Future of Battlegrounds

Moonspawn · July 22

1) 4v4v4 Objectives Queue, solos only

This is the most important step towards balancing Battlegrounds. Even if every objective mode was revamped by experienced BG players to actively encourage fighting, there would still be people only interested in deathmatch. All 12 players obviously need to be playing the same game. Can't have some playing chess, while others are playing checkers.

2) 4v4v4 Deathmatch Queue, solos only (maybe solos and duos)

There used to be a separate DM Queue years ago, but the extremely poor implementation meant that objective matches were hard to come by. The creation of the first queue would ensure this particular issue wouldn't happen again.

3) 8v8 Random Queue, solos only

This is the most popular option right now, so it's possible that a few players would choose it even after the better alternatives start rewarding daily XP, endeavors, golden pursuits, tokens and obscene amounts of transmutation crystals. Offering this queue alongside the first two is certain to provide valuable insight into what the future of Battlegrounds should look like.

4) 4v4 Group Queue

There is technically some merit in having a place where a Premade can test itself against another.
_______

Three-Teams BGs, FAR easier to balance than 4v4 or 8v8 will ever be.
Two-Teams BGs for those who want them.
No more farming newcomers all day for lack of alternative.
No more forcing players with different objectives into the same matches. No more mutual hatred between them.
The community would, after all this time, finally have a chance to grow.

Thumbless_Bot · July 22

Water under the bridge. Let it go brother. They made a terrible strategic blunder that ruined part of the game we love but theyll never admit it.

Just try to enjoy other parts of the game or move on.. that's what I do. I do my dailies and then go back to cyro most days... until they completely ruin that with vengeance anyway. Then ill just stop giving them money altogether.

Moonspawn · July 23

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Water under the bridge. Let it go brother. They made a terrible strategic blunder that ruined part of the game we love but theyll never admit it.

Just try to enjoy other parts of the game or move on.. that's what I do. I do my dailies and then go back to cyro most days... until they completely ruin that with vengeance anyway. Then ill just stop giving them money altogether.

This here has given me hope: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/680662/upcoming-u47-pts-changes-based-on-feedback/p1

Dock01 · July 23

It's pointless, bg is unfixable, they won't invest in any anti-cheating security system, it's impossible to tell if the dysnc is man-made or the server acting up, exploits are hard to tell, but you know something is up. And agree with the guy above, just find parts of the game you enjoy.

They underestimated what it takes to maintain PvP games, it's another world of itself and needs constant 24/7 care, instead, they wish everyone good luck lmao

Haki_7 · July 23

Three-teams BGs: Endless possibilities

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

Major_Mangle · July 23

The problem with your suggestion is the obvious one:
Too many queues.

An objective queue would be completely dead within a month. The moment people get whatever associated achievements there are they'll never touch that queue again, and no actual PvP:er that genuinely want to PvP will actively queue for objective modes. This happened with the original queue system where people stopped queuing for the objective modes once they had the achievements.

The only queue options that should exist in my opinion are suggestion #2 (with solo/duo mix) and suggestion #3. Anything else will lead too extreme queue times. 4 man group queue has no reason to exist. 4 man premades essentially doesn't exist and if you want to fight other premades you're better off organising that in Cyrodiil/IC.

Another suggestion I want to see is to completely remove exp from the daily BG win, make it ONLY give AP (like 50k or something idk) and no experience, too many people that queue in on some 16k overland pve build just to get free exp is ruining BG's more than anything at the moment.

Moonspawn · July 23

Dock01 wrote: »

It's pointless, bg is unfixable, they won't invest in any anti-cheating security system, it's impossible to tell if the dysnc is man-made or the server acting up, exploits are hard to tell, but you know something is up. And agree with the guy above, just find parts of the game you enjoy.

They underestimated what it takes to maintain PvP games, it's another world of itself and needs constant 24/7 care, instead, they wish everyone good luck lmao

I'd like to apologize on behalf of Zenimax for the inexistence of balanced matches. Hopefully it happens someday.

