Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Moonspawn · May 21

Decimus wrote: »

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.

There was never a queue option including all of the objective modes except Deathmatch + a separate DM queue. Anything other than that would have obvious problems.

Haki_7 · May 22

Three-teams BGs: Endless possibilities

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

xylena_lazarow · May 22

Haki_7 wrote: »

Two-teams BGs:

Xylena vs Haki in a Deathmatch that went the full 15 minutes. I had fun, hope you did too!

Yeah I know we talked about this one briefly like 30 pages ago. Thought we should check it out again.

RealLoveBVB · May 22

Wouldn't it make more sense to post all your BG results?
If you only pick the ones that favors your opinion is a bit pointless.
Let us see how the matches are looking, where you lost. Makes it a bit easier as spectator to make an opinion.

ZOS_GregoryV · May 22

Greetings all,

After removing a handful of post, we would like to remind everyone that Spamming is a violation of the rules, and is stated as follows:

Spamming: Please do not post spam on the official The Elder Scrolls Online forums. Below are a few examples of what we define as spamming:
Posting the same message more than once

Posting messages that are nonsensical or have no real content

Posting messages or images large enough to disrupt the normal flow of conversation

Reposting material that has been removed by a member of the ESO Team
Also, please refrain from posting the same topic in multiple areas of the forum, or cross-posting in an attempt to gain further views or replies. This is considered spamming, and the duplicate threads will be removed.

If there may be any questions in regards to the rules, please take a few moments to review them here.

Regards,
-Greg-

Moonspawn · May 22

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Two-teams BGs:

Xylena vs Haki in a Deathmatch that went the full 15 minutes. I had fun, hope you did too!

Yeah I know we talked about this one briefly like 30 pages ago. Thought we should check it out again.

Haki is not reading the thread. Gotta tag to have any hope of reply.

xylena_lazarow · May 22

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Let us see how the matches are looking, where you lost. Makes it a bit easier as spectator to make an opinion.

Sure here you go. My team was outmatched but we fought hard and still had fun.

Moonspawn · May 22

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Let us see how the matches are looking, where you lost. Makes it a bit easier as spectator to make an opinion.

Sure here you go. My team was outmatched but we fought hard and still had fun.

Your team could have had more fun in a 3-sided DM.

xylena_lazarow · May 22

Moonspawn wrote: »

Your team could have had more fun in a [rickroll]

That was not my experience. This was my general experience when losing 3s, note the heavily censored chat. Yes, of course the guy raging at the group is the guy who went 2-8 and held the team back.

Haki_7 · May 22

Let's just go back to the real BGs and forget all about this nightmare:

xylena_lazarow · May 23

Haki_7 wrote: »

Let's just go back to the real BGs

Attempt at honest dialogue: do you not consider this to be real?

Hard for me to imagine a BG more real than this one. I was still being challenged too as I got killed 3 times.

Moonspawn · May 23

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Let's just go back to the real BGs

Attempt at honest dialogue: do you not consider this to be real?

Hard for me to imagine a BG more real than this one. I was still being challenged too as I got killed 3 times.

1) Having to worry about the possibility of being sandwiched (because of the third team).
2) Not allowing the third team to complete 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.

The difference between the teams needs to be quite enormous for the one with healer to somehow lose to the one without. Challenge number 5 would have taught them to focus fire squishy targets instead of wasting resources on dot-throwing DKs. Thank you for this valuable evidence that the return of 4v4v4 is needed to jumpstart the growth of the BG community.

xylena_lazarow · May 23

@ZOS_GregoryV since we removed the back and forth, can we also do something about how the same exact arguments and posts are being made over and over? There is nothing new being added.

@Moonspawn your #5 and #6 are still the same meaningless and redundant "all of the above" that you were informed of earlier ITT. Please reformat your argument in an appropriate manner if you'd like to continue.

Moonspawn · May 23

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

@ZOS_GregoryV since we removed the back and forth, can we also do something about how the same exact arguments and posts are being made over and over? There is nothing new being added.

@Moonspawn your #5 and #6 are still the same meaningless and redundant "all of the above" that you were informed of earlier ITT. Please reformat your argument in an appropriate manner if you'd like to continue.

