Maintenance for the week of September 1:
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 3, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 3, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 3, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 3, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction
-
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭xylena_lazarow wrote: »
In other words, ball grouping. That's game jargon we've settled on for talking about this strat, a team that stays close and moves together will look like they're rolling around in a ball. Semantic misunderstanding.3-sided encouraged everyone, seal clubber- oriented build or no, to not stray from the team.
Ball grouping is what will keep destroying Cyrodiil for as long as the ability to group up exists. Anti-seal clubber style is what will convert the newcomers into PVPers, and make Battlegrounds grow beyond our wildest dreams.Edited by Moonspawn on May 10, 2025 5:26PM1 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭xylena_lazarow wrote: »
Doesn't matter what you call it. The anti-seal clubber guidelines are the perfect counter to seal clubber-oriented builds, which are extremely vulnerable when attacking, and easy to pull out of position. The moment players learn how to counter them is when they cease to be newcomers.Edited by Moonspawn on May 10, 2025 9:29PM0 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
It does, because we couldn't understand what you were talking about. The term "seal clubber" is highly subjective and kinda loaded, causing confusion. So you mean ball grouping. That's what most of us here call that strat, using familiar terms would communicate your ideas much more efficiently.Doesn't matter what you call it.PC/NA || Cyro/BGs || RIP old PvP build system || bring Vengeance3 -
Haki_7✭✭✭Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 78: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)
https://youtu.be/WwzdOminE7I 0 -
Jierdanit✭✭✭✭✭
✭Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 78: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)https://youtu.be/WwzdOminE7I
18 minutes*PC/EU, StamSorc Main1 -
cuddles_with_wroble✭✭✭✭✭The biggest complaint most people had about 4v4v4 was that the objective game modes sucked and didn’t promote pvp and that the mmr system is awful and makes for super unbalanced matches.
Now we have 2 teams and neither of those things got addressed in any meaningful way, the only real difference in my exp is that there’s a lot less interesting builds and play styles that work in a 2 team environment for rat players but for brawler or team fight enjoyers 2 team feels a lot better1 -
Haki_7✭✭✭Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 79: Waiting 31 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)
https://youtu.be/WvOPZ9IEVkk 0 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »The biggest complaint most people had about 4v4v4 was that the objective game modes sucked and didn’t promote pvp and that the mmr system is awful and makes for super unbalanced matches.
Now we have 2 teams and neither of those things got addressed in any meaningful way, the only real difference in my exp is that there’s a lot less interesting builds and play styles that work in a 2 team environment for rat players but for brawler or team fight enjoyers 2 team feels a lot better
[snip]
1vX'ing newcomers is both easier and more useful in 2-sided BGs. The players that disliked the challenges of the 3-sided format think this is a good thing, whereas the PVPers who actually want to fight one another (instead of farming newcomers) know that it's not.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on May 13, 2025 4:55PM0 -
ragnarok6644b14_ESO✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »The biggest complaint most people had about 4v4v4 was that the objective game modes sucked and didn’t promote pvp and that the mmr system is awful and makes for super unbalanced matches.
Now we have 2 teams and neither of those things got addressed in any meaningful way, the only real difference in my exp is that there’s a lot less interesting builds and play styles that work in a 2 team environment for rat players but for brawler or team fight enjoyers 2 team feels a lot better
[snip]
1vX'ing newcomers is both easier and more useful in 2-sided BGs. The players that disliked the challenges of the 3-sided format think this is a good thing, whereas the PVPers who actually want to fight one another (instead of farming newcomers) know that it's not.
How many PvPers do you think want a real challenge every fight instead of a farm?
Like, percentagewise. Just wondering if this is such a small group it genuinely may not be worth catering to.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on May 13, 2025 4:56PM0 -
Jierdanit✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »[snip]
2 team BGs are not easier for anyone. They require people to actually be competent to have a meaningful impact on the matches, as it should be.
BGs should be for people who actually want to PvP. 2 team BGs are better for people like that in basically every regard.
People who are just there for the rewards and dont want to take part in PvP at all should not be rewarded.
