Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

RealLoveBVB · March 26

Decimus wrote: »

I don't think "lopsided matches" is an issue though, not any more so than in most other competitive games. You win some you lose some, some are easy wins others not

I can't agree here. I mean, you are right with the fact, that sometimes you lose and sometimes you win. What bothers me is the way how it's done.

Since they introduced battle marks I started to play bgs again.

I kind of like the fast paced best of 3 desthmatches, but they are pointless, if you either always win 500:0 or lose 0:500.
I rarely have any balanced matches, where both teams make a good amount of kills.

Just yesterday I had a match against 4 5 stars, while I had a heavy attack sorc and 2 with 21k and 17k life. Of course it was lost after 30 seconds.
So I am wondering, how guys with 17k life have the same mmr as a fully equipped 5 star pvp guy.
The other thing what makes me wonder, how 4 pvp guys are grouped in one team, while I get 3 pvers, where I have the feeling they accidentally qued for a daily bg instead of their daily random dungeon.

The good thing with 3 sided matches was, that you got rewards for placing 2nd too.

Thumbless_Bot · March 26

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Agree. One good player can definitely turn the tide. And it's 5d chess, not 4.

Okay so explain to me how to solve the "second place problem" then, in which 3s eventually degenerate into 8v4 at the expense of the weakest team. At the beginning of any given match, any given number of players, including on your own team, are prioritizing playing for 2nd place by focusing only the weakest team, or will switch to playing for 2nd place as soon as they feel it's too hard to fight the 1st place team. How do you handle this?

The weakest team is going to lose no matter what.

The weakest team is going to get farmed no matter what.

These things have not only stayed the same in two team formats, they've gotten worse.

In other words, three teams inherently mitigates the natural imbalance of two teams wher onee team will always be stronger and dominate the other.

Three teams of four, Each team is against 8 opponents. Its just more difficult to dominate and more dynamic. Zos made two teams because it's easier and more approachable. That's my view.

Two weak teams can also overwhelm the strongest team. Happened all the time. I died far more often in 3 team than I do now because I was always against twice the pressure. And that was fun.

To expand, as I did way above, back in 19 aught 7, four teams would provide even more balance.

You want your target served up in front of you on a platter with no third party there to get in your way. You've alluded to this above more than once. I get that. I just don't like it. I want complexity

xylena_lazarow · March 26

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

The weakest team is going to lose no matter what.

Two weak teams can also overwhelm the strongest team.

???

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

To expand, as I did way above, back in 19 aught 7, four teams would provide even more balance.

I want complexity

You know what would be even better? FIVE TEAMS. So much balance and complexity.

Thumbless_Bot · March 26

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

The weakest team is going to lose no matter what.

Two weak teams can also overwhelm the strongest team.

???

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

To expand, as I did way above, back in 19 aught 7, four teams would provide even more balance.

I want complexity

You know what would be even better? FIVE TEAMS. So much balance and complexity.

These ideas are not opposed. Strongest team will win. Two weak teams can overwhelm the strongest team. It doesn't mean they will win. It just means it wont be a complete lopsided ss for 15 minutes. If they did win, then they were the strongest team. Did you really need this clarification?

The comment on number of teams is just to illustrate the sound logic. Again, did you really need this clarification?

If you're just throwing shades that's cool. Just not sure.

xylena_lazarow · March 26

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

If you're just throwing shades that's cool. Just not sure.

Let's say you and I are on the same team in a 3-sided Deathmatch. We're on Purple.

Red is the stronger opponent, Green is the weaker opponent.

You say you know the 3-sided strats so you've got crown. What are we doing?

Thumbless_Bot · March 26

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

If you're just throwing shades that's cool. Just not sure.

Let's say you and I are on the same team in a 3-sided Deathmatch. We're on Purple.

Red is the stronger opponent, Green is the weaker opponent.

You say you know the 3-sided strats so you've got crown. What are we doing?

Same thing as two sided, only it would be more difficult because we are outnumbered and would likely die more doing it, but we'd win, like we usually do.

xylena_lazarow · March 26

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Same thing as two sided, only it would be more difficult because we are outnumbered and would likely die more doing it, but we'd win, like we usually do.

So no special complexity or anything, just a normal 2-sided match, but it's 4v8?

I don't enjoy rolling the dice that my random teammates can handle a 4v8, but to each their own.

Haki_7 · March 27

''After one or two of the four queue options have been replaced by 3-sided BGs, players will be able to choose what they consider to be the superior format.''

Thumbless_Bot · March 27

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Same thing as two sided, only it would be more difficult because we are outnumbered and would likely die more doing it, but we'd win, like we usually do.

So no special complexity or anything, just a normal 2-sided match, but it's 4v8?

I don't enjoy rolling the dice that my random teammates can handle a 4v8, but to each their own.

It's 3 sided. Otherwise 100% agree.