Here are a few reasons why 8v8 will always be so much harder to balance than 3-teams BGs:

Since you can't use one team against another anymore, its difficult for BG regulars to engage each other without discarding everything they know about positioning and target selection.
The most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now.
Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.
People just give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place.

Does anyone know how to solve any of these game-breaking problems?

Chrisilis · July 23

4v4v4 Classic, random mode, random classic map
8v8 solo
4x4 solo
4x4 group

Still 4 queues.
In theory this setup takes less players than the current set up while maintaining four queues , swap 8v8 group = 16 players for 4v4v4 = 12 players

I agree, having read the article referenced above, its nice to see someone is listening, about something at least. Who knows, maybe with the change in leadership other things will change as well. Its okay to hold out hope, but I wouldnt hold my breath

Dock01 · July 23

Moonspawn wrote: »

Dock01 wrote: »

It's pointless, bg is unfixable, they won't invest in any anti-cheating security system, it's impossible to tell if the dysnc is man-made or the server acting up, exploits are hard to tell, but you know something is up. And agree with the guy above, just find parts of the game you enjoy.

They underestimated what it takes to maintain PvP games, it's another world of itself and needs constant 24/7 care, instead, they wish everyone good luck lmao

I'd like to apologize on behalf of Zenimax for the inexistence of balanced matches. Hopefully it happens someday.

Here are a couple of reasons why 8v8 will always be so much harder to balance than 3-teams BGs ever were:
Since you can't use one team against another anymore, its difficult for BG regulars to engage each other without discarding everything they know about positioning and target selection.

The most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now.

Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.

People just give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place.

Does anyone know how to solve any of these game-breaking problems?

I don't think balance matches will ever exist, its clear they're not interested in real PvP. all they care about is selling DLC gears, which they will force players to buy by putting all the meta overpowered gears in it , honestly i just play bg to get 1 win or cause im bored, i don't really care for anything XD it's that bad of a design, also the "pvp" dev never listens to feedback, and it seems like he's clueless, not trying to bash on anyone but the game its self reflects it

its hard to enjoy someone's very flawed design, they could've give each team a healer so its fair but nope it have to be super random / also watch as my comment gets deleted for "bashing"

Desiato · July 23

Three team battlegrounds wouldn't help it's popularity. It's such an oddball format. I couldn't understand why they did it in the first place.

To be honest, I am out of touch with other match based PVP games, but have any 3 team games ever been successful? The format has been experimented with at least since the original Quakeworld Teamfortress in 1997 and I've never seen it gain traction anywhere.

The format is not the problem here. The main problem is ESO is mainly an ultra-casual PVE game and probably one of the easiest in the history of gaming. It's just not appealing to people into PVP. And in turn, PVP just isn't interesting to its existing audience. They only go there for rewards.

There are also a lot of gameplay issues, but I think if Battlegrounds was a standalone F2P game that PVP players could just download and play with some level of minor progression within its format, it could be popular despite its issues... but it would require a lot more map variety.

Moonspawn · July 23

Major_Mangle wrote: »

The problem with your suggestion is the obvious one:
Too many queues.

We already have 4 queues. People will simply flock to one or two, same as now.

Major_Mangle wrote: »

An objective queue would be completely dead within a month. The moment people get whatever associated achievements there are they'll never touch that queue again, and no actual PvP:er that genuinely want to PvP will actively queue for objective modes. This happened with the original queue system where people stopped queuing for the objective modes once they had the achievements.
The only queue options that should exist in my opinion are suggestion #2 (with solo/duo mix) and suggestion #3. Anything else will lead too extreme queue times. 4 man group queue has no reason to exist. 4 man premades essentially doesn't exist and if you want to fight other premades you're better off organising that in Cyrodiil/IC.

