Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Mattymoo92 · May 20

@ZOS_Kevin Please could we get confirmation that the team is aware of the current state of BGs?

At this point it’s all we are asking for is confirmation that our opinion on this is being heard as it’s been half a year since the thread was created 🙏

xylena_lazarow · May 20

Mattymoo92 wrote: »

At this point it’s all we are asking for is confirmation that our opinion on this is being heard

The opinions expressed ITT are often vague and contradictory, so I'm not sure what you would want the devs to do with them. They'll mostly see this one guy complaining about 2s but continuing to play them religiously anyway.

Moonspawn · May 20

Challenges of 3-teams BGs:

1) Having to worry about the possibility of being sandwiched (because of the third team).
2) Not allowing the third team to secure the objective uncontested.
3) Being forced to deal with killstealing (because of the third team).
4) Identifying an impossible victory and helping your teammates achieve second place.
5) Learning about positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the unique challenges of the 3-sided format.
6) Playing against opponents who apply what they learn from all of the above.

I don't think people actually disliked all of these items. It was mostly the second one. I did too. Everyone did. It was often disproportionately difficult compared to all of the others. All ZOS had to do was tone it down as much as possible and we'd have been good to go. Maybe they'll do it when 3-sided returns and everyone makes their choice. The inevitable choice.

kurbbie_s · May 20

Haki_7 wrote: »

Three-teams BGs: Limitless possibilities.

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest

bros mad about 1 guy who got 34 kills and calls it lopsided.
Bro, if you cant handle 1 person being good without it saying its lopsided, i dont think PVP is for you.

Edit: I just noticed in the Screencap that only 3 people in the game were positive k/d. This wasnt a lopsided match, this was 1 guy doing all of this. Therefore it wasnt lopsided, just 1 guy had some op sets or was more optimized. Youd say every match I was in is lopsided too, as I top frag all the time.

kurbbie_s · May 20

Xarc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Xarc wrote: »

I started playing BG after 11years of cyrodiil
Cyrodiil is not fun anymore with ballgroups, bombers, always the same things to do, no more fun for me.

BG are quite better now with 4vs4 & 8vs8

Here are some remarks:
a) maps are redundant (not enough maps) after a while

b) we should have jump damage immunity when jumping from the spawn base to go fight in the arena

c) I dont know how works MMR, would be interesting to know more about it, and know exactly what is our rank & maybe other players rank

d) sometimes it's very unbalanced, and the score is approximately X vs 0
And so sometimes players leave or AFK at the base

e) Some players dont care the flag system, and play any game as if it were a deathmatch.

@Xarc Is there anything that you dislike about 3-sided BGs that is not on this list?

1) Having to worry about the possibility of being sandwiched (because of the third team).
2) Not allowing the objective to get done uncontested (by the third team).
3) Being forced to deal with killstealing (because of the third team).
4) Identifying an impossible victory and helping your teammates achieve second place.
5) Learning about positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the unique challenges of the 3-sided format.
6) Playing against opponents who apply what they learn from all of the above.

I didnt like the 3 sided BG
I think it was inspired by the Cyrodiil tri-faction just to be an MMO that offered something other than team vs. team play. But ultimately, I think this first version of BG didn't achieve the success ZOS hoped for.

your 1) was the main reason I didnt like the first version. Some maps were really poorly designed, like the one with the different spawn levels and teleport zones everywhere, it just sucked. At the strategic level, nothing was predictable, but that was the fault of the map, not the 3-team system.
On the other hand, the 3-team system had its own limitations too and it generated a lot of frustration to be sandwiched for no reason.

Now the deal is simple and easy to understand : Two teams face off, whether it's 4vs4 or 8vs8, it's simple and effective, thank you ZOS.
And especially thank you to the developers for making simple maps, not with twisted spawns and verticality just for the sake of verticality. We need to stop making things complicated when what players simply want is to fight.
Adding little challenges like lava jets and poisoned water in the middle is nice, or gaps where you can push your opponents; it adds spice and is fun.
I hope new maps will appear without going overboard, keeping things simple and effective.

There are always balance issues within groups, but I think the MMR aspect comes into play, but maybe sometimes the game makes do with the available roster...

There might be something to do regarding the damage/heal/tank rankings. Some players feel left out and don't understand why a healer earns more points than them even though they've gotten 20 kills, because the medal system is weird.

