Again, people already ignore the objectives without getting points for doing so. Not only that, people already chew out BGers who don't ignore the objectives in favor of getting a high kill count. It's happening repeatedly in this very thread (ref: the screenshots of the "worse" team winning because they played the objectives, which is treated like cheating for some reason). Other games may not have this issue, but ESO absolutely does.
The key word in my response was choice. Players won't buy into a mode they dislike and didn't choose.
When the event is over, and probably before, I won't step foot in BGs for a long time because I truly hate every minute I spend in a chaosball match. I don't want to be a ww or vamp and I don't want to avoid the enemy or be a healbot to get points.
I might just start leaving every chaosball match because it makes me question why I am even playing eso if I'm spending time doing something I hate.
Let players choose which modes they play and you won't have to twist their arms for them to play it properly.
Again, people already ignore the objectives without getting points for doing so. Not only that, people already chew out BGers who don't ignore the objectives in favor of getting a high kill count. It's happening repeatedly in this very thread (ref: the screenshots of the "worse" team winning because they played the objectives, which is treated like cheating for some reason). Other games may not have this issue, but ESO absolutely does.
The key word in my response was choice. Players won't buy into a mode they dislike and didn't choose.
When the event is over, and probably before, I won't step foot in BGs for a long time because I truly hate every minute I spend in a chaosball match. I don't want to be a ww or vamp and I don't want to avoid the enemy or be a healbot to get points.
I might just start leaving every chaosball match because it makes me question why I am even playing eso if I'm spending time doing something I hate.
Let players choose which modes they play and you won't have to twist their arms for them to play it properly.
I would agree. Add just one solo 8v8 deathmatch, can't imagine it would take too much programming time, and see how that affects overall queues. I somehow think it would not do too much damage to queue time, as that mode would draw a specific subset of players, that might not bg much because they don't want to play objectives, compared to many players who just don't get the objectives and related tactics.
Both of these player types are frustrating to me, as someone who loves the strategy of BGs, but at least those endlessly fake deathmatching would be removed from the other BGs. That alone could bring some improvement, as I think many other players just run after the deathmatch addicts, likely unaware that's not even what they are meant to be doing.
BGs, played properly are an extremely fun challenge. They require more than to just cycle through pvp rotations. Instead they require to think on your pixel feet, so to speak, to lure the other team, to seek openings. I fully appreciate some just don't want that additional layer of challenge, and that others might also not be capable of working out the best strategy against another team, all fair, so give those player one 8v8 solo deathmatch mode, and we all might end happier.
Since it is extremely unlikely that Zenimax would fix any of the problems that 3-teams BGs had, I would settle for 4v4v4 DM solos only. It's not ideal, but once they understand that players would keep choosing the old format, now matter how much money they throw at the 2-teams BGs, the (obvious) way forward would finally become apparent to everyone.
Again, people already ignore the objectives without getting points for doing so. Not only that, people already chew out BGers who don't ignore the objectives in favor of getting a high kill count. It's happening repeatedly in this very thread (ref: the screenshots of the "worse" team winning because they played the objectives, which is treated like cheating for some reason). Other games may not have this issue, but ESO absolutely does.
The key word in my response was choice. Players won't buy into a mode they dislike and didn't choose.
When the event is over, and probably before, I won't step foot in BGs for a long time because I truly hate every minute I spend in a chaosball match. I don't want to be a ww or vamp and I don't want to avoid the enemy or be a healbot to get points.
I might just start leaving every chaosball match because it makes me question why I am even playing eso if I'm spending time doing something I hate.
Let players choose which modes they play and you won't have to twist their arms for them to play it properly.
I would agree. Add just one solo 8v8 deathmatch, can't imagine it would take too much programming time, and see how that affects overall queues. I somehow think it would not do too much damage to queue time, as that mode would draw a specific subset of players, that might not bg much because they don't want to play objectives, compared to many players who just don't get the objectives and related tactics.
Both of these player types are frustrating to me, as someone who loves the strategy of BGs, but at least those endlessly fake deathmatching would be removed from the other BGs. That alone could bring some improvement, as I think many other players just run after the deathmatch addicts, likely unaware that's not even what they are meant to be doing.
BGs, played properly are an extremely fun challenge. They require more than to just cycle through pvp rotations. Instead they require to think on your pixel feet, so to speak, to lure the other team, to seek openings. I fully appreciate some just don't want that additional layer of challenge, and that others might also not be capable of working out the best strategy against another team, all fair, so give those player one 8v8 solo deathmatch mode, and we all might end happier.
