Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Artisian0001 · May 28

Haki_7 wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

all of these features

You can do this without trashing 2s. You don't need to mention 2s at all. You undermine your own goal by complaining about 2s but also considering them adequate enough to play. It would be most effective to your goal of bringing back 3s to demonstrate your 6 points with screencaps or videos of 3s, showing that 3s can stand on their own merit.

Impossible because the real BGs are unavailable. They were taken from us.

"real BGs" just get better at fighting one team rather than 3rd partying or pressing sorc execute to steal kills. Just because your class doesn't thrive in a 2 team mode doesn't mean 3 teams is better, learn to adapt.

Nihilr · May 28

3-team BG's were utter trash... You had the same terrible balancing and the 2 better teams would camp the weakest team at base for Deathmatch. Hell, they still camp base but at least it's not coordinated/ganging-up of teams.

I'd rather see "Vengeance" camp type changes to pvp in BG's before I fight unbalanced 3-team versions again.

Haki_7 · May 28

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Vague complaints that 3s were more "real" is not an argument.

Not interested in arguing or complaining, just posting the problem where the solution is so the growth of the BG community can finally begin.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

especially not when you continue to play 2s religiously

What I continue to do is being stuck playing on the EU server all the way from the far south of South America, because my queue times on NA are too high.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

I see no benefit because it proves nothing positive about 3s, only spreads negativity towards 2s, potentially driving players away from BGs altogether.

I'm sorry you feel this way, but I see only positive outcomes to posting these scoreboards, and ask that you don't force me to choose between the growth of the BG community and your feelings. I don't think my heart could take it.

xylena_lazarow · May 28

Haki_7 wrote: »

ask that you don't force me to choose between the growth of the BG community and your feelings. I don't think my heart could take it.

The 3-sided format caused the BGs community to shrink to almost nothing. That's why ZOS changed it.

You and Moonspawn are throwing the word "feelings" around a lot. Yes, I feel strongly towards my enjoyment of 2s, just as you feel strongly towards your enjoyment of 3s. The only objective truth here is that ZOS considered 3s to be a failure, and made a large investment to change the format. You need to recognize this.

Every 2-sided scoreboard you post just goes to show ZOS made the right decision. If the biggest 2-sided hater on the forums still nonetheless plays 2s religiously, then the 2-sided game mode is clearly doing something right. ZOS changed 3s because instead of continuing to play and post scoreboards, people simply quit and never returned.

So if you consider 2s to be adequate enough to play, but would prefer to see 3s return, build a case for 3s. Post media regarding 3s to support the 6 points of your thesis, and try to better articulate the redundant #5 and #6.

Haki_7 · May 28

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

ask that you don't force me to choose between the growth of the BG community and your feelings. I don't think my heart could take it.

The 3-sided format caused the BGs community to shrink to almost nothing. That's why ZOS changed it.

You and Moonspawn are throwing the word "feelings" around a lot. Yes, I feel strongly towards my enjoyment of 2s, just as you feel strongly towards your enjoyment of 3s. The only objective truth here is that ZOS considered 3s to be a failure, and made a large investment to change the format. You need to recognize this.

Every 2-sided scoreboard you post just goes to show ZOS made the right decision. If the biggest 2-sided hater on the forums still nonetheless plays 2s religiously, then the 2-sided game mode is clearly doing something right. ZOS changed 3s because instead of continuing to play and post scoreboards, people simply quit and never returned.

So if you consider 2s to be adequate enough to play, but would prefer to see 3s return, build a case for 3s. Post media regarding 3s to support the 6 points of your thesis, and try to better articulate the redundant #5 and #6.

As expected, once again repeating things that have already been explained millions of times. I'm going back to not reading. @Moonspawn , from this point forth, please keep count of how many posts speak against the spark that will ignite the growth of the BG community.

xylena_lazarow · May 28

Haki_7 wrote: »

As expected, once again repeating things that have already been explained millions of times. I'm going back to not reading. @Moonspawn , from this point forth, please keep count of how many posts speak against the spark that will ignite the growth of the BG community.

@ZOS_GregoryV if all arguments have been repeated and the OP no longer wishes to read his own thread, can we get some sort of moderation on this? Seems like it will just keep going in circles another 38 pages, clogging General.

RealLoveBVB · May 28

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

The 3-sided format caused the BGs community to shrink to almost nothing. That's why ZOS changed it.