I agree with most of this aside from the maps. The maps are way too small and need to be increased about 50%. Right now, most maps you can just stand in the middle and reach both teams spawn and usually reach the objective. Maps need to push players to move/spread out instead of just standing in 1 place. More areas of cover could be added as well as verticality.

xylena_lazarow · May 21

kurbbie_s wrote: »

Edit: I just noticed in the Screencap that only 3 people in the game were positive k/d. This wasnt a lopsided match, this was 1 guy doing all of this. Therefore it wasnt lopsided, just 1 guy had some op sets or was more optimized. Youd say every match I was in is lopsided too, as I top frag all the time.

Good point, the others also weren't even trying for KDA because it's a Chaosball match. The 34-0 was pug stomping a low MMR objective game, and is surprised that it wasn't fun. Were they really expecting otherwise?

Haki_7 · May 21

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 83: Waiting 28 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/bt7bSUAgAwk

Haki_7 · May 21

Three-teams BGs: Endless possibilities

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

Mattymoo92 · May 21

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Mattymoo92 wrote: »

At this point it’s all we are asking for is confirmation that our opinion on this is being heard

The opinions expressed ITT are often vague and contradictory, so I'm not sure what you would want the devs to do with them. They'll mostly see this one guy complaining about 2s but continuing to play them religiously anyway.

I guess you and the 5 other people who enjoy them can keep enjoying it then 🤣 imagine complaining about the fact people don’t like something

xylena_lazarow · May 21

Mattymoo92 wrote: »

imagine complaining about the fact people don’t like something

Why imagine? This thread is just 34 pages of Haki trashing 2s, it gives zero reason to bring back 3s.

Moonspawn · May 21

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Mattymoo92 wrote: »

imagine complaining about the fact people don’t like something

Why imagine? This thread is just 34 pages of Haki trashing 2s, it gives zero reason to bring back 3s.

I can think of six reasons. Have you accepted the consensus yet?

xylena_lazarow · May 21

Moonspawn wrote: »

I can think of six reasons. Have you accepted the consensus yet?

Four reasons. Your #5 and #6 were redundant. At least you reasonably articulated what is unique about 3s in the first four, though you must accept that these are also what many players disliked so much about 3s. I accept that there is a consensus between you, Haki, and maybe Thumbless. That's very far from a mandate.

Mattymoo92 · May 21

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Mattymoo92 wrote: »

imagine complaining about the fact people don’t like something

Why imagine? This thread is just 34 pages of Haki trashing 2s, it gives zero reason to bring back 3s.

I get what you are saying but it’s not just him, it’s an actual issue many are having

The reason I would like 3s back is because no when I was doing 3s it truly felt random if I was going to win or not. If I was 3rd it did not mean it was a confirmed loss (at least in my experience I’ve heard the opposite said too)
Now you can pretty much tell who is going to win either before the match begins or a few minutes in which should not be possible.

I feel like Zos could fix these issues by bringing 3s back and keep the 2s but for some reason they have not done this

Decimus · May 21

I'll leave it at that.

xylena_lazarow · May 21

Mattymoo92 wrote: »

The reason I would like 3s back is because no when I was doing 3s it truly felt random if I was going to win or not. If I was 3rd it did not mean it was a confirmed loss

Now you can pretty much tell who is going to win either before the match begins or a few minutes in which should not be possible.

This is pretty reasonable to me, the best gaming argument is often simply fun. It's not my thing but I can get why someone would enjoy the more unpredictable results.

My perspective in 2s is that you can always tell who has the advantage, but the win isn't guaranteed. Sometimes the other team does adapt, or just needed a few minutes to wake up. Closer 2s do go back and forth.

RealLoveBVB · May 21

Decimus wrote: »

I'll leave it at that.

If you stream ESO and you make a poll:
What game do you like more: ESO or game XY.
Then more than 80% would vote for ESO, else they would watch the stream of game XY.

If you stream BGs with mostly 8vs8 matches, then of course you will have the result of your poll posted above. Because those who would vote 4v4v4 aren't watching your stream, as they don't like to watch the feeding of the 8v8 matches.

If you would stream mostly 4v4v4 matches, then you would have 80% votes on 4v4v4, as those who like to see 8v8 matches aren't watching your stream then.

Moonspawn · May 21

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

I can think of six reasons. Have you accepted the consensus yet?

Four reasons. Your #5 and #6 were redundant. At least you reasonably articulated what is unique about 3s in the first four, though you must accept that these are also what many players disliked so much about 3s. I accept that there is a consensus between you, Haki, and maybe Thumbless. That's very far from a mandate.

5 is very important, it's what converted newcomers into BG regulars. And 6 is the main reason BGs used to be fun for me.

