecognizable and more balanced than ever.
___________________________
If a meaningful number of trolls still decide to ignore the revamped objectives no matter what, a new Unique Debuff would have to go in effect whenever they move too far away from the objective.
New Unique Debuff effects:
- Can't use any abilities.
- Can't be damaged (Lava, Fall, and Environmental Damage should probably still apply)
- Can't have the HP restored in any way.
- No regeneration.
EDIT 1: Leaving the Debuff zone should grant 3 seconds of damage immunity. This is to prevent camping at the edge of the zone.
2
-
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭Updated to prevent camping at the edge of the Debuff zone. Any other concerns or potential problems?Edited by Moonspawn on January 25, 2025 1:32PM0
-
Iriidius✭✭✭✭Reducing ball carrier speed by a flat 30% hurts not just fast runner but eceryone including players with base speed or below who have no speed increases but speed decreases. Slow players are hurt even more as an additive 30% for them is relatively more than for fast players. With enaugh investment you can still reach speed cap, you just need to invest more.
A speed cap would make more sense and hurt only speedrunners. Could even convert the above cap speed into wpn dmg althought it is easier not to do, just prevent ball carriers from running so fast that you cant hit them with meele attacks. It should be a number that most players not surpass regularely like 130-150%((major expedition and maybe either minor expedition or 3 swift but not both) or sprinting ).2 -
DeadlySerious✭✭✭✭I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?6
-
moo_2021✭✭✭✭✭Tiny maps encourage fighting instead of running away. Previously one could win a game without hitting a single enemy or getting hit, and lots of stamina was wasted on endless sprinting. It's supposed to be a PvP game not marathon or hide-and-seek!
New 4x4 maps are the best changes.Edited by moo_2021 on January 25, 2025 5:54PM3 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
3 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.Edited by Thumbless_Bot on January 25, 2025 7:35PM4 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭Tiny maps encourage fighting instead of running away. Previously one could win a game without hitting a single enemy or getting hit, and lots of stamina was wasted on endless sprinting. It's supposed to be a PvP game not marathon or hide-and-seek!
New 4x4 maps are the best changes.
Cloak still exists as does invis for non nbs. So hide and seek stull exists.
The larger maps are phenomenal, as good as the old maps.
The smaller maps do not encourage combat outside of DM and you didnt need map size to encourage combat in dm to begin with.
For other formats: Teams chase their tails going back and forth from flag to flag avoiding each other.... Baaaaack... and forth... baaaaaaaaaaaack.... and forth... it's become an obstacle course....
People who want combat seek it out. Those who don't, will not... and will actively avoid it. The size of the map doesn't matter.Edited by Thumbless_Bot on January 25, 2025 7:42PM2 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.
Thanks for demonstrating my point; they went from leaded gas to leaded gas. They used the same designs, so it is still not a good design. That is irrelevant to the 2 teams vs. three-team format.
1 -
moo_2021✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Cloak still exists as does invis for non nbs. So hide and seek stull exists.
The larger maps are phenomenal, as good as the old maps.
The smaller maps do not encourage combat outside of DM and you didnt need map size to encourage combat in dm to begin with.
For other formats: Teams chase their tails going back and forth from flag to flag avoiding each other.... Baaaaack... and forth... baaaaaaaaaaaack.... and forth... it's become an obstacle course....
People who want combat seek it out. Those who don't, will not... and will actively avoid it. The size of the map doesn't matter.
NBs have almost no place to hide and even sorc can hardly disengage now, unlike before.
Less running = more fighting. The size matters a lot because any second spent on running from base to base is just pointless.
Sure there are players who actively avoid fighting, but now it only takes 5 seconds to catch them instead of 50, and they cannot run away. (unless they stay above, well...)Thumbless_Bot wrote: »What we had worked better than 2 teams.
How was it better when one team can simply use speed and stealth to do 90% of objective without any fighting? I did that a lot myself. It was only good when players want PvP rewards without PvP.Edited by moo_2021 on January 25, 2025 8:51PM1 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.
Thanks for demonstrating my point; they went from leaded gas to leaded gas. They used the same designs, so it is still not a good design. That is irrelevant to the 2 teams vs. three-team format.
You said two teams works, so its not an issue. That is wrong. I've demonstrated why by example. Whether you chose to ignore that or not is up to you. Have a nice day.1 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Cloak still exists as does invis for non nbs. So hide and seek stull exists.
The larger maps are phenomenal, as good as the old maps.
The smaller maps do not encourage combat outside of DM and you didnt need map size to encourage combat in dm to begin with.
For other formats: Teams chase their tails going back and forth from flag to flag avoiding each other.... Baaaaack... and forth... baaaaaaaaaaaack.... and forth... it's become an obstacle course....
