Last night was particularly brutal. I slept on this before posting to try and be as objective as possible with my comments to provide constructive criticism and feedback.

I played in a total of 8 bgs getting to and then through the 3 win quest to get my mug and my battlemaster token.

Queue times are no better if not worse than they used to be with 3 teams and I queue for both solo formats.

7 of the 8, 5 4v4 and 2 8v8, were over in the first 30 seconds. As soon as people realized who was going to win people who weren't started to drop. I was dumped into two of these after the massacre had already gotten established. That is a nice touch.

The last battleground was relic and we won 200-100 by capturing the relic in the last second, literally. I defended, got about 15 kills and died once to a 6 man zerg coming for our relic. I got zero points in 15 minutes. Don't care, just sayin, i did a lot of work for no medal score. However the bg was competitive... so 1 out of 8... no bueno

Over the evening I walked away several times out of frustration at how unfun and not competitve each bg was after one had finished. It didn't matter if my team won or lost, they were all really bad except the last. Went back to thr game to get a purple bucket from a dragon, had nothing to do while the bucket reward cooldown happened so queued again into bgs to get my three wins only to be disappointed again.

My honest and objective as possible opinion is that these bgs are fun for people who do not want competition but want 17k health pve players to kill repeatedly and who do not care about waiting for the deserter penalty when things don't go there way. Those who want actual competitve matches amongst talented opponents are out of luck.

Deserter issues and incredible imbalances existed in 3.team format, but they happen much more often now and the impact of losing people is much greater with two teams.

Lastly the matches, even the good ones, are usually over in 3 to 4 minutes so you wait as long if not longer than you used to for a match, only for it to be less fun and over much quicker.

2 team bgs are a failed addition to the game for most and those of us who want 3 teams back are sol because we are forced to either go play other contnent in this game, when we want to play bgs, or spend our time elsewhere. It just stinks.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

2 team bgs are a failed addition to the game for most and those of us who want 3 teams back are sol

2-sided is not a failed model just because you personally don't like it.

3-sided is a failed model because ZOS decided that it is a failed model, and no other reason.

That said, I'd still be fine with 1 of the 4 queues being replaced with a 3-sided mode.

"2 team bgs are a failed addition to the game for most". That's the full quote and infers opinion.

I think, based on community feedback, this is accurate.

Edit: i agree they should bring three teams back, but not limited it to one queue.

I agree that zos made a decision that 3 teams was a failure. Then they changed it to something worse... that's why I am posting on this forum and thread...

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

I think, based on community feedback, this is accurate

I see it as the same fallacy as no-proc Cyrodiil, which flopped hard, despite loud forum demands for it.

I likewise asked for 2-sided. Even if I had god mode, jack all I can do if the rest of my team abandons the objective so they can bully the cp140 guys on the team that's already in distant 3rd. That behavior always felt super toxic to me, and 2-sided completely solves it. Deathmatchers and kill farmers still end up helping the objective when it's 2-sided.

moo_2021 wrote: »

People asked for 2 sided. I was one of them. 3 sided wasn't good for competitive matches, but problem is that matches are never fair. Better to have fun than one sided masscare.

I dont think the inbalance is due to pve players vs pvp players. Pve players are mostly dd using lots of aoe and dot. I haven't seen many of those since last year. A group of pve players could be quite devastating, especially when backed by healers. But now we have an influx of many new players who aren't built for anything. You can see those who do 1/10 the damage despite their team is dominating and they're rarely killed.

You are probably right about the newer players to an extent. I am sure they are there. I lump them into pve as pvp is really end game imho.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

I think, based on community feedback, this is accurate

I see it as the same fallacy as no-proc Cyrodiil, which flopped hard, despite loud forum demands for it.

I likewise asked for 2-sided. Even if I had god mode, jack all I can do if the rest of my team abandons the objective so they can bully the cp140 guys on the team that's already in distant 3rd. That behavior always felt super toxic to me, and 2-sided completely solves it. Deathmatchers and kill farmers still end up helping the objective when it's 2-sided.

The super toxic behavior would disappear if there was a separate DM queue. And if it didn't, the new Unique Debuff would take care of it: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670577/revamping-three-teams-battegrounds/p1?new=1

Your comment made me realize that in two-teams BGs nothing will ever stop kill farmers from ignoring each other (or high fiving each other lol) as they make a beeline for each other's spawns. Not even team shuffling. You just killed the last bit of hope that I had for two-teams BGs outside of custom lobbies. Thanks a lot.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

People ask for 2 sided bgs. Most would probably say it flopped.