I think this is the shortest explanation regarding the consensus:

Decimus wrote: »

Now, team mates do split in team vs team BGs as well and outnumbered fights happen... but the difference is that while you're being outnumbered in team vs team, your team is outnumbering the rest of the opponents. That is balance: you can buy your team kills and objectives by just being a good player and surviving outnumbered.
If you do this in 3-way BGs, not only are you outnumbered, but so is your team - splitting into two groups just turns your fight into two 2v4s instead of one 2v4 and team being able to 6v4 meanwhile for example. This forces a ball group style gameplay on people, which is the last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.

Do you agree?

xylena_lazarow · May 21

Moonspawn wrote: »

5 is very important, it's what converted newcomers into BG regulars. And 6 is the main reason BGs used to be fun for me.

Do you agree?

Your 5 and 6 are both just "all of the above" therefore redundant, your 1-4 are fine. You need to be more aware of redundancy in your arguments, you were doing it with "3s are better because they have 3 sides" tautologies earlier too.

And no, I don't agree. If you want 3s to come back, focus on fun over attempting to prove strategic superiority.

Moonspawn · May 21

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

5 is very important, it's what converted newcomers into BG regulars. And 6 is the main reason BGs used to be fun for me.

Do you agree?

Your 5 and 6 are both just "all of the above" therefore redundant, your 1-4 are fine. You need to be more aware of redundancy in your arguments, you were doing it with "3s are better because they have 3 sides" tautologies earlier too.

And no, I don't agree. If you want 3s to come back, focus on fun over attempting to prove strategic superiority.

It's not the first time you do this. I think you may have something wrong with your device. It's like you can't see quotes for some reason.

When I asked if you agreed I was referring to the following explanation:

''Now, team mates do split in team vs team BGs as well and outnumbered fights happen... but the difference is that while you're being outnumbered in team vs team, your team is outnumbering the rest of the opponents. That is balance: you can buy your team kills and objectives by just being a good player and surviving outnumbered.
If you do this in 3-way BGs, not only are you outnumbered, but so is your team - splitting into two groups just turns your fight into two 2v4s instead of one 2v4 and team being able to 6v4 meanwhile for example. This forces a ball group style gameplay on people, which is the last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.''

This is the consensus. Do you agree?

xylena_lazarow · May 21

Moonspawn wrote: »

This is the consensus. Do you agree?

No, I do not agree. I understand your point, you don't need to repeat it with different phrasing or formatting, I simply don't agree with it, and have already stated my counterarguments.

Moonspawn · May 21

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

This is the consensus. Do you agree?

No, I do not agree. I understand your point, you don't need to repeat it with different phrasing or formatting, I simply don't agree with it, and have already stated my counterarguments.

Ok, @Decimus wrote it. It's the one thing everyone agrees on... except you. If you ever agree do let me know.

Decimus · May 21

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

I'll leave it at that.

If you stream ESO and you make a poll:
What game do you like more: ESO or game XY.
Then more than 80% would vote for ESO, else they would watch the stream of game XY.

If you stream BGs with mostly 8vs8 matches, then of course you will have the result of your poll posted above. Because those who would vote 4v4v4 aren't watching your stream, as they don't like to watch the feeding of the 8v8 matches.

If you would stream mostly 4v4v4 matches, then you would have 80% votes on 4v4v4, as those who like to see 8v8 matches aren't watching your stream then.

Couple of problems with this argument:

This is not my poll, it's from another content creator who does a lot more PvE, Cyrodiil etc.
Even if it was my poll, I also primarily streamed BGs since they were introduced to the game (i.e. 7 years of the 3-way nonsense) and my audience hasn't changed much at all since then. The people who populated 3-way BGs are the people who also populate team vs team ones... except you have a lot of new names as well queueing into the better format.

Moonspawn · May 21

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

I'll leave it at that.

If you stream ESO and you make a poll:
What game do you like more: ESO or game XY.
Then more than 80% would vote for ESO, else they would watch the stream of game XY.

If you stream BGs with mostly 8vs8 matches, then of course you will have the result of your poll posted above. Because those who would vote 4v4v4 aren't watching your stream, as they don't like to watch the feeding of the 8v8 matches.

If you would stream mostly 4v4v4 matches, then you would have 80% votes on 4v4v4, as those who like to see 8v8 matches aren't watching your stream then.

The players that think Battlegrounds should be the place PVPers avoid one another and 1vX newcomers are very satisfied with two-teams BGs. Very satisfied indeed. Stay tuned to this thread so you can watch them cartoonishly fighting until their dying breath to ensure people are never granted the freedom to choose.

xylena_lazarow · May 21

Moonspawn wrote: »

The players that think Battlegrounds should be the place PVPers avoid one another and 1vX newcomers are very satisfied with two-teams BGs.

