Maintenance for the week of September 8:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – September 8
• PC/Mac: EU megaserver for maintenance – September 9, 22:00 UTC (6:00PM EDT) - September 10, 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/682784
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – September 8
• PC/Mac: EU megaserver for maintenance – September 9, 22:00 UTC (6:00PM EDT) - September 10, 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/682784
Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction
-
Decimus✭✭✭✭✭
✭What one considers a "challenge" is very much a matter of perception. Earlier on like page... 5 or 6 or something I asked for the WR/KDR of players who complain about team vs team format precisely for that reason, because it's a lot easier to understand one's mindset when you understand them as a player.
The sad truth is that a lot of people find challenge in just not going negative KDR in battlegrounds and in maintaining a positive win rate in an environment where they cannot third party or run to empty flags while other players try to enjoy some PvP.
The reason for this can be a bad build (i.e. failure in theorycrafting), bad positioning, bad use of globals/lack of mechanical skill, lack of game knowledge (i.e. understanding what your opponents are doing etc)... these can all be "challenges" - or not challenges at all if you're a more experienced player.
To this, the solution isn't really going back to a failed format that failed to attract a large player base, the solution is for these players who struggle when it's equal numbers vs equal numbers (team vs team) to tough it out and get better, change their strategies and adapt to what is basically the industry standard for MMO PvP.
Happy to provide tips and assistance in that regard, despite some of the hostility demonstrated on this thread.2 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭What one considers a "challenge" is very much a matter of perception. Earlier on like page... 5 or 6 or something I asked for the WR/KDR of players who complain about team vs team format precisely for that reason, because it's a lot easier to understand one's mindset when you understand them as a player.
The sad truth is that a lot of people find challenge in just not going negative KDR in battlegrounds and in maintaining a positive win rate in an environment where they cannot third party or run to empty flags while other players try to enjoy some PvP.
The reason for this can be a bad build (i.e. failure in theorycrafting), bad positioning, bad use of globals/lack of mechanical skill, lack of game knowledge (i.e. understanding what your opponents are doing etc)... these can all be "challenges" - or not challenges at all if you're a more experienced player.
To this, the solution isn't really going back to a failed format that failed to attract a large player base, the solution is for these players who struggle when it's equal numbers vs equal numbers (team vs team) to tough it out and get better, change their strategies and adapt to what is basically the industry standard for MMO PvP.
Happy to provide tips and assistance in that regard, despite some of the hostility demonstrated on this thread.
I'm curious. Would you expect the kda to go up or down when going from 3 to 2 teams... for each tier?
I mean if difficulty is a matter of perception... of course...Edited by Thumbless_Bot on April 28, 2025 1:40AM1 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭xylena_lazarow wrote: »
That's way too vague. You'd have to provide specific situations in extreme detail for me to explain how is it that the challenges of 3-sided would alter positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making. You don't think that having to worry about factors like killstealing, the objective getting done uncontested, and the possibility of being sandwiched had any impact on those?
Edited by Moonspawn on April 28, 2025 11:16AM0 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
There's 3 minutes left in a 3-sided deathmatch. The score is 420-375-135. You are on the purple team with 375 points, your teammates are pretty good 1vXer types but not as organized as the 1st place red team, who have a lot of cross heals and can aoe bomb. The 3rd place green team has no healers and only one threatening player, a NB ganker.You'd have to provide specific situations in extreme detail for me to explain how is it that the challenges of 3-sided
So what's your call to win this? There is definitely an optimal path forward here.PC/NA || Cyro/BGs || RIP old PvP build system || bring Vengeance0 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭xylena_lazarow wrote: »
There's 3 minutes left in a 3-sided deathmatch. The score is 420-375-135. You are on the purple team with 375 points, your teammates are pretty good 1vXer types but not as organized as the 1st place red team, who have a lot of cross heals and can aoe bomb. The 3rd place green team has no healers and only one threatening player, a NB ganker.You'd have to provide specific situations in extreme detail for me to explain how is it that the challenges of 3-sided
So what's your call to win this? There is definitely an optimal path forward here.
We'd have to be careful not to let the team in first steal our kills. If there is someone there with a ranged execute, we might have to harass or take them out before going after the green team (to prevent killstealing). Going after the green team with reckless abandon might backfire splendidly, especially considering the bombing capabilities of the red team (worrying about being sandwiched). Biding our time and waiting for red to engage green so we can wipe them all together is probably the safest bet, but what if the fight ends too fast? (worrying about the objective getting done uncontested).