Since 3 weeks I started to play 8v8 to get the last missing achievements.

I noticed 2 things: half of the groups are always some low cps (around 400-800) and never with buff food. Then always this archer with 17k life and his warden bear.

This first of all also explains, why you could theoretically go 30/0 kills in every game.
Once you start to spawn camp them, their whole team is sitting at their spawn, while your team is doing the objective.

I call those players jokingly bots already, as they always fill up the teams, never talking and always ending the match with around 0/10.

I've also noticed, that I often meet the same players. Probably because I mostly play in the evening. But evening also means in the prime time. Queues are around 15-25 minutes, yet always the same players around.
I don't think there are more 8v8 running at the same time, as there is no MMR at all (else we wouldn't be queued with the bots everytime).

So I wouldn't agree, that 8v8 got some life back, if you meet the same players every single day.
In 4vs4vs4 I've rarely had the same players every day.

Moonspawn · May 28

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

As expected, once again repeating things that have already been explained millions of times. I'm going back to not reading. @Moonspawn , from this point forth, please keep count of how many posts speak against the spark that will ignite the growth of the BG community.

@ZOS_GregoryV if all arguments have been repeated and the OP no longer wishes to read his own thread, can we get some sort of moderation on this? Seems like it will just keep going in circles another 38 pages, clogging General.

That's one.

I was thinking that if ZOS ever manages to fix the medal score, then maybe whoever gets first place on the weekly leaderboards could receive a new title based on the six challenges(or features) of the 3-sided format. I wonder if the servers are capable of handling thousands of weebs competing for the title of Sage of the Six Paths.

Thumbless_Bot · May 28

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit 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.

This statement speaks volumes. Read it out loud... maybe a few times... and then read my statement above again. Particularly the part about bending reality to your will. Hopefully you'll see it.

I dont see anything wrong with that statement.

Maybe its just time to realize that you do not know what your'e talking about?

Instead of assuming that other people are wrong

Okay. So I'll spell it out for you.

You cant imagine or see or admit that two sided bgs are easier for anyone. That's your... YOUR frame of reference. That is why you say they are not easy for ANYONE. this is flat out false. They are EASY and EASIER than three team format for more skilled players.

They are HARD or HARDER for less skilled players.

Wait a minute... that's almost word for word what I said above...

You didn't get it because you didn't take the time to think through and actually read what you were saying or what I said. You just want to argue.

Hopefully this helps.

Take care.

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.

Well, you seemed pretty adamant that 2-way BGs are "easier" for skilled players and 3-way BGs were "harder" so you could definitely be clearer on that point. RNG isn't difficulty, there's just a lot less of it in team vs team.

Daoin wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Daoin wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit 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.

This statement speaks volumes. Read it out loud... maybe a few times... and then read my statement above again. Particularly the part about bending reality to your will. Hopefully you'll see it.

I dont see anything wrong with that statement.

Maybe its just time to realize that you do not know what your'e talking about?

Instead of assuming that other people are wrong

Okay. So I'll spell it out for you.

You cant imagine or see or admit that two sided bgs are easier for anyone. That's your... YOUR frame of reference. That is why you say they are not easy for ANYONE. this is flat out false. They are EASY and EASIER than three team format for more skilled players.

They are HARD or HARDER for less skilled players.

Wait a minute... that's almost word for word what I said above...

You didn't get it because you didn't take the time to think through and actually read what you were saying or what I said. You just want to argue.

Hopefully this helps.

Take care.

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

Is this you by any chance?

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

ask that you don't force me to choose between the growth of the BG community and your feelings. I don't think my heart could take it.

The 3-sided format caused the BGs community to shrink to almost nothing. That's why ZOS changed it.

You and Moonspawn are throwing the word "feelings" around a lot. Yes, I feel strongly towards my enjoyment of 2s, just as you feel strongly towards your enjoyment of 3s. The only objective truth here is that ZOS considered 3s to be a failure, and made a large investment to change the format. You need to recognize this.

Every 2-sided scoreboard you post just goes to show ZOS made the right decision. If the biggest 2-sided hater on the forums still nonetheless plays 2s religiously, then the 2-sided game mode is clearly doing something right. ZOS changed 3s because instead of continuing to play and post scoreboards, people simply quit and never returned.

So if you consider 2s to be adequate enough to play, but would prefer to see 3s return, build a case for 3s. Post media regarding 3s to support the 6 points of your thesis, and try to better articulate the redundant #5 and #6.