People who want combat seek it out. Those who don't, will not... and will actively avoid it. The size of the map doesn't matter.
NBs have almost no place to hide and even sorc can hardly disengage now, unlike before.
Less running = more fighting. The size matters a lot because any second spent on running from base to base is just pointless.
Running from base to base is all you do now in flag games. Edit: either that or stand on a flag, hild block and drop aoe heals until you turn blue in the face.
Anyone, sorcs included, can still disengage. Ie, streaking through you then streaking around los.
Nbs can still hide. I don't even play nb and I know ow this.
Edit 2: to answer your question about how is it better... a team using strategy to win the game is pretty cool if you ask me. Strategizing to win is a good thing. It adds to the dynamic nature of flag games that currently involve 8 players chasing their tails around a pond, or trying to knock each other off the playing area... you have to respond to that third team if you want to win and not just beat up the other team. Complexity is good.
If you would prefer less strategy and less complexity, you've got your wish. I don't. I liked bgs better when they were more difficult to win, required thought, tactics, responding to that third team trying to creep all flags without being noticed while not getting burned by the other team.Edited by Thumbless_Bot on January 25, 2025 9:19PM2 -
moo_2021✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Running from base to base is all you do now in flag games.
Anyone, sorcs included, can still disengage. Ie, streaking through you then streaking around los.
Nbs can still hide. I don't even play nb and I know ow this.
I do t know ow where these comments on this thread are coming from. Its like people talking who dont even play the game.
2 gap closing or 3 streaking could cover the base distance now. Even running barely depletes any stamina. This makes a lot of difference.
Sorc streak is 15 meters, gap closer is 22 meters and now there are barely any obstacles or height differences in map area they could utilize to cover the 7 meters.
NB shadow costs a lot and they can neither sprint nor use any skill if they want to stay hidden. Like sorcs if they want to disengage they have to use los, which isn't available anymore. They usually run speed builds but again there is nowhere to hide unless they crouch and do nothing.Edited by moo_2021 on January 25, 2025 9:06PM0 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Running from base to base is all you do now in flag games.
Anyone, sorcs included, can still disengage. Ie, streaking through you then streaking around los.
Nbs can still hide. I don't even play nb and I know ow this.
I do t know ow where these comments on this thread are coming from. Its like people talking who dont even play the game.
2 gap closing or 3 streaking could cover the base distance now. Even running barely depletes any stamina. This makes a lot of difference.
Sorc streak is 15 meters, gap closer is 22 meters and now there are barely any obstacles or height differences in map area they could utilize to cover the 7 meters.
NB shadow costs a lot and they can neither sprint nor use any skill if they want to stay hidden. Like sorcs if they want to disengage they have to use los, which isn't available anymore.
You use detect pots or slot magelight and your gap closer so you can burn through your resources. Sorcs can and still do get away. Nbs can and still do cloak and hide. You are saying these smaller maps solve these issues and they do not. They just don't. If anything, they make ranged damage from those same sorcs and nbs even harder to deal with, but that's another subject for another debate.
Cloak exists. It allows nbs to hide. They won't hide forever. They don't need to. They just need to reset. Nothing about these new bgs change that or makes that more difficult.Edited by Thumbless_Bot on January 25, 2025 9:13PM0 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
Two-teams BGs are great for premade vs premade. As they were originally designed for. But they just don't work in solo queue. There's another thread about it https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670165/battlegrounds-cycle-of-self-destruction/p1
''Countering how hopelessly lopsided most matches are in two-teams BGs will happen when entire teams collectively agree to change builds and strategies midgame. This has always been the domain of Premades, where it belongs. Expecting casual solo players to do this is bound to be disastrous, which is what we're seeing right now.''
Any issues with my solutions to three-teams BGs?
Edited by Moonspawn on January 27, 2025 9:23AM0 -
moo_2021✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »You use detect pots or slot magelight and your gap closer so you can burn through your resources. Sorcs can and still do get away. Nbs can and still do cloak and hide. You are saying these smaller maps solve these issues and they do not. They just don't. If anything, they make ranged damage from those same sorcs and nbs even harder to deal with, but that's another subject for another debate.
Cloak exists. It allows nbs to hide. They won't hide forever. They don't need to. They just need to reset. Nothing about these new bgs change that or makes that more difficult.
I don't use detect pots or magelight, since they'd often reveal themselves after 2 seconds. Hiding doesn't mean disengaging. Without disengaging you could fight them fairly.
In the old maps there were too many ways for them to disengage - hide behind trees, down a stair, streak across lava or mid-air from one platform to another.