Since it is extremely unlikely that Zenimax would fix any of the problems that 3-teams BGs had, I would settle for 4v4v4 DM solos only. It's not ideal, but once they understand that players would keep choosing the old format, now matter how much money they throw at the 2-teams BGs, the (obvious) way forward would finally become apparent to everyone.
4v4 Solo
4v4 Group
8v8 Solo
4v4v4 Solo
Everybody's happy. (It's me, I'm everybody) But in all seriousness, I think this would be an acceptable solution. I feel like this would be fairly simple to implement seeing as how no changes would need to be made to 3 of the current queues and the 4v4v4 solo queue already exists, it just needs to be turned back on. The people who like the 2 team format get to keep it and the people who like the three team format get it back. Having a greater variety of BG formats to choose from would be a win for everybody. It would be nice to be able to play both ways, to have the choice. Want some strategy? Three team. Want some casual chaos? 8v8. Feel like gettin sweaty or testing out your new build? 4v4. All of these formats have their place in the ESO pvp landscape, imo. (snip)
4v4 Solo
4v4 Group
8v8 Solo
4v4v4 Solo
Everybody's happy. (It's me, I'm everybody) But in all seriousness, I think this would be an acceptable solution. I feel like this would be fairly simple to implement seeing as how no changes would need to be made to 3 of the current queues and the 4v4v4 solo queue already exists, it just needs to be turned back on. The people who like the 2 team format get to keep it and the people who like the three team format get it back. Having a greater variety of BG formats to choose from would be a win for everybody. It would be nice to be able to play both ways, to have the choice. Want some strategy? Three team. Want some casual chaos? 8v8. Feel like gettin sweaty or testing out your new build? 4v4. All of these formats have their place in the ESO pvp landscape, imo.
Anyway, at this point the ball is in ZoS's court... they've heard from both sides... repeatedly... and have had some time to crunch the numbers (104 days to be exact PS/XB). Hopefully there's been enough time and feedback for them to come to a decision.
Major_Mangle wrote: »4v4 Solo
4v4 Group
8v8 Solo
4v4v4 Solo
Everybody's happy. (It's me, I'm everybody) But in all seriousness, I think this would be an acceptable solution. I feel like this would be fairly simple to implement seeing as how no changes would need to be made to 3 of the current queues and the 4v4v4 solo queue already exists, it just needs to be turned back on. The people who like the 2 team format get to keep it and the people who like the three team format get it back. Having a greater variety of BG formats to choose from would be a win for everybody. It would be nice to be able to play both ways, to have the choice. Want some strategy? Three team. Want some casual chaos? 8v8. Feel like gettin sweaty or testing out your new build? 4v4. All of these formats have their place in the ESO pvp landscape, imo.
Anyway, at this point the ball is in ZoS's court... they've heard from both sides... repeatedly... and have had some time to crunch the numbers (104 days to be exact PS/XB). Hopefully there's been enough time and feedback for them to come to a decision.
I'd personally make the 8v8 a pseudo group queue that allow people to at least queue as a duo. The overwhelming majority in the group queue I see these days (PCEU) are duos and I might have seen one full 4 man premade since this patch dropped. I obviously don't speak for anyone but myself, but my perception is that a lot of people like the 8v8 and it would feel a bit off to remove that option for people who just want to do so with a friend.
I'd make the 4v4 group only and have 4v4 be the "competitive queue" and make it deathmatch only. Might be a bit of an unpopular opinion but for me a competitive queue should be a bit more focused towards optimisation to prepare fighting other similar groups.
Have an 8v8 that allow for duos to queue (a mix between solo and duos)
4v4v4 solo queue only with mixed modes (and with some rework to some of the objective modes so it doesn't encourage "run between point A-B-C or take empty objectives" as the best tactic)
Three-team BGs: Lopsided snoozefest.
Two-team BGs: Limitless potential.
No. It's like pitching a group of high school amateurs against NFL Pros 9/10. Lopsided!Oh no, one team won and the other one lost, BG was "lopsided"!
Should really listen to yourselves... If you're on the winning team, enjoy the +win rate and go next.
If you're on the losing team... there's almost always ways to play better and turn it around if you know what you're doing - this is the difference between a ~50% WR player and a 75% one, just like in any other competitive game.
No. It's like pitching a group of high school amateurs against NFL Pros 9/10. Lopsided!Oh no, one team won and the other one lost, BG was "lopsided"!
Should really listen to yourselves... If you're on the winning team, enjoy the +win rate and go next.
If you're on the losing team... there's almost always ways to play better and turn it around if you know what you're doing - this is the difference between a ~50% WR player and a 75% one, just like in any other competitive game.