Dismissing number 5 causes you to think chasing a tanky warden healer is ever the right move (because no third team there to punish you for it) and so you keep on believing 3-sided BGs were ''incoherent''.

RealLoveBVB · May 23

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

@ZOS_GregoryV since we removed the back and forth, can we also do something about how the same exact arguments and posts are being made over and over? There is nothing new being added.

That would also include all your repeating RoA-comments

xylena_lazarow · May 23

Moonspawn wrote: »

Dismissing number 5

#5) learning and applying 1-4
#6) playing against opponents who learn and apply 1-4

There's no need to repeat yourself like this, your 1-4 already imply those things. You would communicate much more effectively if you instead apply 1-4 to your rhetoric, since those points were actually well articulated. For example, I wouldn't chase a tanky Warden healer if it meant leaving objectives empty to be stolen without PvP, which is your #2.

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

That would also include all your repeating RoA-comments

False. I'm still discovering entirely new ways Rushing Agony is broken and toxic every week.

Moonspawn · May 23

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Dismissing number 5

#5) learning and applying 1-4
#6) playing against opponents who learn and apply 1-4

There's no need to repeat yourself like this, your 1-4 already imply those things. You would communicate much more effectively if you instead apply 1-4 to your rhetoric, since those points were actually well articulated. For example, I wouldn't chase a tanky Warden healer if it meant leaving objectives empty to be stolen without PvP, which is your #2.

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

That would also include all your repeating RoA-comments

False. I'm still discovering entirely new ways Rushing Agony is broken and toxic every week.

We'll have to agree to disagree again, because 5 and 6 are the most important challenges. #5 is what stopped players from thinking 3-sided BGs were incoherent and converted them into BG regulars. And without #6, BGs become an eternal potato field of daily seekers. Boring and meaningless.

Newcomers used to tackle 1-4 and 6 all day, but not #5, so they never became regulars. The absence of #6 is the lifelong dream of potato farmers who just want to avoid one another and 1vX some newcomers.

xylena_lazarow · May 23

Moonspawn wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree again, because #1-4 are the most important challenges. #1-4 is what stopped players from thinking 3-sided BGs were incoherent and converted them into BG regulars. And without #1-4, BGs become an eternal potato field of daily seekers. Boring and meaningless.

FTFY. Would've been more clear and concise if you presented it in this manner. The issue isn't necessarily the argument itself, but the redundant rhetoric obscuring your point and making it difficult to communicate or understand. We can agree to disagree on the argument itself. There's nothing more for either of us to add.

Moonspawn · May 23

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree again, because #1-4 are the most important challenges. #1-4 is what stopped players from thinking 3-sided BGs were incoherent and converted them into BG regulars. And without #1-4, BGs become an eternal potato field of daily seekers. Boring and meaningless.

FTFY. Would've been more clear and concise if you presented it in this manner. The issue isn't necessarily the argument itself, but the redundant rhetoric obscuring your point and making it difficult to communicate or understand. We can agree to disagree on the argument itself. There's nothing more for either of us to add.

''because #1-4 are the most important challenges.''
It was entirely possible to tackle #1-4 and #6 without learning enough to become a BG regular (#5). It was the standard.

''#1-4 is what stopped players from thinking 3-sided BGs were incoherent and converted them into BG regulars. ''
Most players only stepped foot inside BGs for the daily reward even though they had to face #1-4 and #6 to get it. The ones that became regulars are those who acknowledged #5.

''And without #1-4, BGs become an eternal potato field of daily seekers. Boring and meaningless.''
BGs without #6 (other regulars as opponents) are boring and meaningless. Potato field.

xylena_lazarow · May 23

@Moonspawn since the distinction seems important to you, are you trying to say: learning the 3-sided meta was more fun than trying to learn 2-sided, therefore you believe more players would join 3-sided because it's easier to learn?

soelslaev · May 23

I love that there are fellow players who are motivated enough to gather data and think of solutions to the problems of the structure of the battleground games, and argue them with conviction. I followed several arguments for several pages. And most of it was good reading even if I didn’t understand every point.