Gap closer does not cost any more than their cloaking or streak skill. I don't know why it isn't popular but I use it constantly, both to fight and to evade bad situation by charging distant enemies or jumping between them.0 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »You use detect pots or slot magelight and your gap closer so you can burn through your resources. Sorcs can and still do get away. Nbs can and still do cloak and hide. You are saying these smaller maps solve these issues and they do not. They just don't. If anything, they make ranged damage from those same sorcs and nbs even harder to deal with, but that's another subject for another debate.
Cloak exists. It allows nbs to hide. They won't hide forever. They don't need to. They just need to reset. Nothing about these new bgs change that or makes that more difficult.
I don't use detect pots or magelight, since they'd often reveal themselves after 2 seconds. Hiding doesn't mean disengaging. Without disengaging you could fight them fairly.
In the old maps there were too many ways for them to disengage - hide behind trees, down a stair, streak across lava or mid-air from one platform to another.
Gap closer does not cost any more than their cloaking or streak skill. I don't know why it isn't popular but I use it constantly, both to fight and to evade bad situation by charging distant enemies or jumping between them.
I think what you are saying is very reasonable and fair. I just haven't had the same experience for the most part.
I would say though that I would probably not slot a gap closer. Even if I could fit it on my bar, except for my plar. And that is fun.0 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.
Thanks for demonstrating my point; they went from leaded gas to leaded gas. They used the same designs, so it is still not a good design. That is irrelevant to the 2 teams vs. three-team format.
You said two teams works, so its not an issue. That is wrong. I've demonstrated why by example. Whether you chose to ignore that or not is up to you. Have a nice day.
and two teams do work and such examples are in most large MMORPGs with their successful instanced PvPs.
But the analogy of leaded and leaded or fat-free to crisco is irrelevant as it is not comparable. It only suggests someone has an opinion that one is better than another. It is not a valid example.
Further, as I pointed out, the real issue with ESO's BGs is the poor design of maps and matches, which have nothing to do with how many teams are there. It does not matter how many teams are there because the designs are the worst instanced PvP I have played outside of P2W. I only go in because some friends want to do it.
Glad some people like the designs but ESO PvP, 3 team or 2 team, is not very popular.
4 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.
Thanks for demonstrating my point; they went from leaded gas to leaded gas. They used the same designs, so it is still not a good design. That is irrelevant to the 2 teams vs. three-team format.
You said two teams works, so its not an issue. That is wrong. I've demonstrated why by example. Whether you chose to ignore that or not is up to you. Have a nice day.
and two teams do work and such examples are in most large MMORPGs with their successful instanced PvPs.
But the analogy of leaded and leaded or fat-free to crisco is irrelevant as it is not comparable. It only suggests someone has an opinion that one is better than another. It is not a valid example.
Further, as I pointed out, the real issue with ESO's BGs is the poor design of maps and matches, which have nothing to do with how many teams are there. It does not matter how many teams are there because the designs are the worst instanced PvP I have played outside of P2W. I only go in because some friends want to do it.
Glad some people like the designs but ESO PvP, 3 team or 2 team, is not very popular.
They work, as i said, but not as well as three teams, which is an issue.
You said the number of teams is not an issue. That is false. You may think one is more of an issue than the other, and that is a personal opinion... to your point, but the number of teams is still an issue...
I am done with the back and forth. Take care.Edited by Thumbless_Bot on January 26, 2025 9:43PM2 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.
Thanks for demonstrating my point; they went from leaded gas to leaded gas. They used the same designs, so it is still not a good design. That is irrelevant to the 2 teams vs. three-team format.
You said two teams works, so its not an issue. That is wrong. I've demonstrated why by example. Whether you chose to ignore that or not is up to you. Have a nice day.
and two teams do work and such examples are in most large MMORPGs with their successful instanced PvPs.
But the analogy of leaded and leaded or fat-free to crisco is irrelevant as it is not comparable. It only suggests someone has an opinion that one is better than another. It is not a valid example.
Further, as I pointed out, the real issue with ESO's BGs is the poor design of maps and matches, which have nothing to do with how many teams are there. It does not matter how many teams are there because the designs are the worst instanced PvP I have played outside of P2W. I only go in because some friends want to do it.
Glad some people like the designs but ESO PvP, 3 team or 2 team, is not very popular.
They work, as i said, but not as well as three teams, which is an issue.
You said the number of teams is not an issue. That is false. You may think one is more of an issue than the other, and that is a personal opinion... to your point, but the number of teams is still an issue...
I am done with the back and forth. Take care.
and as I noted, that is an opinion on the number of teams. I respect you have such an opinion. It is an opinion that it is an issue.