No. It's like pitching a group of high school amateurs against NFL Pros 9/10. Lopsided!Oh no, one team won and the other one lost, BG was "lopsided"!
Should really listen to yourselves... If you're on the winning team, enjoy the +win rate and go next.
If you're on the losing team... there's almost always ways to play better and turn it around if you know what you're doing - this is the difference between a ~50% WR player and a 75% one, just like in any other competitive game.
You realize you have 50% chance of having those people in your team as well?
You win some you lose some, some people carry others get carried... I'd recommend watching some other team vs team games for perspective, League of Legends for example.
Major_Mangle wrote: »No. It's like pitching a group of high school amateurs against NFL Pros 9/10. Lopsided!Oh no, one team won and the other one lost, BG was "lopsided"!
Should really listen to yourselves... If you're on the winning team, enjoy the +win rate and go next.
If you're on the losing team... there's almost always ways to play better and turn it around if you know what you're doing - this is the difference between a ~50% WR player and a 75% one, just like in any other competitive game.
You realize you have 50% chance of having those people in your team as well?
You win some you lose some, some people carry others get carried... I'd recommend watching some other team vs team games for perspective, League of Legends for example.
Think the comparison is a bit flawed. The big difference is that most MOBA's have very refined mmr systems (if we exclude smurfing for a second). In dota2 last time I checked you need 100 hours of non ranked gameplay to even do a calibration game that decides you initial ranking. Most mobas also have different rating based on solo/group. The problem with BG's is that no such thing exists. Imagine if you had to play 100 hours of non ranked BG's to even be able to queue for the ranked version so you could get on the leaderboards?
Regardless of what version of BG's we've (3 team or 2 team format) the elephant in the room will still be the lack of a proper ranking/mmr system that puts player of similar skillevels against eachother.
Competitively speaking, 3-sided objectives are unplayable garbage. You either can't realistically play for 1st place because you keep getting third-partied by trolls uninterested in helping their own team win, or because your own team doesn't understand 3-sided PvP and refuses to prioritize the correct opponent to take objective points from.Objective-based games, though, should definitely be 4v4v4. Both because some achievements are impossible in two-team games, and because it allows more strategy
Three-teams BGs: Going after other BG regulars and fighting with all my soul against an opponent with the strength to defeat me.
Two-teams BGs: If the BG regulars on the other team are hellbent on avoiding me it is all but impossible to force them into combat. Seal clubber paradise.
Zenimax should put the real BGs and the seal clubber paradise side by side and let players choose.
So you're cool if myself and my Sorc friend on the third team pop up out of nowhere, unceremoniously delete you with ults (stealing the kill from your strong deserving opponent), dragging your team further away from winning at my own team's expense, rendering the entire soul rending epic battle completely meaningless?Three-teams BGs: Going after other BG regulars and fighting with all my soul against an opponent with the strength to defeat me.
xylena_lazarow wrote: »So you're cool if myself and my Sorc friend on the third team pop up out of nowhere, unceremoniously delete you with ults (stealing the kill from your strong deserving opponent), dragging your team further away from winning at my own team's expense, rendering the entire soul rending epic battle completely meaningless?Three-teams BGs: Going after other BG regulars and fighting with all my soul against an opponent with the strength to defeat me.
Yup that's fair. That's why I compared it to Smash with all items and hazards, another good comparison would be the (wildly popular) casual multiplayer EDH/Commander format in Magic.Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Yeah. It makes the game exciting and dynamic. Different strokes...
xylena_lazarow wrote: »Yup that's fair. That's why I compared it to Smash with all items and hazards, another good comparison would be the (wildly popular) casual multiplayer EDH/Commander format in Magic.Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Yeah. It makes the game exciting and dynamic. Different strokes...
But I do also think that players who want that sort of multiplayer chaos and random results are on those sorts of games, not ESO PvP, due to how inherently sweaty it is, which is why 3-sided BGs were doomed to failure, whereas in 2-sided it gets balanced by tryhards being able to competitively carry much more effectively.
Three-teams BGs: Going after other BG regulars and fighting with all my soul against an opponent with the strength to defeat me.
Two-teams BGs: If the BG regulars on the other team are hellbent on avoiding me it is all but impossible to force them into combat. Seal clubber paradise.
Zenimax should put the real BGs and the seal clubber paradise side by side and let players choose.
And what is to say you aren't one of the "seals"? Win rate & KDR please.
So far this is just a lot of empty accusations of other players' behaviour, as if most people weren't getting absolutely farmed in 3-way format as well, up to the point where they'd just leave the 4-man team they're in because matchmaking RNG matters a lot more in that case compared to when you're put in an 8-man team.