I respect your opinion to enjoy 3-sided and dislike the 2-sided. But you do not have data on this. From my perspective, I see only a handful of vocal 3-sided enjoyers who miss it, and a lot of people who like 2-sided but want it improved. The 4v4 competitive has some severe issues, so if that's your only exposure to 2-sided, I can definitely see the negative impression, but the 8v8 solo has been pretty well received. I'm still playing it regularly.

In December, in an excerpt from the the dev letter titled Update 44 PVP Battlegrounds Follow-up , Jessica Folsom wrote " We acknowledge that some of our players have expressed enjoying the previous 3-sided format more and are continuing to monitor feedback paired with in-game data."

They didn't write that to acknowledge the few vocal three team advocates on this forum. They wrote that because members of the community communicated their feelings re: 3-team to them directly. And it had to be a lot of them or they would never have bothered to acknowledge it.

Hopefully we can continue to have constructive conversations re: this topic. Hopefully we all get what we want, to play the way we want, in two team and three team queues.

The dev letter cited here can be found pinned at the top of the forum category PvP Activities

I don't understand this new waiting "feature". Why not let us queue until everyone is ready? It feels like we are put into BG after 3x3 or 6x6 and then the system would just randomly grab/wait for the remaining players. What's the point??

Decimus wrote: »

Fun Battlegrounds Chapter 2: Waited 5 minutes 3 seconds for a fun match and now we can self promote again on the forums (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/LW5LSQMVGzU?si=t4h1rzwAzaTF14Lf

Here's how this lopsided snoozefest could have been a balanced match:
Red (Fire Drakes), Yellow (Pit Daemons), Blue (Storm Lords)



The remaining player slots could be filled with any combination of newcomers gunning for the daily. 4v4v4 revamped Capture the Relic. The goal would be to kill enemy relic holders while protecting your own. The fight would be unpredictable, chaotic and actually fun for everyone involved.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Your comment made me realize that in two-teams BGs nothing will ever stop kill farmers from ignoring each other (or high fiving each other lol) as they make a beeline for each other's spawns. Not even team shuffling. You just killed the last bit of hope that I had for two-teams BGs outside of custom lobbies. Thanks a lot.

Such pessimism. I go after these guys, I enjoy ruining their KDR stats. Lots of competitive players can and do.

These guys would rage at you in 3-sided if you tried to get them to play objectives. Now there's no need to say a word, they're pointed at the right target, clearing out the fodder so I can focus on the heavies and the objectives.

Could you share a scoreboard screenshot of what you consider to be a fun two-teams BG?

Moonspawn wrote: »

Could you share a scoreboard screenshot of what you consider to be a fun two-teams BG?

I dont have a screenshot, but I had a chaosball match that was 498 to 500. Our team was initially behind. At some point both teams were neck to neck in the 480 range. We possessed all 3 balls and it was an intense finale to defend our advantage.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Again, I don't see what is "lopsided" about a battleground that literally ends in a tie and is decided by medal score - where each team scores multiple kills.
Is it because there's one person with a lot of kills? If so, I hate to break it to you but maybe that just reflects the skill differences in this game and is nothing new to team vs team battlegrounds.
All this "let's change rules until everyone seems like they're on equal skill level" nonsense would be like changing the rules of chess until it's 50/50 whether Magnus Carlsen loses to whoever picked up chess last week. This is not how the world works.

As my example shows, a balanced match between 3 teams doesn't require everyone to be of the same skill level.

Decimus wrote: »

All you get with 3-way BGs is situations like these:


...where the teams that are getting absolutely farmed and objectively aren't the best players win the match by running to empty objectives (can't see how that can be fun for anyone in the team, just dying and running dying and running...)

Their goal was to win the match. It is unfortunate that both Land Grab modes (Domination and Crazy King) discourage fighting in the way that they do. It's why I suggested converting them into ''Escort the payload'' mode. I would be happy to address any concerns you may have about it, but it's probably best to keep them in the other thread. Even without any revamping, here's how this match could have been a lot more balanced:

Decimus wrote: »

...or this:

Again, newcomers gunning for the daily were concentrated in one team, and BG regulars were concentrated in another. Easily solved by simply switching people around. Would you like me to do it again?