Enjoy the game.
2 -
gariondavey✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭@ZOS_Kevin please check out moonspawn's suggestionsPC NA @gariondavey, BG, IC & Cyrodiil Focused Since October 2017 Stamplar (main), Magplar, Magsorc, Stamsorc, StamDK, MagDK, Stamblade, Magblade, Magden, Stamden0 -
Chrisilis✭✭✭I started playing this game for the open world RPG. I stayed for the Battlegrounds. The three way Battlegrounds. The unique, challenging three way competition that no other game could offer.
If I wanted to play two team instanced PvP, that works so well in other games, I would be playing those other games.
But no. I'm playing this game. Still. In the hopes that this fiasco of a detour from a good game into cookie cutter, cut and paste, carbon copy, copy cat two team instanced PvP gets fixed sooner rather than later. Put three team back, keep 4v4 and 8v8 but put three team back.
You know what I would like to see? A PvP Arena. Set it right down in the middle of a Capitol City just like the Kvatch Arena. And anyone of any level or alliance can go in. And stay as long as they want. And let it just be a straight up unending melee deathmatch brawl all the time. With a leaderboard. 10 deaths your out and cant go back in for an hour or something. 20-40 people per Arena at a time? Arenas in multiple cities? No groups, solo only but people who want to play together can just go in at the same time if there's room. And put some terrain in there. Hills, trenches, etc. Being in the middle of Cap. cities it would put the PvP aspect of the game front and center. Kind of like the Colosseum. And maybe people who "dont't PvP" would get curious and walk in. You ever notice that PvP is almost invisible in this game? You have to enter through a menu rather than walk up to a door, no wonder more people don't PvP.
3 -
LPapirius✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.
Thanks for demonstrating my point; they went from leaded gas to leaded gas. They used the same designs, so it is still not a good design. That is irrelevant to the 2 teams vs. three-team format.
You said two teams works, so its not an issue. That is wrong. I've demonstrated why by example. Whether you chose to ignore that or not is up to you. Have a nice day.
and two teams do work and such examples are in most large MMORPGs with their successful instanced PvPs.
But the analogy of leaded and leaded or fat-free to crisco is irrelevant as it is not comparable. It only suggests someone has an opinion that one is better than another. It is not a valid example.
Further, as I pointed out, the real issue with ESO's BGs is the poor design of maps and matches, which have nothing to do with how many teams are there. It does not matter how many teams are there because the designs are the worst instanced PvP I have played outside of P2W. I only go in because some friends want to do it.
Glad some people like the designs but ESO PvP, 3 team or 2 team, is not very popular.
If we wanted 2 team PvP we'd play those other games that offer it.5 -
moo_2021✭✭✭✭✭If we wanted 2 team PvP we'd play those other games that offer it.
After playing more rounds, I come to believe that 3 teams would indeed be better.
Since MMR is not fixable, 2 teams always become one sided at some point, when one team is pushed to their base and couldn't get out alive. This could happen even if both teams are of similar level.
The size of maps is right for 8x8x8, and 4x4x4 would just need a bit more space to accommodate the 3rd base.Edited by moo_2021 on January 28, 2025 8:38AM2 -
Decimus✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.
Thanks for demonstrating my point; they went from leaded gas to leaded gas. They used the same designs, so it is still not a good design. That is irrelevant to the 2 teams vs. three-team format.
You said two teams works, so its not an issue. That is wrong. I've demonstrated why by example. Whether you chose to ignore that or not is up to you. Have a nice day.
and two teams do work and such examples are in most large MMORPGs with their successful instanced PvPs.
But the analogy of leaded and leaded or fat-free to crisco is irrelevant as it is not comparable. It only suggests someone has an opinion that one is better than another. It is not a valid example.
Further, as I pointed out, the real issue with ESO's BGs is the poor design of maps and matches, which have nothing to do with how many teams are there. It does not matter how many teams are there because the designs are the worst instanced PvP I have played outside of P2W. I only go in because some friends want to do it.
Glad some people like the designs but ESO PvP, 3 team or 2 team, is not very popular.
If we wanted 2 team PvP we'd play those other games that offer it.
Many (if not most) people do, this is why the population was down to 20-30 people queueing for the old 3-way battlegrounds towards the end of last patch & you'd see the same names every round.
If you want to participate in 3rd party PvP or running to empty flags and capturing them there is still Cyrodiil for that - they didn't remove that.
In the end, for companies looking to make money and keep their games alive it's about doing what's popular - not what a small vocal minority prefers (lots of examples lately of how that has gone for other games...)3 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.