Challenging, isn't it?
The correct answer for me would be, of course, none of the above.
0 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
You correctly reasoned that the optimal strat is to avoid direct engagement and focus on kill stealing. Pick off green weaklings before red does, and third party red's bomb attempts. So the unique strat here in 3-sided is that you can beat the superior red team without actually killing them, taking any objectives from them, or fighting them at all.Challenging, isn't it?
Challenging? For me, not really. Avoiding PvP is pretty easy. What's cool and unique about 2-sided is that you can't cheese the format rules to avoid PvP, you gotta actually fight the red team and kill them or take their objective.PC/NA || Cyro/BGs || RIP old PvP build system || bring Vengeance3 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭
Not really, since your opponent was never the red team. It was red AND green. Red + green= yellow.xylena_lazarow wrote: »So the unique strat here in 3-sided is that you can beat the superior red team without actually killing them, taking any objectives from them, or fighting them at all.
What's cool and unique about 2-sided is that it doesn't have the challenges of 3-sided. And that's okay, they're not for everyone.xylena_lazarow wrote: »What's cool and unique about 2-sided is that you can't cheese the format rules to avoid PvP, you gotta actually fight the red team and kill them or take their objective.Edited by Moonspawn on April 28, 2025 10:43PM0 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭What one considers a "challenge" is very much a matter of perception. Earlier on like page... 5 or 6 or something I asked for the WR/KDR of players who complain about team vs team format precisely for that reason, because it's a lot easier to understand one's mindset when you understand them as a player.
The sad truth is that a lot of people find challenge in just not going negative KDR in battlegrounds and in maintaining a positive win rate in an environment where they cannot third party or run to empty flags while other players try to enjoy some PvP.
The reason for this can be a bad build (i.e. failure in theorycrafting), bad positioning, bad use of globals/lack of mechanical skill, lack of game knowledge (i.e. understanding what your opponents are doing etc)... these can all be "challenges" - or not challenges at all if you're a more experienced player.
To this, the solution isn't really going back to a failed format that failed to attract a large player base, the solution is for these players who struggle when it's equal numbers vs equal numbers (team vs team) to tough it out and get better, change their strategies and adapt to what is basically the industry standard for MMO PvP.
Happy to provide tips and assistance in that regard, despite some of the hostility demonstrated on this thread.
There's no need for such acrobatic mental gymnastics. If you dislike the challenges of 3-sided then you can simply queue for 2-sided. It's not going anywhere.Edited by Moonspawn on April 28, 2025 11:22PM0 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭@Haki_7 would it be more fun to go 38-0 against low rank noobs if it had 3 teams?PC/NA || Cyro/BGs || RIP old PvP build system || bring Vengeance1 -
Haki_7✭✭✭xylena_lazarow wrote: »@Haki_7 would it be more fun to go 38-0 against low rank noobs if it had 3 teams?
Only one way to find out.Edited by Haki_7 on April 29, 2025 4:28PM1 -
Decimus✭✭✭✭✭
✭The saddest part is that @Haki_7 is not even using his own scoreboards since these are taken from POVs of NBs, DKs etc and seem to be just normal damage builds, not sorc healers (with curse/dawnbreaker slotted in for some reason), which is the only thing the poster plays (and usually even struggles to go positive KDR with on PC/EU atleast).
Very misleading, just like spamming this thread with videos of queueing and adding extra 5 minutes to each battleground queue here on forums hoping that no one clicks on the videos.
Just setting the misinformation straight.3 -
Haki_7✭✭✭xylena_lazarow wrote: »
Looks like orange team was stronger than the combined efforts of green and purple. Saying this was common is about as honest as claiming that the increased participation in BGs isn't solely due to the increased rewards.0 -
ragnarok6644b14_ESO✭✭✭✭Only first and second place got the daily reward unless that is from before like 2019. But in the case where teams tied for second, all 3 got it.1 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭xylena_lazarow wrote: »
Looks like orange team was stronger than the combined efforts of green and purple. Saying this was common is about as honest as claiming that the increased participation in BGs isn't solely due to the increased rewards.
I think the word you are looking for is hyperbolic.
Though, perhaps that is true of both sides.
I guarantee every single one of us can find examples of apparently competitve or non-competitive bgs in both formats in our old videos or screenshots.