Decimus wrote: »

You're chasing something that doesn't exist - a silver bullet to a non-existing problem.

The problem is that three-teams BGs had the potential to be unpredictable, chaotic and fun for everyone involved. While most two-teams BGs are lopsided, stale and boring as all hell.

Decimus wrote: »

What I'd recommend is just putting in the time and effort, finding the right builds - anyone can do what I (and many others) do, but it doesn't come freely and instantly.

There's very little that I wouldn't give for the chance to press a magic button that would allow me to always be against the psycopathic nightblade ganking the same people over and over. Against the rush of agony bomber. Against the acuity warden. Against the sorc exploiting the latest unholy combination of proc sets. I would glue that button to the palm of my hand and press it every moment of every day. This was the magic of the old BGs. BG regulars engaging one another in a chaotic 3-sided fight, surrounded by newcomers, helping them out and showing them how fun and addicting this game's combat can be.

While the absence of rewards was a major problem, in the end it was the mutual hatred between objective players and DM sweatlords that birthed the imbalance that destroyed us.

Why don't you just swap the players into different teams in Team vs Team if you think it's that simple?

What you also miss out on is that the easier targets will still get farmed as more experienced PvPers know to only attack each other if it's the objective or helps you win the game - rest of the time you're better off just almost instantly killing the people in PvE builds with 20k health rather than letting them parse on you.

This is no different whether you have two, three, four or fifteen teams - it's common game sense. The only difference is that you're more likely to get 3rd partied the more teams there are and this can be either by RNG or simply people disrespecting/disliking you. Either case is a result of bad and unfun game design.


Also, three-teams BGs got sidelined because almost no one played them and there is no way to fix fundamental errors. You shouldn't be able to queue into a battleground and get into a 1-4v8 situation because people in opponent teams don't like you and finally get their chance to outnumber you.

No one competitive minded wants to involuntarily fight uneven numbers - for that you have Cyrodiil/Imperial City.


Reminder of the reality:

DaniimalsSF wrote: »

3rd partied action is the absolute best. Nothing worse than two mini ball groups standing still spamming heals and shields. ZOS please add a 16 player free for all deathmatch queue, no team mates to save you.

I hated 3-sided but I'd love FFA, which would work much better for mindless brawling (not a bad thing) as I think a lot of us really miss the endless Memorial Brawl in Old IC. But as I'm sure you've noticed, when you throw the mindless brawlers in with the objective players in a 3-sided team game where strats matter, you get a lot of toxicity.

Haki_7 wrote: »

All we can do now is dream of what it could have been

Well. Did you have fun that match? I did.

I don't play as many BGs as you but the other Warden and Sorc on the lower half of green are definitely names I see consistently. Most players were mid, like you'd expect in 8v8, the match came down to the 2 red DKs having to burn through the top 2 green healers. We had little damage outside that.

Also I know the 11-1 green NB, he's usually a Sorc, very good player. You're really underestimating him here, an effective persistent threat that forced me to back off potential kills several times. Guess who killed him

Really wish the boards would do shields. Almost 400k worth missing from my scoring, but I'm pretty sure that's just the shields on myself, no good way to know how much of those cross shielded allies, I try to make sure many do.

Haki_7 wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

All we can do now is dream of what it could have been

Well. Did you have fun that match? I did.

I don't play as many BGs as you but the other Warden and Sorc on the lower half of green are definitely names I see consistently. Most players were mid, like you'd expect in 8v8, the match came down to the 2 red DKs having to burn through the top 2 green healers. We had little damage outside that.

Also I know the 11-1 green NB, he's usually a Sorc, very good player. You're really underestimating him here, an effective persistent threat that forced me to back off potential kills several times. Guess who killed him

Really wish the boards would do shields. Almost 400k worth missing from my scoring, but I'm pretty sure that's just the shields on myself, no good way to know how much of those cross shielded allies, I try to make sure many do.

No shade at all on the nightblade. He was doing exactly what he was supposed to do: going after the softer targets first. Curiously, I suspect he had about as much fun as we did with our near stalemate.
There's nothing more fun than a stalemate.

Yes to the stalemate. This is why we all get the chair prop in base game.