Thanks for demonstrating my point; they went from leaded gas to leaded gas. They used the same designs, so it is still not a good design. That is irrelevant to the 2 teams vs. three-team format.
You said two teams works, so its not an issue. That is wrong. I've demonstrated why by example. Whether you chose to ignore that or not is up to you. Have a nice day.
and two teams do work and such examples are in most large MMORPGs with their successful instanced PvPs.
But the analogy of leaded and leaded or fat-free to crisco is irrelevant as it is not comparable. It only suggests someone has an opinion that one is better than another. It is not a valid example.
Further, as I pointed out, the real issue with ESO's BGs is the poor design of maps and matches, which have nothing to do with how many teams are there. It does not matter how many teams are there because the designs are the worst instanced PvP I have played outside of P2W. I only go in because some friends want to do it.
Glad some people like the designs but ESO PvP, 3 team or 2 team, is not very popular.
If we wanted 2 team PvP we'd play those other games that offer it.
Couldn't agree more. Differentiation is key to success in most markets. Video games are no different. I play eso because of the three way combat that has existed for 10 years. If I wanted two teams I'd seek that out. If I wanted cyro, I'd go there.
No reason to remove a functional part of the game that people enjoy. None.2 -
Chrisilis✭✭✭.Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.
Thanks for demonstrating my point; they went from leaded gas to leaded gas. They used the same designs, so it is still not a good design. That is irrelevant to the 2 teams vs. three-team format.
You said two teams works, so its not an issue. That is wrong. I've demonstrated why by example. Whether you chose to ignore that or not is up to you. Have a nice day.
and two teams do work and such examples are in most large MMORPGs with their successful instanced PvPs.
But the analogy of leaded and leaded or fat-free to crisco is irrelevant as it is not comparable. It only suggests someone has an opinion that one is better than another. It is not a valid example.
Further, as I pointed out, the real issue with ESO's BGs is the poor design of maps and matches, which have nothing to do with how many teams are there. It does not matter how many teams are there because the designs are the worst instanced PvP I have played outside of P2W. I only go in because some friends want to do it.
Glad some people like the designs but ESO PvP, 3 team or 2 team, is not very popular.
If we wanted 2 team PvP we'd play those other games that offer it.
Many (if not most) people do, this is why the population was down to 20-30 people queueing for the old 3-way battlegrounds towards the end of last patch & you'd see the same names every round.
If you want to participate in 3rd party PvP or running to empty flags and capturing them there is still Cyrodiil for that - they didn't remove that.
In the end, for companies looking to make money and keep their games alive it's about doing what's popular - not what a small vocal minority prefers (lots of examples lately of how that has gone for other games...)
Go check out the Battleground review vids on YouTube and read the comments. Or the reddit threads. Read the comments. Many (if not most), people are not happy with this change. For some its the loss of the content they've been dedicated to for years, for others its the fact that content they were looking forward to turned out to be bug ridden, poorly designed and implemented. How any marketing team, any business, could ignore the bad press, the bad feeling among their community that this change has generated is beyond me.
You say 2 team PvP is popular but I don't think that's accurate. 2 team PvP is standard. If there were games out there offering 3 or 4 or 6 team formats but everybody preferred two teams that would be one thing but there's not. You say they're popular but in reality they're just all there is so people play them. Maybe if developers offered a greater variety of team options it might be a different story.
And just so we're clear, you say its a small vocal minority and perhaps you're right but that minority is pssd and rightly so. The content we enjoyed, that we paid for, that we kept coming back for was taken from us and we want it back.
I will say this for two team battlegrounds. They absolutely have a place in the ESO PvP landscape. Two team Chaos Ball is good and very well suited to the two team format. Power ups are a fun addition and the larger of the new maps add some fun variety. 4v4 DM is good, quite intense and fast paced if you're looking for a short form game, decided quickly. I think 8v8 is an excellent introduction to people new to PvP in that a lack of experience/contribution to ones team isn't that noticeable when you're one person in eight. It offers new players the opportunity to get better in a low pressure setting. The new formats are a welcome and valuable addition and have, no doubt, broadened the games PvP player participation. We don't want them discontinued in favor of 4v4v4, we want all the content that could be available to be available.
Honestly, instead of arguing the merits of two team vs. three team maybe we should focus on the merits of product availability and whether or not its wise for a business to discontinue the product a small but vocal minority stayed loyal to their business for.4 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.
Thanks for demonstrating my point; they went from leaded gas to leaded gas. They used the same designs, so it is still not a good design. That is irrelevant to the 2 teams vs. three-team format.
You said two teams works, so its not an issue. That is wrong. I've demonstrated why by example. Whether you chose to ignore that or not is up to you. Have a nice day.
and two teams do work and such examples are in most large MMORPGs with their successful instanced PvPs.