The objective modes were never united outside of the Random Queue, and so didn't use to reward anything worthwhile. Not even daily XP. You believe that people would choose the third queue, whereas I'm certain the entirety of the playerbase would split between the first and second. Can you think of a way to find out which one of us is right without implementing my suggestion?

Chrisilis · July 23

Three team battlegrounds was an oddball format. Thats why we enjoyed it so much

You can play two team anywhere and everywhere. It was the unique challenge of a third team that made it different, that differentiated it from every other game out there. We stayed for three team. Now we stay despite two team.

Moonspawn · July 23

Desiato wrote: »

Three team battlegrounds wouldn't help it's popularity. It's such an oddball format. I couldn't understand why they did it in the first place.

To be honest, I am out of touch with other match based PVP games, but have any 3 team games ever been successful? The format has been experimented with at least since the original Quakeworld Teamfortress in 1997 and I've never seen it gain traction anywhere.

The format is not the problem here. The main problem is ESO is mainly an ultra-casual PVE game and probably one of the easiest in the history of gaming. It's just not appealing to people into PVP. And in turn, PVP just isn't interesting to its existing audience. They only go there for rewards.

There are also a lot of gameplay issues, but I think if Battlegrounds was a standalone F2P game that PVP players could just download and play with some level of minor progression within its format, it could be popular despite its issues... but it would require a lot more map variety.

History of Battlegrounds

2018) Placing daily seekers into the same matches as BG regulars who only wanted to play DM all day: Disaster.

2022) Forcing BG regulars into objective matches: Even greater disaster.

2022) BG weekends, forcing people to play the same mode over and over again ad infinitum: Another disaster.

2024) Luring players with daily XP, endeavors, golden pursuits, tokens and obscene amounts of transmutation crystals, but removing the third team: The greatest disaster... yet.

Desiato · July 23

Moonspawn wrote: »

History of Battlegrounds

2018) Placing daily seekers into the same matches as BG regulars who only wanted to play DM all day: Disaster.

2022) Forcing BG regulars into objective matches: Even greater disaster.

2022) BG weekends, forcing people to play the same mode over and over again ad infinitum: Another disaster.

2024) Luring players with daily XP, endeavors, golden pursuits, tokens and obscene amounts of transmutation crystals, but removing the third team: The greatest disaster... yet.

It's the same thing they did to Cyrodiil. In oldschool Cyrodiil, base oticks were incredibly tiny. If one wanted to earn AP, players had to die.

Now most activity in Cyrodiil is keep and resource PVE. So often you'll see one group going objective to objective flipping them one way, and another group following them and flipping them back, with each party uncontested. Most just want end of campaign transmutes and other rewards from completing daily quests.

This is also the main problem with the Vengeance tests. They are full of PVE players only there for the rewards. Loot box culture dominates ESO.

You can't have a legit PVP game without a legit PVP audience.

propertyOfUndefined · July 24

I miss 4v4v4

Major_Toughness · July 24

Change the daily battleground reward from 100k XP to 100k AP.

It's pointless having people with no interest in taking part, or even helping win, the games. They are just there to try get a free pass for some XP.

It's not even a lot compared to what you can get by actually farming XP, but it encourages disruptive behaviour.

PvP game mode rewards should be PvP "XP" in the form of AP.

This would also incentivise PvP players who avoid BGs to queue at least once a day to further their alliance rank.

karthrag_inak · July 24

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Change the daily battleground reward from 100k XP to 100k AP.

Khajiit will never again play 2-team bgs. Most horrible experience in ESO in 10 years of playing, not even for 100k crowns. Or 100k Crown gems.

3 team was wonderful, and this one deeply regrets not having played them more.

karthrag_inak · July 24

of course, that's just me.

licenturion · July 24

Desiato wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

History of Battlegrounds

2018) Placing daily seekers into the same matches as BG regulars who only wanted to play DM all day: Disaster.

2022) Forcing BG regulars into objective matches: Even greater disaster.

2022) BG weekends, forcing people to play the same mode over and over again ad infinitum: Another disaster.