The reality is that 2 teams is easier for good players and harder for bad players. Good players have half the opposing force they used to and bad players have less shade to hide behind.
New bgs exacerbate the skill gap, which, if I'm reading the zos flavored tea leaves right, is the polar opposite of what they were trying to do. They were trying to make bgs more approachable and less niche. They failed, miserably... MISERABLY...
I believe that increased rewards and novelty of new bgs are why population went up. It will likely slide down further in popularity than it was before the change because of the reasons above about skill. It's only a matter of time.
There really isn't anything left to say on this topic. At least not for me.0 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
It's equally honest to your depiction of 2s. My experience is that 3s are lopsided snoozefests.Looks like orange team was stronger than the combined efforts of green and purple. Saying this was common is about as honest as claiming that the increased participation in BGs isn't solely due to the increased rewards.
Speaking of dishonesty, you dodged the question, so here's another. Does this look fun to you?PC/NA || Cyro/BGs || RIP old PvP build system || bring Vengeance2 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭xylena_lazarow wrote: »
It's equally honest to your depiction of 2s. My experience is that 3s are lopsided snoozefests.Looks like orange team was stronger than the combined efforts of green and purple. Saying this was common is about as honest as claiming that the increased participation in BGs isn't solely due to the increased rewards.
Speaking of dishonesty, you dodged the question, so here's another. Does this look fun to you?
The challenges of 3-sided made it more fun. Perhaps recognizing that you're always fighting 2 teams could be the sixth challenge? Not sure, seems like this one is already kind of included in the others.0 -
Haki_7✭✭✭
I thought you already knew the answer:xylena_lazarow wrote: »
It's equally honest to your depiction of 2s. My experience is that 3s are lopsided snoozefests.Looks like orange team was stronger than the combined efforts of green and purple. Saying this was common is about as honest as claiming that the increased participation in BGs isn't solely due to the increased rewards.
Speaking of dishonesty, you dodged the question, so here's another. Does this look fun to you?
Is that a DM? Even the people who claim to like 8v8 say Deathmatch is the worst mode now. @Moonspawn can you balance this one even without the dmg and healing?The challenges of 3-sided made it more fun.
It's included already. Best to leave it out.Perhaps recognizing that you're always fighting 2 teams could be the sixth challenge? Not sure, seems like this one is already kind of included in the others.
Edited by Haki_7 on April 30, 2025 11:49AM0 -
Haki_7✭✭✭xylena_lazarow wrote: »
Sure, I can rewrite the answer >>>> like this <<<< so it doesn't go unnoticed again. Just need to know something first:
@xylena_lazarow , is there?Is there any difference between the formats, apart from the additional challenges of 3-sided?
0 -
Veinblood1965✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
Spot on. I recently started running BG's to get the mount(usually just do Cyrodiil or IC) and once I obtained the mount I haven't ran one since. Why, you ask? I didn't do grouped BG's so 99% of the time I was on the side that won by a landside or the other side. Once in a blue moon it was a close match. Boring and a huge waste of time. From a new person's perspective to BG's it did NOT entice me to stay and further progress to joining a pre-made group.
I was not playing Bg's when there were three teams, I can see the strategy to that. There would have been more options to win once behind.0 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Yeah you can win by avoiding PvP in 3s, but you gotta fight in 2s. Ready to answer yet? Writing it like that would help, yeah. Really have no idea whether you consider lopsided 3s fun or not, so here's another.Sure, I can rewrite the answer >>>> like this <<<< so it doesn't go unnoticed again. Just need to know something first: Is there any difference between the formats, apart from the additional challenges of 3-sided?
Does this look fun to you?PC/NA || Cyro/BGs || RIP old PvP build system || bring Vengeance3 -
Haki_7✭✭✭xylena_lazarow wrote: »
Yeah you can win by avoiding PvP in 3s, but you gotta fight in 2s. Ready to answer yet? Writing it like that would help, yeah. Really have no idea whether you consider lopsided 3s fun or not, so here's another.Sure, I can rewrite the answer >>>> like this <<<< so it doesn't go unnoticed again. Just need to know something first: Is there any difference between the formats, apart from the additional challenges of 3-sided?
Does this look fun to you?
Ok so no difference then, since that's the second item of the list (having to worry about the objective getting done uncontested).
To answer your question:
>>>> The challenges of 3-sided made it more fun <<<<
Do you dislike the other challenges too, or just the second?
0
This discussion has been closed.