For my part, I wish there were so many players queuing for the games that most modes could be available at all times and the queue popped in less than 5 minutes every time and flawlessly. But there is simply too much to do in ESO. I love Battlegrounds. My record looks worse than a batting average but I will always be in the bottom quartile of any game ranking. That’s just me. But I do love playing them in any case, but guess what? I still don’t play them often because again, there is just so much to do in ESO. If a user spends 8 hours a week and 48 weeks a year playing then they will only see like 20% of what there is to do in ESO. I think this is a serious reason for the limited population. When I stumble into a Battleground I realize how fun it is and then I go on a streak of nothing but Battlegrounds. Then I realize I want to try a new build but to do that I gotta go do a thing and while doing that thing I get distracted by another thing and then a couple weeks go by before I know it.

And that’s my hypothesis. All of your Battleground woes are from limited population which limits game modes. That’s it.

Well, I also wanted to say about the title of this thread: does anyone else read it in the voice and rhythm of Dave Mustain singing “Symphony of Destruction“?

Twohothardware · May 23

Battlegrounds needs to pick a lane and either be 4v4 or 8v8, there's not enough players to have 4 different queues for Battlegrounds. It makes the queues too long. They also need to go to just basic Deathmatch with maybe a few flairs and get rid of Domination and Crazy King. Everyone just wants to kill other players, they don't want to capture the flag.

Moonspawn · May 23

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

@Moonspawn since the distinction seems important to you, are you trying to say: learning the 3-sided meta was more fun than trying to learn 2-sided, therefore you believe more players would join 3-sided because it's easier to learn?

I suppose the 3-sided meta would be working together to protect each other, avoid the sandwich and concentrate the damage on targets by order of squishiness.

But what's the 2-sided meta?
Isolating and 1vX'ing some newcomers, which now gives your team the number's advantage (it didn't before), while the ''PvPer'' on the other side does the same, and may the best potato farmer win?

xylena_lazarow · May 23

Moonspawn wrote: »

But what's the 2-sided meta?

Ball grouping.

If your 8 person team can (mostly) move together, cross heal, and AoE bomb, then you're favored over an opponent that can't. Doing this protects noobs with stacked cross heals, targeting interference, and direction.

When the objective requires your 8 person team to split, like to defend the relic in CTR or to hold multiple flags in Crazy King, you should still have a core ball group, and only the sweatlords and tanks should be on anything alone.

As one of the sweatlords who goes out alone in 8v8, it's pretty rare to even find any 1vX and usually it's just a 1v2. Usually it's more mundane stuff like actually doing the other objectives while the noobs stay with the ball group on the primary objective. There's a fair number of 1v1s, but my favorite tactic is to flank the enemy ball group from behind with my Thrive+Talons combo, which has been effective in breaking ball stalemates. I'm fast enough to get out if I need.

fizzylu · May 24

@xylena_lazarow
Honesty love this detailed explanation of how current BGs are just micro Cyrodiil because I was referring to them as so for the longest time after their release.... and shocker, that's like the last thing everyone who loved the 4v4v4 BGs wanted for their PvP experience.

Let those who want micro Cyrodiil have their fun, but again.... why continue to protest against the revival of 4v4v4 for those who want it? Make it make sense because it don'tttt.

xylena_lazarow · May 24

fizzylu wrote: »

Honesty love this detailed explanation of how current BGs are just micro Cyrodiil because I was referring to them as so for the longest time after their release.... and shocker, that's like the last thing everyone who loved the 4v4v4 BGs wanted for their PvP experience.

Let those who want micro Cyrodiil have their fun, but again.... why continue to protest against the revival of 4v4v4 for those who want it? Make it make sense because it don'tttt.