But the analogy of leaded and leaded or fat-free to crisco is irrelevant as it is not comparable. It only suggests someone has an opinion that one is better than another. It is not a valid example.
Further, as I pointed out, the real issue with ESO's BGs is the poor design of maps and matches, which have nothing to do with how many teams are there. It does not matter how many teams are there because the designs are the worst instanced PvP I have played outside of P2W. I only go in because some friends want to do it.
Glad some people like the designs but ESO PvP, 3 team or 2 team, is not very popular.
They work, as i said, but not as well as three teams, which is an issue.
You said the number of teams is not an issue. That is false. You may think one is more of an issue than the other, and that is a personal opinion... to your point, but the number of teams is still an issue...
I am done with the back and forth. Take care.
I will note that esports are overwhelmingly 2-team matchups. Esports is the pinnacle of PvP matches, and teams can bring in six figures from a tournament. So we are talking serious PvP is overwhelmingly 2-team. Oh, BTW, ESO BGs do not cut.
So again, thanks for sharing your opinion. As I noted, I respect that there is a different opinion, and I will add that I am glad some embrace 3-team PvP matches.
3 -
Decimus✭✭✭✭✭
✭.Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.
Thanks for demonstrating my point; they went from leaded gas to leaded gas. They used the same designs, so it is still not a good design. That is irrelevant to the 2 teams vs. three-team format.
You said two teams works, so its not an issue. That is wrong. I've demonstrated why by example. Whether you chose to ignore that or not is up to you. Have a nice day.
and two teams do work and such examples are in most large MMORPGs with their successful instanced PvPs.
But the analogy of leaded and leaded or fat-free to crisco is irrelevant as it is not comparable. It only suggests someone has an opinion that one is better than another. It is not a valid example.
Further, as I pointed out, the real issue with ESO's BGs is the poor design of maps and matches, which have nothing to do with how many teams are there. It does not matter how many teams are there because the designs are the worst instanced PvP I have played outside of P2W. I only go in because some friends want to do it.
Glad some people like the designs but ESO PvP, 3 team or 2 team, is not very popular.
If we wanted 2 team PvP we'd play those other games that offer it.
Many (if not most) people do, this is why the population was down to 20-30 people queueing for the old 3-way battlegrounds towards the end of last patch & you'd see the same names every round.
If you want to participate in 3rd party PvP or running to empty flags and capturing them there is still Cyrodiil for that - they didn't remove that.
In the end, for companies looking to make money and keep their games alive it's about doing what's popular - not what a small vocal minority prefers (lots of examples lately of how that has gone for other games...)
Go check out the Battleground review vids on YouTube and read the comments. Or the reddit threads. Read the comments. Many (if not most), people are not happy with this change. For some its the loss of the content they've been dedicated to for years, for others its the fact that content they were looking forward to turned out to be bug ridden, poorly designed and implemented. How any marketing team, any business, could ignore the bad press, the bad feeling among their community that this change has generated is beyond me.
You say 2 team PvP is popular but I don't think that's accurate. 2 team PvP is standard. If there were games out there offering 3 or 4 or 6 team formats but everybody preferred two teams that would be one thing but there's not. You say they're popular but in reality they're just all there is so people play them. Maybe if developers offered a greater variety of team options it might be a different story.
And just so we're clear, you say its a small vocal minority and perhaps you're right but that minority is pssd and rightly so. The content we enjoyed, that we paid for, that we kept coming back for was taken from us and we want it back.
I will say this for two team battlegrounds. They absolutely have a place in the ESO PvP landscape. Two team Chaos Ball is good and very well suited to the two team format. Power ups are a fun addition and the larger of the new maps add some fun variety. 4v4 DM is good, quite intense and fast paced if you're looking for a short form game, decided quickly. I think 8v8 is an excellent introduction to people new to PvP in that a lack of experience/contribution to ones team isn't that noticeable when you're one person in eight. It offers new players the opportunity to get better in a low pressure setting. The new formats are a welcome and valuable addition and have, no doubt, broadened the games PvP player participation. We don't want them discontinued in favor of 4v4v4, we want all the content that could be available to be available.
Honestly, instead of arguing the merits of two team vs. three team maybe we should focus on the merits of product availability and whether or not its wise for a business to discontinue the product a small but vocal minority stayed loyal to their business for.
What "review vids"? Are we talking about some 200 subscriber youtubers with clickbait titles on each video? You do realize you're talking to someone who has more audience than all of these people combined? Or reddits where you get banned if you're not part of the hive mind?