Bgs didn't exist before 4v4v4. Therefore the bg community was created by the format. Sure they need improvement but Zos threw the baby out with the bath water.

Not rehashing old arguments, just calling out a logical and convenient omission.

xylena_lazarow · May 28

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Bgs didn't exist before 4v4v4. Therefore the bg community was created by the format. Sure they need improvement but Zos threw the baby out with the bath water. Not rehashing old arguments, just calling out a logical and convenient omission.

There's no omission. They created the community, then doomed it to failure with an incoherent format. Moving to 2s was a smart move to avoid sunk cost fallacy. ZOS obviously has the data to back up their decision. If you want 3s to return, your argument will need to be stronger than the devs' data. Vague complaints about 2s are not.

Moonspawn · May 28

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Bgs didn't exist before 4v4v4. Therefore the bg community was created by the format. Sure they need improvement but Zos threw the baby out with the bath water. Not rehashing old arguments, just calling out a logical and convenient omission.

There's no omission. They created the community, then doomed it to failure with an incoherent format. Moving to 2s was a smart move to avoid sunk cost fallacy. ZOS obviously has the data to back up their decision. If you want 3s to return, your argument will need to be stronger than the devs' data. Vague complaints about 2s are not.

I'm not sure if you actually want repeated explanations ad infinitum or if you're just trying to get Haki to maintain his highly beneficial posts even after the return of 3-sided BGs.

That's two, by the way. I sure hope it's pictures, and not days... or weeks of posting.

Thumbless_Bot · May 28

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Bgs didn't exist before 4v4v4. Therefore the bg community was created by the format. Sure they need improvement but Zos threw the baby out with the bath water. Not rehashing old arguments, just calling out a logical and convenient omission.

There's no omission. They created the community, then doomed it to failure with an incoherent format. Moving to 2s was a smart move to avoid sunk cost fallacy. ZOS obviously has the data to back up their decision. If you want 3s to return, your argument will need to be stronger than the devs' data. Vague complaints about 2s are not.

You are literally creating a reality around you that is convenient for you. They succeeded with the format for years. Literally years. We had guilds on both pc and ps5 that were packed before the change. Bgs were very active. Content creators made content on them all the time. They werent a failure. You participated in them... as did most others here. Asking haki why they still play...interesting when most others did the same in the old format. Pot kettle...

They needed improvements not replacement.

You don't dictate what my arguments need or do not need. We've all made our arguments.

Zos messed up. It happens. It's up to them to fix it.

xylena_lazarow · May 28

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Zos messed up. It happens. It's up to them to fix it.

Did they though? You and Haki both still play 2-sided BGs. It can't be that bad.

A few players making vaguely negative posts about 2s isn't gonna convince the devs or anyone. You would need an argument stronger than data, or a very large movement of players demanding 3s return. You don't have that, you have a single thread that has produced neither of those things in its 38 pages of complaining about 2s. You need a new strat.

And it's not me dictating what you need. You're trying to convince the devs to undo a major decision. Good luck.

katanagirl1 · May 28

Moonspawn wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

As expected, once again repeating things that have already been explained millions of times. I'm going back to not reading. @Moonspawn , from this point forth, please keep count of how many posts speak against the spark that will ignite the growth of the BG community.

@ZOS_GregoryV if all arguments have been repeated and the OP no longer wishes to read his own thread, can we get some sort of moderation on this? Seems like it will just keep going in circles another 38 pages, clogging General.

That's one.

I was thinking that if ZOS ever manages to fix the medal score, then maybe whoever gets first place on the weekly leaderboards could receive a new title based on the six challenges(or features) of the 3-sided format. I wonder if the servers are capable of handling thousands of weebs competing for the title of Sage of the Six Paths.

The idea behind the medals being team-based makes sense to me. Chaosball medals are for helping by healing the carrier and defeating other Chaosball carriers, same for relics I think, flag modes are for defeating those who want to flip your flag and for taking flags. Again kills and deaths are not the primary goal for these matches so if players deathmatch every time then they are not helping the team or themselves this way. One CTR match the same guy was insistent on going after me doggedly and completely ignoring the carrier even though I was running with the relic carrier providing quick heals with my resto staff. Just killing any player is 1v1 and not teamplay. You have to kill the right players.

Thumbless_Bot · May 28

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Zos messed up. It happens. It's up to them to fix it.