Also sure its 100% people who advocate for 2 team BGs that are bending reality to their wills, cant be that you are just wrong.1vX'ing newcomers is both easier and more useful in 2-sided BGs. The players that disliked the challenges of the 3-sided format think this is a good thing, whereas the PVPers who actually want to fight one another (instead of farming newcomers) know that it's not.
LOL
Saying that 4v4v4 promoted actually fighting each other is so far away from reality its actually crazy.
The entire problem with 3-way BGs was that you were rewarded for not not fighting and just running to uncontested objectives.
1vXing "newcomers" is certainly more useful in 2-sided BGs (and that is a good thing), it is definitely not easier.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on May 13, 2025 4:57PMPC/EU, StamSorc Main4 -
Daoin✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »[snip]
2 team BGs are not easier for anyone. They require people to actually be competent to have a meaningful impact on the matches, as it should be.
BGs should be for people who actually want to PvP. 2 team BGs are better for people like that in basically every regard.
People who are just there for the rewards and dont want to take part in PvP at all should not be rewarded.
Also sure its 100% people who advocate for 2 team BGs that are bending reality to their wills, cant be that you are just wrong.1vX'ing newcomers is both easier and more useful in 2-sided BGs. The players that disliked the challenges of the 3-sided format think this is a good thing, whereas the PVPers who actually want to fight one another (instead of farming newcomers) know that it's not.
LOL
Saying that 4v4v4 promoted actually fighting each other is so far away from reality its actually crazy.
The entire problem with 3-way BGs was that you were rewarded for not not fighting and just running to uncontested objectives.
1vXing "newcomers" is certainly more useful in 2-sided BGs (and that is a good thing), it is definitely not easier.
the problem with 4v4v4 is when self promoted veteran pvpers were forced to actually fight and pvers started to give them a thrashing wearing pve gear and builds they got all bent out of shape and needed a retreat in this case it was to 2 sided groups. im not saying this was good or bad for a BG but felt alright because cyro is big and BG's did not really need to even more confined for some amount of daily exp boost. and unless someone was planning to do one hundren a day to rank number 1 in the weekly scoreboars thats all they were good for and a bit of fun
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on May 13, 2025 4:57PM1 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭1vXing "newcomers" is certainly more useful in 2-sided BGs (and that is a good thing), it is definitely not easier.
It's easier for two main reasons:- No danger of being sandwiched.
- PVPers aren't encouraged to stay with the team, so if you isolate a few newcomers from the enemy PVPers (spawncamping them, for example) they'll likely never meet up for the remainder of the match.
Edited by Moonspawn on May 13, 2025 1:27PM0 -
Jierdanit✭✭✭✭✭
✭the problem with 4v4v4 is when self promoted veteran pvpers were forced to actually fight and pvers started to give them a thrashing wearing pve gear and builds they got all bent out of shape and needed a retreat in this case it was to 2 sided groups. im not saying this was good or bad for a BG but felt alright because cyro is big and BG's did not really need to even more confined for some amount of daily exp boost. and unless someone was planning to do one hundren a day to rank number 1 in the weekly scoreboars thats all they were good for and a bit of fun
I have probably done several thousand 4v4v4 BGs and I cant remember a single time where a team of PvPers lost to PvEers in PVE gear. That simply didnt happen.
Well they sometimes "lost" in terms of points because playing the objective in 4v4v4 required absolutely no PvP at all.
They never lost in terms of actually dying to them.PC/EU, StamSorc Main2 -
Daoin✭✭✭✭the problem with 4v4v4 is when self promoted veteran pvpers were forced to actually fight and pvers started to give them a thrashing wearing pve gear and builds they got all bent out of shape and needed a retreat in this case it was to 2 sided groups. im not saying this was good or bad for a BG but felt alright because cyro is big and BG's did not really need to even more confined for some amount of daily exp boost. and unless someone was planning to do one hundren a day to rank number 1 in the weekly scoreboars thats all they were good for and a bit of fun
I have probably done several thousand 4v4v4 BGs and I cant remember a single time where a team of PvPers lost to PvEers in PVE gear. That simply didnt happen.
Well they sometimes "lost" in terms of points because playing the objective in 4v4v4 required absolutely no PvP at all.