There is another content creator with a good size of following who did poll his audience for what the best BG mode was... here are the results:
You might be experiencing what is known as "confirmation bias" here.
There aren't many games offering 3-way PvP in what is supposed to be a competitive format, because that is inherently uncompetitive when you can have two teams focusing the third. I.e. who wins doesn't come down to who plays the best, it comes down to player behaviour - either sheer RNG of where the focus goes or worse: who is liked/disliked.
3-way PvP works fine in environment where the fairness of numbers is never expected in the first place, i.e. open world/Cyrodiil - but not in arena/battleground format. If it did, I'm sure battlegrounds would've been more popular in the past.
You bring up whether it's wise for a business to discontinue a product... it absolutely is - this happens all the time. You want to make things that are popular and dedicate resources to create things that are well received by a large enough amount of players.
This may not be what some people want to hear, but for a very real example look at all the TV shows & video games where hundreds of millions go into producing them and they completely flop and get cancelled - I don't want BGs to get cancelled, I want them to move in the right direction without distractions or side ventures that turn out to be a waste of time as queues never pop to an unpopular game mode.Edited by Decimus on January 30, 2025 9:19PM4 -
Haki_7✭✭✭Revamping the objective modes to actually encourage fighting and creating a separate DM queue so that all 12 players are always on the same page are both fine ideas, but together they present a problem. This right here:
There is a good chance this revamped Relic mode would become far more popular than 4v4v4 DM ever was. A DM without stalemate and no real incentive for kill stealing? Sure looks like it would be the most fun mode of all.Capture the Relic
PROBLEMS- Standing around guarding a relic is boring.
- Pointlessly parsing a tank who is guarding a relic is boring.
- Having your relic stolen through the wall, or because the grabbing animation didn't play correctly is boring.
Cut through the boredom and jump to the fun part right from the get go. What if a player from each team was randomly selected as the ''relic holder''? The goal of the match would be to kill the other team's relic holder while protecting your own. When the relic holder dies ''the light'' jumps to another player of the team after 30 seconds, the new relic holder. (This player would obviously need to be ejected from spawn after a period of time.) It would, in a way, be similar to the current 8v8 chaosball.
This mode would function like an extremely high level Deathmatch from the olden days, but with training wheels. Imagine a 3 teams DM, but the softest target of every team is being indicated by the relic. In the worst possible scenario, the two stronger teams would be compelled to fight in the spawn of the softer team, but because of the relic's debuff, this fight would never stalemate to the point of not being worth it. They would fight, relic holders would die, jump to other players, and the new holders would die too. It would be impossible to trap the softer team.
Edited by Haki_7 on January 31, 2025 12:36PM0 -
Chrisilis✭✭✭.Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »DeadlySerious wrote: »I think the 2 team BG is just not a good design. Plus, the maps are so dang tiny. What's up with that?
Two-team instanced PvP works well in many games, so that is not the issue. The issue with ESO BGs is the overall design of each map and the objectives themselves.
It is an issue. Your logic is like saying leaded gas worked in many cars so it's wasn't an issue. Or crisco worked to fry foods so it wasn't an issue. Or that the feudal system worked so it want an issue. I could go on.
What we had worked better than 2 teams. Zos has gone from u leaded to leaded. From trans fat free oil to crisco. From democracy to a feudal system. It works worse for most, but, technically it works. However, it it is certainly an issue.
Thanks for demonstrating my point; they went from leaded gas to leaded gas. They used the same designs, so it is still not a good design. That is irrelevant to the 2 teams vs. three-team format.
You said two teams works, so its not an issue. That is wrong. I've demonstrated why by example. Whether you chose to ignore that or not is up to you. Have a nice day.
and two teams do work and such examples are in most large MMORPGs with their successful instanced PvPs.
But the analogy of leaded and leaded or fat-free to crisco is irrelevant as it is not comparable. It only suggests someone has an opinion that one is better than another. It is not a valid example.
Further, as I pointed out, the real issue with ESO's BGs is the poor design of maps and matches, which have nothing to do with how many teams are there. It does not matter how many teams are there because the designs are the worst instanced PvP I have played outside of P2W. I only go in because some friends want to do it.
Glad some people like the designs but ESO PvP, 3 team or 2 team, is not very popular.
If we wanted 2 team PvP we'd play those other games that offer it.
Many (if not most) people do, this is why the population was down to 20-30 people queueing for the old 3-way battlegrounds towards the end of last patch & you'd see the same names every round.
If you want to participate in 3rd party PvP or running to empty flags and capturing them there is still Cyrodiil for that - they didn't remove that.
In the end, for companies looking to make money and keep their games alive it's about doing what's popular - not what a small vocal minority prefers (lots of examples lately of how that has gone for other games...)