Did they though? You and Haki both still play 2-sided BGs. It can't be that bad.

A few players making vaguely negative posts about 2s isn't gonna convince the devs or anyone. You would need an argument stronger than data, or a very large movement of players demanding 3s return. You don't have that, you have a single thread that has produced neither of those things in its 38 pages of complaining about 2s. You need a new strat.

And it's not me dictating what you need. You're trying to convince the devs to undo a major decision. Good luck.

Yeah.

cuddles_with_wroble · May 28

Haki and moon seem to have romanticized versions of 3 way bgs in their heads…

yes there was an element of skill to positioning and third party play but realistically all third party really does is punish whichever team engages first and rewards whoever engages last, this leads to a situation in most high mmr bgs where all 3 teams just kit around in a circle until someone gets sandwiched or pulled out of position.

I remember most games that had 3 teams of good player would end with like 5 total kills max bcs once you fight the top player, people don’t ever get sandwiched unless you force them to with some sort of pull or cc and even then unless both teams drop ults you’ll probably live since 1 resto is worth 3 dawnbreakers

Haki_7 · May 28

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 84: Waiting 21 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOsUTpZFh7M

xylena_lazarow · May 29

@ZOS_GregoryV at what point are yet more near identical video posts considered spam? The poster has even stated that they do not wish to read the thread. There is no context or engagement offered, just more near identical posts.

Moonspawn · May 29

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

@ZOS_GregoryV at what point are yet more near identical video posts considered spam? The poster has even stated that they do not wish to read the thread. There is no context or engagement offered, just more near identical posts.

These videos show ZOS that whatever they're doing to fix this game-breaking problem isn't working. If they're even doing anything at all.

Moonspawn · May 29

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

this leads to a situation in most high mmr bgs where all 3 teams just kit around in a circle until someone gets sandwiched or pulled out of position.

The 3-sided dance you're describing was an amazing way to teach players the absolute most important thing they needed to learn to become BG regulars: Positioning.

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

yes there was an element of skill to positioning and third party play but realistically all third party really does is punish whichever team engages first and rewards whoever engages last,

Light skirmishing (while keeping an eye out for the third team) to determine the optimal target order. Target selection the second most important thing players needed to learn to be converted into BG regulars. Don't waste resources on wrong targets. Give up your dream of being a dungeon mob and stop parsing the tank. Don't chase tanky warden healer around a pillar for 15 minutes.

Let's just bring back 3-sided BGs so the community can finally have a chance to grow.

Jierdanit · May 29

Moonspawn wrote: »

Let's just bring back 3-sided BGs so the community can finally have a chance to grow.

Always going to be funny to read this when 3-sided BGs had barely any playerbase and were almost dead before the change.

Moonspawn · May 29

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Let's just bring back 3-sided BGs so the community can finally have a chance to grow.

Always going to be funny to read this when 3-sided BGs had barely any playerbase and were almost dead before the change.

That's three.

No point queuing for unrewarding and nonsensical BGs that forced players with different objectives into the same matches. Now that the reward problem has been solved, all that's missing is the separate DM queue.

Haki_7 · May 29

Three-teams BGs: Endless possibilities

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

xylena_lazarow · May 29

If there is no new information here, no context, no engagement, and nothing left to discuss, then near-identical scoreboard or video posts are going to be reported as spam. If this is not considered spam, then I will keep supporting 2s here.

You can see here what a fun close 2-sided match looks like, OP is just cherry picking.

Haki_7 · May 29

Think of the fun we could be having in the real BGs, instead of being stuck in whatever this is:

Jierdanit · May 29

Moonspawn wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Let's just bring back 3-sided BGs so the community can finally have a chance to grow.

Always going to be funny to read this when 3-sided BGs had barely any playerbase and were almost dead before the change.

That's three.

No point queuing for unrewarding and nonsensical BGs that forced players with different objectives into the same matches. Now that the reward problem has been solved, all that's missing is the separate DM queue.

The reward problem hasnt been solved.

The rewards are still awful. The actual PvP players who are doing BGs are doing so because they like them, not because of the rewards.
If the mode was as great as you claim the people would be playing it even without better rewards.