I think that's a pretty good summary of the 2s/3s subcultural divide. I'm not against bringing 3s back as part of the queue, just against people trashing 2s as lopsided or toxic, so I felt like defending 2s here. Maybe a queue like 8v8 solo casual, 4v4v4 solo casual, 4v4 ranked would work better. Drop from 4 to 3 total queues.

fizzylu · May 24

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

I think that's a pretty good summary of the 2s/3s subcultural divide. I'm not against bringing 3s back as part of the queue, just against people trashing 2s as lopsided or toxic, so I felt like defending 2s here. Maybe a queue like 8v8 solo casual, 4v4v4 solo casual, 4v4 ranked would work better. Drop from 4 to 3 total queues.

I can respect that, but you can't blame the people who had something they loved and that brought them joy taken from them for being a bit frustrated with it all. And I think Zenimax and their silence on this subject is very clear that they don't intend on removing the current BGs.... so I don't know, maybe it's just me; but having people insert about how they think the new BGs are so much better and whatever other nonsense, in the most relevant thread there is for people to try to voice their unhappiness and the loss they feel to Zenimax.... well, it just kind of seems in bad taste.

xylena_lazarow · May 24

fizzylu wrote: »

so I don't know, maybe it's just me; but having people insert about how they think the new BGs are so much better and whatever other nonsense, in the most relevant thread there is for people to try to voice their unhappiness and the loss they feel to Zenimax.... well, it just kind of seems in bad taste

It stopped being about missing 3s, and became only about trashing 2s, which likewise seems in bad taste. That's where I started posting to defend 2s, and the thread became more of an argument. I've mentioned throughout the thread that it would be more effective to their goals to focus on missing the fun of 3s, not trashing 2s, but the trashing continued.

fizzylu · May 24

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

It stopped being about missing 3s, and became only about trashing 2s, which likewise seems in bad taste.

Refer to my first sentence. That's easy to say when you're on the winning side in this scenario and the losing side continues to go ignored by Zenimax. Some people have even fully quit or now barely play the game because Zenimax decided to delete part of it basically out of nowhere, alienating a good chunk of the playerbase even if you want to deny that that is so (example: me and many people I know).
And it seems to me like their "trashing" is them just voicing their experiences and how they don't find it to be a good time.... just like me and many others here had really good times and experiences with 4v4v4, yet you didn't.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670165/battlegrounds-cycle-of-self-destruction/p9
I had time so I checked... and it's funny that you say that you started posting to defend 2's because of others "trashing" them, because here is you all over page 7 arguing your stance that the 2 team format is so much better, and when people simply don't agree nor align with your experiences when voicing their own opinion and preference for the old format, you just continue on about how much greater the format you prefer is and how they're wrong.... Moonspawn being the main focal point since clearly they feel positively strongly about the old BGs and probably really want them back, while you simply don't and love the new BGs. And in the pages after that, well, it gets real messy:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670165/battlegrounds-cycle-of-self-destruction/p14

Xarc · May 24

Ok i'm back to this thread because I need to admit I started griefing in BG (4vs4)

I'd say about 70% of my BGs involve teammates not playing the objective, e.g. they PvP someone far from the flag repeatedly, which inevitably causes the team to lose since the flag can't switch 1vs2.
When I see this, I of course make reminders on the group channel, but damn it, is that my role? I'm honestly sick of losing because of players who only think about themselves.
I'm not asking them to be good, strong, etc. But just that they have the mindset to want to play the objective in fact, it's within the reach of anyone even a player who is doing a BG for the first time.

So, I started griefing : afk at base until end (and moving a little bit to get the reward & no penalty delay).
I know it's bad but I couldn't find any other way to complain properly. It's not fun to 1vs2 or 1vs3 and see flag turning because my team mates are just individualistic or stupid(?).
Even if you finish first in the group, with the highest medal count, you lose. YOU LOSE. It's okay once, twice, five times, 10 times, but after 50 times, honestly, it's really annoying.
Grief is toxic, but at this point, when I know the game is lost after 5min, from my point of view it doesn't change anything and I don't see why I should fight in the wind. From my point of view, the Grief of the game will not only handicap my "teammates" but in addition to that at the end I will have my points.

Since this type of behavior won't change, I think it's up to ZOS to change the system. It's a system that creates a lot of frustration.
If you ever think of fighting griefers, then let me tell you, you're fighting the wrong battle. You'd be fighting a consequence, not the cause that led to it.