Go check out the Battleground review vids on YouTube and read the comments. Or the reddit threads. Read the comments. Many (if not most), people are not happy with this change. For some its the loss of the content they've been dedicated to for years, for others its the fact that content they were looking forward to turned out to be bug ridden, poorly designed and implemented. How any marketing team, any business, could ignore the bad press, the bad feeling among their community that this change has generated is beyond me.
You say 2 team PvP is popular but I don't think that's accurate. 2 team PvP is standard. If there were games out there offering 3 or 4 or 6 team formats but everybody preferred two teams that would be one thing but there's not. You say they're popular but in reality they're just all there is so people play them. Maybe if developers offered a greater variety of team options it might be a different story.
And just so we're clear, you say its a small vocal minority and perhaps you're right but that minority is pssd and rightly so. The content we enjoyed, that we paid for, that we kept coming back for was taken from us and we want it back.
I will say this for two team battlegrounds. They absolutely have a place in the ESO PvP landscape. Two team Chaos Ball is good and very well suited to the two team format. Power ups are a fun addition and the larger of the new maps add some fun variety. 4v4 DM is good, quite intense and fast paced if you're looking for a short form game, decided quickly. I think 8v8 is an excellent introduction to people new to PvP in that a lack of experience/contribution to ones team isn't that noticeable when you're one person in eight. It offers new players the opportunity to get better in a low pressure setting. The new formats are a welcome and valuable addition and have, no doubt, broadened the games PvP player participation. We don't want them discontinued in favor of 4v4v4, we want all the content that could be available to be available.
Honestly, instead of arguing the merits of two team vs. three team maybe we should focus on the merits of product availability and whether or not its wise for a business to discontinue the product a small but vocal minority stayed loyal to their business for.
What "review vids"? Are we talking about some 200 subscriber youtubers with clickbait titles on each video? You do realize you're talking to someone who has more audience than all of these people combined? Or reddits where you get banned if you're not part of the hive mind?
There is another content creator with a good size of following who did poll his audience for what the best BG mode was... here are the results:
You might be experiencing what is known as "confirmation bias" here.
There aren't many games offering 3-way PvP in what is supposed to be a competitive format, because that is inherently uncompetitive when you can have two teams focusing the third. I.e. who wins doesn't come down to who plays the best, it comes down to player behaviour - either sheer RNG of where the focus goes or worse: who is liked/disliked.
3-way PvP works fine in environment where the fairness of numbers is never expected in the first place, i.e. open world/Cyrodiil - but not in arena/battleground format. If it did, I'm sure battlegrounds would've been more popular in the past.
You bring up whether it's wise for a business to discontinue a product... it absolutely is - this happens all the time. You want to make things that are popular and dedicate resources to create things that are well received by a large enough amount of players.
This may not be what some people want to hear, but for a very real example look at all the TV shows & video games where hundreds of millions go into producing them and they completely flop and get cancelled - I don't want BGs to get cancelled, I want them to move in the right direction without distractions or side ventures that turn out to be a waste of time as queues never pop to an unpopular game mode.
In all honesty I probably am experiencing confirmation bias. Because, in all honesty, I hate these new battlegrounds. I find them to be boring, mundane and repetitive. I find them lacking in tactical depth or strategy of any kind beyond overwhelm with numbers. And because I am biased perhaps I've sought out similar viewpoints but those viewpoints are out there to find. In game bg chat comments skew heavily toward the negative, in all this time I hadn't had a single person say a single positive thing.... until about two days ago when an acquaintance told us all we complain to much which is pretty funny, all things considered.
I don't want battlegrounds to be cancelled either. When it comes down to it a boring bg is better than no bg at all. But I cant help but feel cheated by the removal of three team, like truly upset that the part of the game I loved the most was taken away and replaced with a format that, to me, feels more like a chore than anything else. I tried to like them and play them the same way, for fun, as I played three team but I just can't. I find myself playing less and less and forget about Rivyn dailies, I used to do all three every day and then play till it was time to shut it down but now I only do one and sometimes not even that. Because to me, in this new format, battlegrounds has become a chore. So anyway, there's some heartfelt honesty for ya.
I guess at this point the ball is in Zos' court. I and the other people who want three team back have expressed our opinions in every way we could think of, repeatedly. We know that 3 team is gone for good unless it make sound business sense for it to be brought back. We aren't under any false assumptions that our wishes or feelings on the subject matter, or so naïve as to think we'll get it back because Zos feels sorry for us. In the end, money talks.
But I am glad you like the new format. I'm glad somebody somewhere is having a good time, getting to play they way they want. I just wish I was.
1