2024) Luring players with daily XP, endeavors, golden pursuits, tokens and obscene amounts of transmutation crystals, but removing the third team: The greatest disaster... yet.

It's the same thing they did to Cyrodiil. In oldschool Cyrodiil, base oticks were incredibly tiny. If one wanted to earn AP, players had to die.

Now most activity in Cyrodiil is keep and resource PVE. So often you'll see one group going objective to objective flipping them one way, and another group following them and flipping them back, with each party uncontested. Most just want end of campaign transmutes and other rewards from completing daily quests.

This is also the main problem with the Vengeance tests. They are full of PVE players only there for the rewards. Loot box culture dominates ESO.

You can't have a legit PVP game without a legit PVP audience.

All the things you said here hit the mark.

And those issues are nothing that you can easily fix by changing gameplay systems.

Diundriel · July 24

atleast for pre-made vs premade endgame pvp groups there would be an easy and community friendly solution - just check out the other forum post and vote pls

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/discussion/681121/group-duel-option-in-the-wheel-menu-pls-vote#latest

Prophet_of_Malacath · July 25

I'm in the opposite end to some here - I hate Deathmatch.

When they tried to force us all into DM 24/7, I simply deconned my gear, I was so furious.

There is nothing exciting about knowing "I have a better build than you and will just bury you for the next X minutes" (or vice versa). Objectives are where the under dog had a chance against the wolves, to strategize and work around them.

The thing PVP offers, that PVE never will, is other players being clever or shrewd, adapting, surprising you. I don't care if I'm winning or losing, a meatgrind slog is not of interest (and I like PVP games a lot).

I do miss the 3 teams, precisely because it gave folks a chance to fight for 2nd place - and during the fighting, the little guy could always surprise the others, stealing objectives while folks are busy killing.

If they did anything, I'd go like old Killzone, where every 1-2 minutes the objective would change mid-match. "Assassination" meant a player was targeted (so theire team was incentivized to defend them), objectives to lay explosives ("explosive runes if you want"), objectives to find objects, "kill everything", etc. It gives everyone a chance to contribute in different ways, at different times, and then give points based on contributing.

Instead of guessing which queue to separate folks into, mix-up the objective. Now the murder-bros can kill all they want (but realize they need to help the objective-chasers), the objective-folks can focus on strategy (which means pivoting when DM activates), etc.

Chrisilis · July 25

I wish ZOS would listen to us on this topic. Aren't they all about testing things these days? Would it kill them to test out adding in a three team queue for a while? No doubt going to two teams was somebody's baby, I wonder if they were surprised when everybody didn't do cartwheels.

Objectively, I think two team bg's has been successful. I know here on PS5/NA the queues always seem full, you can play match after match and its not just the same 16 people getting shuffled every time. There's new people every game, sure you see the regulars....regularly... but the teams aren't the same comp over and over.

That being said, the regulars of today are not the same as the regulars of the three team era. It would be nice if ZOS were to take steps to draw those players back in, to accommodate the much repeated requests and feedback of the people who care enough to contribute to this forum and to recognize that this issue isn't going away just because they've chosen to ignore it.

Many people, on multiple threads, have asked for a 4v4v4 queue to be reinstated in addition to the current two team queues. Radio silence. Not "we'll think about it", not " there's not a snowballs chance in helll", not nothing. Their lack of acknowledgment isnt just frustrating, at this point its downright rude.

The in-game tutorial for Battlegrounds states Three team Battlegrounds are available during certain holiday weekends ". You couldn't prove that by me, there's been a lot of holidays since last November when you all took three team games away from us. I want to know when, at this point if, there will be a 4v4v4 weekend event? I'm sure many of us would like to know about such an event well in advance so we can request those days off from work. I dont think the 'ol jobby job would take kindly to our calling in sick for four days in a row. Or you could, I dunno, listen to our feedback and acknowledge our repeated and pointed requests for the reinstatement of a 4v4v4 queue. Or tell us why its impossible, or tell us you'll test it out, or tell us you'll think about it. Gettin pretty tired of yelling into the void here ZOS.