They never lost in terms of actually dying to them.
really wierd that i did thousands in pve gear and won loads of them over many years maybe we were in parralel universes ? in fact sometimes i would just laugh when i was tired and use some of the worst skills available or maybe because your NA ?Edited by Daoin on May 13, 2025 1:37PM0 -
Jierdanit✭✭✭✭✭
✭It's easier for two main reasons:- No danger of being sandwiched.
- PVPers aren't encouraged to stay with the team, so if you isolate a few newcomers from the enemy PVPers (spawncamping them, for example) they'll likely never meet up for the remainder of the match.
No danger of being sandwich immediately applies to both teams so I dont get how that would make it easier for either side specifically.
Also actually experienced PvPers would rather use the 3rd team to their advantage in 4v4v4 than get sandwiched by them, which would make 3 team BGs even easier.
In plenty of modes (Deathmatch especially, but also big parts of Chaosball, CtR and Crazy King) people are still encouraged to stick together. Its just not as big of a requirement as in 4v4v4 BGs.PC/EU, StamSorc Main2 -
Jierdanit✭✭✭✭✭
✭really wierd that i did thousands in pve gear and wont loads of them over many years amybe we were in parralel universes ? in fact sometimes i would just laugh when i was tired and use some of the worst skills available
Might be different idk.
I dont remember a single BG I actually lost a DM or anything related to kills against PvErs.
Might happen to "bad" PvP players wont really happen to actually good players.PC/EU, StamSorc Main2 -
Daoin✭✭✭✭really wierd that i did thousands in pve gear and wont loads of them over many years amybe we were in parralel universes ? in fact sometimes i would just laugh when i was tired and use some of the worst skills available
Might be different idk.
I dont remember a single BG I actually lost a DM or anything related to kills against PvErs.
Might happen to "bad" PvP players wont really happen to actually good players.
maybe, who knows ? and since the modes (or infact the original classes) are no longer available i guess we will never know, haha real twighlight zone stuffEdited by Daoin on May 13, 2025 1:44PM0 -
Jierdanit✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Two teams is easier for better players and harder for less competent players. In other words, they've made bgs far less approachable for newer or less talented players. How this is good for bgs is beyond me. I will leave to the 2 team advocated here who continue to bend reality to their wills to answer this, as they've done above, with apologetics and whataboutisms.
2 team BGs are not easier for anyone.
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
I did get it. I just think you are wrong.
Two sided BGs are harder for less skilled players sure.
They are also harder, or at least not easier for more skilled players.
You have the exact same difficulty just with the added bonus that now every enemy is actually focusing on your team because there is no third team to take the focus off of you.
I am arguing because you people defending 4v4v4 have said so many things that are simply wrong to manipulate ZOS.
Someone has to actually tell ZOS that you are wrong so they do not make the mistake of bringing 4v4v4 back as the main BG mode.
Hopefully this helps.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on May 13, 2025 4:40PMPC/EU, StamSorc Main1 -
Daoin✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Two teams is easier for better players and harder for less competent players. In other words, they've made bgs far less approachable for newer or less talented players. How this is good for bgs is beyond me. I will leave to the 2 team advocated here who continue to bend reality to their wills to answer this, as they've done above, with apologetics and whataboutisms.
2 team BGs are not easier for anyone.
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
just to understand the topic a bit clearer, in your experience smaller groups were harder for a more skilled player such as yourself while more numbers and less sides made them easier ?
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on May 13, 2025 4:40PM0 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Two teams is easier for better players and harder for less competent players. In other words, they've made bgs far less approachable for newer or less talented players. How this is good for bgs is beyond me. I will leave to the 2 team advocated here who continue to bend reality to their wills to answer this, as they've done above, with apologetics and whataboutisms.
2 team BGs are not easier for anyone.
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
They are also harder, or at least not easier for more skilled players.
This is inaccurate.
Conclusions derived from false premises are not sound, even if they are valid.