I would be happy if the rewards were actually good, but acting like rewards were the main problem with 3 team BGs (and not the fact that they were inherently horribly designed), is simply ridiculous.

xylena_lazarow · May 29

Haki_7 wrote: »

Think of the fun we could be having in [rickroll], instead of being stuck in whatever this is:

Despite his complaints, Haki admitted earlier ITT that "this" is adequate in the absence of 3s. So one must deduce that either Haki's other matches are much closer, or lopsided 2s are still fun enough to keep playing.

cuddles_with_wroble · May 29

Moonspawn wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

this leads to a situation in most high mmr bgs where all 3 teams just kit around in a circle until someone gets sandwiched or pulled out of position.

The 3-sided dance you're describing was an amazing way to teach players the absolute most important thing they needed to learn to become BG regulars: Positioning.

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

yes there was an element of skill to positioning and third party play but realistically all third party really does is punish whichever team engages first and rewards whoever engages last,

Light skirmishing (while keeping an eye out for the third team) to determine the optimal target order. It's the second most important thing players needed to learn to be converted into BG regulars. Don't waste resources on wrong targets. Give up your dream of being a dungeon mob and stop parsing the tank. Don't chase tanky warden healer around a pillar for 15 minutes.

Let's just bring back 3-sided BGs so the community can finally have a chance to grow.

Everything your advocating for that you say 3 way bgs did well can also easily be accomplished by just having well designed obj game modes.

That’s what the objs are for in pvp modes, they are meant to teach you team play, map positioning, rotations, when to team fight and when to cut your losses.

None of the current objectives in eso truly force you to play the map or rotate with your team, there are no real team roles and most of the time you don’t even have to pvp to win if your focusing the obj

Moonspawn · May 29

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

this leads to a situation in most high mmr bgs where all 3 teams just kit around in a circle until someone gets sandwiched or pulled out of position.

The 3-sided dance you're describing was an amazing way to teach players the absolute most important thing they needed to learn to become BG regulars: Positioning.

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

yes there was an element of skill to positioning and third party play but realistically all third party really does is punish whichever team engages first and rewards whoever engages last,

Light skirmishing (while keeping an eye out for the third team) to determine the optimal target order. It's the second most important thing players needed to learn to be converted into BG regulars. Don't waste resources on wrong targets. Give up your dream of being a dungeon mob and stop parsing the tank. Don't chase tanky warden healer around a pillar for 15 minutes.

Let's just bring back 3-sided BGs so the community can finally have a chance to grow.

Everything your advocating for that you say 3 way bgs did well can also easily be accomplished by just having well designed obj game modes.

That’s what the objs are for in pvp modes, they are meant to teach you team play, map positioning, rotations, when to team fight and when to cut your losses.

None of the current objectives in eso truly force you to play the map or rotate with your team, there are no real team roles and most of the time you don’t even have to pvp to win if your focusing the obj

It was possible to make very slight adjustments to the 3-sided objective modes to make them encourage fighting, but that comes after they return as they were, alongside a separate DM queue. If you're genuinely interested I can pm you with details. And before you ask: Yes, every single one of them would be better than DM.

cuddles_with_wroble · May 29

Moonspawn wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

this leads to a situation in most high mmr bgs where all 3 teams just kit around in a circle until someone gets sandwiched or pulled out of position.

The 3-sided dance you're describing was an amazing way to teach players the absolute most important thing they needed to learn to become BG regulars: Positioning.

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

yes there was an element of skill to positioning and third party play but realistically all third party really does is punish whichever team engages first and rewards whoever engages last,

Light skirmishing (while keeping an eye out for the third team) to determine the optimal target order. It's the second most important thing players needed to learn to be converted into BG regulars. Don't waste resources on wrong targets. Give up your dream of being a dungeon mob and stop parsing the tank. Don't chase tanky warden healer around a pillar for 15 minutes.

Let's just bring back 3-sided BGs so the community can finally have a chance to grow.

Everything your advocating for that you say 3 way bgs did well can also easily be accomplished by just having well designed obj game modes.

That’s what the objs are for in pvp modes, they are meant to teach you team play, map positioning, rotations, when to team fight and when to cut your losses.

None of the current objectives in eso truly force you to play the map or rotate with your team, there are no real team roles and most of the time you don’t even have to pvp to win if your focusing the obj

It was possible to make very slight adjustments to the 3-sided objective modes to make them encourage fighting, but that comes after they return as they were, alongside a separate DM queue. If you're genuinely interested I can pm you with details. And before you ask: Yes, every single one of them would be better than DM.

Sure, pm me or send me your discord. I’m always down to have a discussion about pvp