Haki_7 · March 28

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 55: Waiting 24 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/3xTH620sS5A

licenturion · March 28

You really have a lot of patience.

I think it will be a looooooooong time before anything changes. ZOS is now focused on Cyrodill and their new seasonal content cadence that will be announced soon.

Haki_7 · March 28

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 56: Waiting 21 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rItLR7ThvnM

Haki_7 · March 29

Let's just go back to the real BGs.

Haki_7 · March 29

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 57: Waiting 25 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB7yp9SuOgU

Haki_7 · March 30

I wonder which of the four queue options should be chosen to be replaced by 3-sided BGs. I hope it's one of the 4v4's.

😪😪😪

Decimus · March 30

Haki_7 wrote: »

I wonder which of the four queue options should be chosen to be replaced by 3-sided BGs. I hope it's one of the 4v4's.

😪😪😪

Why don't you show the ones where you go 0-3, or the ones where you deliberately int a battleground and then write "GG" in chat afterwards?

Maybe a lot of the issues you have with current battlegrounds could be solved by just playing better, or changing build so that it doesn't get blown up in middle of friendly team when someone competent decides to go for you.

Just a thought

xylena_lazarow · March 30

Decimus wrote: »

Maybe a lot of the issues you have with current battlegrounds could be solved by just playing better

I adapted by making group callouts like I would in Cyrodiil, in the sweatier more focused 2-sided matches, players in fact will often respond and rally, unlike 3-sided where you repeatedly get some version of "screw that let's play for 2nd place" from teammates. Maybe the whole appeal of 3-sided is that 2nd place counts as a "win" for certain players.

Haki_7 · March 30

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 58: Waiting 21 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/aoComzBlZqI

Haki_7 · March 31

After one or two of the four queue options have been replaced by 3-sided BGs, players will be able to choose the format they consider to be the most fun and balanced.

😪😪😪

xylena_lazarow · March 31

Enhancement of Battlegrounds Chapter 59: Waiting 2 minutes for a competitive match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

Did you try switching to a character with a lower AR? I switched from my AR49 dk to a recently renovated AR24 dk, anecdotally my queue times don't seem as bad so far, so I'll keep playing this one.

Haki_7 · March 31

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 59: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/CvLp9fmvaEA

Haki_7 · April 1

Three-teams BGs: Limitless possibilities.

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest

kurbbie_s · April 1

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

The weakest team is going to lose no matter what.

Two weak teams can also overwhelm the strongest team.

???

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

To expand, as I did way above, back in 19 aught 7, four teams would provide even more balance.

I want complexity

You know what would be even better? FIVE TEAMS. So much balance and complexity.

These ideas are not opposed. Strongest team will win. Two weak teams can overwhelm the strongest team. It doesn't mean they will win. It just means it wont be a complete lopsided ss for 15 minutes. If they did win, then they were the strongest team. Did you really need this clarification?

The comment on number of teams is just to illustrate the sound logic. Again, did you really need this clarification?

If you're just throwing shades that's cool. Just not sure.

the stronger team should always slaughter the not good team. 2 teams is better, more competitive.

xylena_lazarow · April 1

Haki_7 wrote: »

Three-teams BGs: Limitless possibilities

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest

You obviously really hate 2-sided BGs, so why are you still playing them?

At least a lopsided 8v8 was decided by team skill, not because Purple was deliberately avoiding 1st to play for 2nd the whole match. Most of your "limitless possibilities" reduce to different permutations of 8v4.

kurbbie_s · April 1

Haki_7 wrote: »

Three-teams BGs: Limitless possibilities.

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest

maybe you should search with a party if winning is too much for you.

In your picture you can actually see the 3 people who are carrying the Fire Drakes. Your problem is with people being better than you. Both teams have good plays who are being held back by bad players. Thats all this is and something you need to deal with or stop playing.

So 3 out of 8 being good players is lopsided? Your problem like I said, is with skill.

Thumbless_Bot · April 1

kurbbie_s wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

The weakest team is going to lose no matter what.

Two weak teams can also overwhelm the strongest team.

???

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

To expand, as I did way above, back in 19 aught 7, four teams would provide even more balance.

I want complexity

You know what would be even better? FIVE TEAMS. So much balance and complexity.

These ideas are not opposed. Strongest team will win. Two weak teams can overwhelm the strongest team. It doesn't mean they will win. It just means it wont be a complete lopsided ss for 15 minutes. If they did win, then they were the strongest team. Did you really need this clarification?

The comment on number of teams is just to illustrate the sound logic. Again, did you really need this clarification?

If you're just throwing shades that's cool. Just not sure.

the stronger team should always slaughter the not good team. 2 teams is better, more competitive.

<gigglesnorts>. I see what you did there. Nicely done! It would be funny if the folks who prefer two sided are the ones who actually agreed. Current count:3 as of my reply.