I am not interested in removing functionality. Only zos is. I dont want them removing 2 sided bgs because some people enjoy them. I just want my 3 team bgs back.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on May 13, 2025 4:52PM0 -
Decimus✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Two teams is easier for better players and harder for less competent players. In other words, they've made bgs far less approachable for newer or less talented players. How this is good for bgs is beyond me. I will leave to the 2 team advocated here who continue to bend reality to their wills to answer this, as they've done above, with apologetics and whataboutisms.
2 team BGs are not easier for anyone.
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
I hope you understand that RNG isn't difficulty.
In 3-way format some matches would be infinitely easier (and more boring) than any 2-way BG and others would be more difficult (and unfair) as you'd have a 4v8 situation.
It seems to be your "frame of reference" that the difficulty only swings one way.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on May 13, 2025 4:49PM2 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Two teams is easier for better players and harder for less competent players. In other words, they've made bgs far less approachable for newer or less talented players. How this is good for bgs is beyond me. I will leave to the 2 team advocated here who continue to bend reality to their wills to answer this, as they've done above, with apologetics and whataboutisms.
2 team BGs are not easier for anyone.
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
just to understand the topic a bit clearer, in your experience smaller groups were harder for a more skilled player such as yourself while more numbers and less sides made them easier ?
Smaller?
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on May 13, 2025 4:42PM0 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Two teams is easier for better players and harder for less competent players. In other words, they've made bgs far less approachable for newer or less talented players. How this is good for bgs is beyond me. I will leave to the 2 team advocated here who continue to bend reality to their wills to answer this, as they've done above, with apologetics and whataboutisms.
2 team BGs are not easier for anyone.
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
I hope you understand that RNG isn't difficulty.
In 3-way format some matches would be infinitely easier (and more boring) than any 2-way BG and others would be more difficult (and unfair) as you'd have a 4v8 situation.
It seems to be your "frame of reference" that the difficulty only swings one way.
We've gone over this... Maybe 30 times by now... we can all find examples of this or that to defend this or that. This is not helpful.
Difficulty swings two ways. I am really not sure how I can be any clearer on that point.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on May 13, 2025 4:49PM0 -
Daoin✭✭✭✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »Two teams is easier for better players and harder for less competent players. In other words, they've made bgs far less approachable for newer or less talented players. How this is good for bgs is beyond me. I will leave to the 2 team advocated here who continue to bend reality to their wills to answer this, as they've done above, with apologetics and whataboutisms.
2 team BGs are not easier for anyone.
[snip]
I[snip]
[snip]
just to understand the topic a bit clearer, in your experience smaller groups were harder for a more skilled player such as yourself while more numbers and less sides made them easier ?
Smaller?
yes in my experience the person that considered him or herself the most qualified pvper would be the first to leave a group after dying a few times, often even if the match could be recoverable finding a way to let the group know this, became the norm to just say here for fun or non pvp build or other things when entering a group which helped also to not hurt the feeling of the expert pvpers enough hopefully they would not need to blame and shame, and expert pvpers only ever seemed to stay the course of matches they were a sure bet to win. again though i am just trying to understand the topic better but as before i mentioned to another could just be a case of different experiences people have had in thier time in BG's
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on May 13, 2025 4:43PM0 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
We play together in 2-sided BGs somewhat frequently, and it certainly looks like you're being challenged from the outside, at least in the matches full of BGs regulars. I've never seen anyone step into a match full of BGs regs and not be challenged, regardless of whether its 2-sided or 3-sided. Almost like MMR resets are a bad idea...Thumbless_Bot wrote: »You cant imagine or see or admit that two sided bgs are easier for anyone
The flip side was high MMR 3-sided being a standoff between 3 ball groups afraid to get third partied. Challenging, but not fun at all for me. Other 3s were zero challenge if you just played like a rat, not fun for me either.PC/NA || Cyro/BGs || RIP old PvP build system || bring Vengeance4 -
Daoin✭✭✭✭in the end my concusion is 2 sided groups are better for expert players while 3 sides offers a more varied experience and more fun, however i believe in the post i already mentioned i did not try one BG since the change and this is why i am trying to understand more and maybe hopefully see a return of the 4v4v4 matches eventuallyEdited by Daoin on May 13, 2025 2:43PM1
This discussion has been closed.