This is a straw man argument. PvP'ers aren't avoiding each other in 2s. The opinions of your straw man player are not relevant to the discussion, and you have no proof or evidence of what such a player would think either way.

Mattymoo92 · May 21

Decimus wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

I'll leave it at that.

If you stream ESO and you make a poll:
What game do you like more: ESO or game XY.
Then more than 80% would vote for ESO, else they would watch the stream of game XY.

If you stream BGs with mostly 8vs8 matches, then of course you will have the result of your poll posted above. Because those who would vote 4v4v4 aren't watching your stream, as they don't like to watch the feeding of the 8v8 matches.

If you would stream mostly 4v4v4 matches, then you would have 80% votes on 4v4v4, as those who like to see 8v8 matches aren't watching your stream then.

Couple of problems with this argument:
This is not my poll, it's from another content creator who does a lot more PvE, Cyrodiil etc.

Even if it was my poll, I also primarily streamed BGs since they were introduced to the game (i.e. 7 years of the 3-way nonsense) and my audience hasn't changed much at all since then. The people who populated 3-way BGs are the people who also populate team vs team ones... except you have a lot of new names as well queueing into the better format.

Then would the answer not simply be to just have all 3 modes as an option then everyone is happy (although it would make queues longer I guess)

Moonspawn · May 21

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

The players that think Battlegrounds should be the place PVPers avoid one another and 1vX newcomers are very satisfied with two-teams BGs.

This is a straw man argument. PvP'ers aren't avoiding each other in 2s. The opinions of your straw man player are not relevant to the discussion, and you have no proof or evidence of what such a player would think either way.

You won't accept the explanation because you don't agree with the consensus. But if you did...

What happens if players on both sides are no longer discouraged from ditching the team to go 1vX some newcomers?

Decimus · May 21

Mattymoo92 wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

I'll leave it at that.

If you stream ESO and you make a poll:
What game do you like more: ESO or game XY.
Then more than 80% would vote for ESO, else they would watch the stream of game XY.

If you stream BGs with mostly 8vs8 matches, then of course you will have the result of your poll posted above. Because those who would vote 4v4v4 aren't watching your stream, as they don't like to watch the feeding of the 8v8 matches.

If you would stream mostly 4v4v4 matches, then you would have 80% votes on 4v4v4, as those who like to see 8v8 matches aren't watching your stream then.

Couple of problems with this argument:
This is not my poll, it's from another content creator who does a lot more PvE, Cyrodiil etc.

Even if it was my poll, I also primarily streamed BGs since they were introduced to the game (i.e. 7 years of the 3-way nonsense) and my audience hasn't changed much at all since then. The people who populated 3-way BGs are the people who also populate team vs team ones... except you have a lot of new names as well queueing into the better format.

Then would the answer not simply be to just have all 3 modes as an option then everyone is happy (although it would make queues longer I guess)

No, because now you're worsening the queue times for everyone and the few people who enjoyed 3-way BGs will not get a queue pop because most of the casual players will stop queueing around the 30 minute wait marker.

The reason they changed the format from 3-way BGs to 2-way is because BGs were completely dead towards the end of the 3-way era - you would see literally the same names every single lobby (and there'd be only one at a time so queue times were bad also).

Apart from the queue times, you're also taking development time away from improving the current BGs when you re-introduce another format and have to work on making sure the rewards/matchmaking/maps etc work.

In other words, this is not beneficial for anyone who is enjoying BGs right now, and it is not beneficial for anyone who enjoyed them before (because as long as team vs team queue exists, you're not getting queue pops - sorry).

I'd rather see them fix actual problems with the current BGs than see them reintroduce something that the players largely rejected over the last 7 years and then ignore BGs for another half a decade - they have a lot of potential with the BG system, as long as they put more effort into it... BGs are typically the most popular form of PvP in other MMOs.

xylena_lazarow · May 21

Moonspawn wrote: »

What happens if players on both sides are no longer discouraged from ditching the team to go 1vX some newcomers?

I'm aware you think that 2s result in more pug stomping or seal clubbing or whatever you want to call it. All the same points have been made over and over, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Moonspawn · May 21

Decimus wrote: »

Mattymoo92 wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

I'll leave it at that.

If you stream ESO and you make a poll:
What game do you like more: ESO or game XY.
Then more than 80% would vote for ESO, else they would watch the stream of game XY.

If you stream BGs with mostly 8vs8 matches, then of course you will have the result of your poll posted above. Because those who would vote 4v4v4 aren't watching your stream, as they don't like to watch the feeding of the 8v8 matches.

If you would stream mostly 4v4v4 matches, then you would have 80% votes on 4v4v4, as those who like to see 8v8 matches aren't watching your stream then.

Couple of problems with this argument:
This is not my poll, it's from another content creator who does a lot more PvE, Cyrodiil etc.

Even if it was my poll, I also primarily streamed BGs since they were introduced to the game (i.e. 7 years of the 3-way nonsense) and my audience hasn't changed much at all since then. The people who populated 3-way BGs are the people who also populate team vs team ones... except you have a lot of new names as well queueing into the better format.

Then would the answer not simply be to just have all 3 modes as an option then everyone is happy (although it would make queues longer I guess)

No, because now you're worsening the queue times for everyone and the few people who enjoyed 3-way BGs will not get a queue pop because most of the casual players will stop queueing around the 30 minute wait marker.

The reason they changed the format from 3-way BGs to 2-way is because BGs were completely dead towards the end of the 3-way era - you would see literally the same names every single lobby (and there'd be only one at a time so queue times were bad also).

Apart from the queue times, you're also taking development time away from improving the current BGs when you re-introduce another format and have to work on making sure the rewards/matchmaking/maps etc work.

In other words, this is not beneficial for anyone who is enjoying BGs right now, and it is not beneficial for anyone who enjoyed them before (because as long as team vs team queue exists, you're not getting queue pops - sorry).

I'd rather see them fix actual problems with the current BGs than see them reintroduce something that the players largely rejected over the last 7 years and then ignore BGs for another half a decade - they have a lot of potential with the BG system, as long as they put more effort into it... BGs are typically the most popular form of PvP in other MMOs.

Unrewarding and nonsensical BGs that forced players with different objectives into the same matches were indeed unpopular. Now that the reward problem has been solved, all that's missing is the separate DM queue. Once 4v4v4 jumpstarts the growth of the BG community some people are bound to trickle down to the 2-sided format.

Decimus · May 21

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Mattymoo92 wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

I'll leave it at that.

If you stream ESO and you make a poll:
What game do you like more: ESO or game XY.
Then more than 80% would vote for ESO, else they would watch the stream of game XY.

If you stream BGs with mostly 8vs8 matches, then of course you will have the result of your poll posted above. Because those who would vote 4v4v4 aren't watching your stream, as they don't like to watch the feeding of the 8v8 matches.

If you would stream mostly 4v4v4 matches, then you would have 80% votes on 4v4v4, as those who like to see 8v8 matches aren't watching your stream then.

Couple of problems with this argument:
This is not my poll, it's from another content creator who does a lot more PvE, Cyrodiil etc.

Even if it was my poll, I also primarily streamed BGs since they were introduced to the game (i.e. 7 years of the 3-way nonsense) and my audience hasn't changed much at all since then. The people who populated 3-way BGs are the people who also populate team vs team ones... except you have a lot of new names as well queueing into the better format.

Then would the answer not simply be to just have all 3 modes as an option then everyone is happy (although it would make queues longer I guess)

No, because now you're worsening the queue times for everyone and the few people who enjoyed 3-way BGs will not get a queue pop because most of the casual players will stop queueing around the 30 minute wait marker.

The reason they changed the format from 3-way BGs to 2-way is because BGs were completely dead towards the end of the 3-way era - you would see literally the same names every single lobby (and there'd be only one at a time so queue times were bad also).

Apart from the queue times, you're also taking development time away from improving the current BGs when you re-introduce another format and have to work on making sure the rewards/matchmaking/maps etc work.

In other words, this is not beneficial for anyone who is enjoying BGs right now, and it is not beneficial for anyone who enjoyed them before (because as long as team vs team queue exists, you're not getting queue pops - sorry).

I'd rather see them fix actual problems with the current BGs than see them reintroduce something that the players largely rejected over the last 7 years and then ignore BGs for another half a decade - they have a lot of potential with the BG system, as long as they put more effort into it... BGs are typically the most popular form of PvP in other MMOs.

Unrewarding and nonsensical BGs that forced players with different objectives into the same matches were indeed unpopular. Now that the reward problem has been solved, all that's missing is the separate DM queue. Once 4v4v4 jumpstarts the growth of the BG community some people are bound to trickle down to the 2-sided format.

Reality to Moonspawn: there used to be a separate deathmatch queue, it was removed because no one queued into objectives anymore. Same problem that 3-way BGs would have in the current environment.

Also "reward problem" is far from solved... nothing you get from BGs is worth a damn anymore. They should've added more BoP style pages etc to 4v4/8v8 last update & they're adding nothing in the next patch either.

Ideally you'd have a functional performance based MMR system in place & rewards/unique titles based on rankings - this is how World of Warcraft does it for instance with Gladiator mounts etc.