Rant over. I play two team every day. I love battlegrounds and as long as there are battlegrounds to play I will remain a loyal customer. But I want variety, to be able to choose my format. I want my loyalty to mean something, to be acknowledged, to be worthy of an answer even if the answer is No. Thanks.

@ZOS_JoBurba @ZOS_Kevin @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

Moonspawn · July 25

Some people seem to believe that newcomers and daily seekers are the problem. That's unfortunate, considering that a truly high level Deathmatch devolves into 3 teams dancing around each other for 15 minutes. Three-teams BGs CAN EASILY be balanced by placing one or two BG regulars per team and filling the rest of the spots with newcomers. This arrangement has an extremely high probability of being fun for every single player, regardless of skill level. Don't you think it's important for Zenimax to understand that doing the exact same thing in 8v8 just doesn't have the same result?

moo_2021 · July 25

Major_Mangle wrote: »

An objective queue would be completely dead within a month. The moment people get whatever associated achievements there are they'll never touch that queue again, and no actual PvP:er that genuinely want to PvP will actively queue for objective modes. This happened with the original queue system where people stopped queuing for the objective modes once they had the achievements.

It's bad map/objective design, not bad game mode.

In simple shooting games it's usually more engaging to have CTF than TDM, because you have to focus on the right opponents instead of whoever have lowest health.

In 3 teams fight, chaos ball was often good if the ball holder wasn't hiding and/or running in max speed.

And ESO still needs something that can attract new players, not just regular PvP players.

CalamityCat · July 25

I'd be happy if we could just have three team matches again. 4x4x4 and 8x8x8.

I'd like to see a competitive option for 8x8x8 fights too.

moo_2021 · July 25

CalamityCat wrote: »

I'd be happy if we could just have three team matches again. 4x4x4 and 8x8x8.

I'd like to see a competitive option for 8x8x8 fights too.

I was one of those who wanted two teams because three teams often turned into non-competitive chaos

After these months, most of us could agree it's just a terrible idea, judged by how many people quit or wait in spawn. Much better to have chaotic yet playable games.

Though it's be a great improvement to have smaller maps, or enable horses on all maps so that we don't waste stamina sprinting from base to base when there is no fight.

Chrisilis · July 25

The old maps are one of the things I miss most, I dont think we appreciated how well designed they were while we had them. Teleports, multi level buildings...lava. Good times. The new maps are okay but they're so 2D compared to the old ones. And the 4v4 maps are ridiculous, every game is either DM without a flag or DM with one. DM w/ three strikes you're out or DM where you can die 20 times or kill the same poor dude 20 times. I tend to stay out of 4v4 because I am neither a masochist nor a sadist 😐

Remember that one BG map where your mount was enabled? That was fun. They were all fun.

propertyOfUndefined · July 26

Agreed. The old maps were great!

In general, matches felt more dynamic and less mechanical. Nowadays the games just feel like pew pew fests. Appreciate the effort that went into them, but really hope the old modes get reintroduced some time soon...

ZOS_Icy · July 26

Greetings,

As we've removed a few comments that were thread bumping, this is a friendly reminder that comments need to adhere to our Community Rules to avoid thread derailment.

Thread Bumping: Please refrain from replying to discussion threads for the sole purpose of “bumping” them. This is considered to be a form of spam because it does not add to the discussion in a constructive or meaningful way. We understand that everyone would like to keep their discussion active and visible, but we encourage you to strive for meaningful and constructive posts instead of posts that consist of nothing more than “Bump!”

The Elder Scrolls Online Team

Haki_7 · July 26

Lets just go back to the real BGs so we can have short queues and fun matches again.

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 85: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/5oEFl0q8jw0

Urzigurumash · July 26

On Xbox NA, 2 flag 4v4 Domination is often the most competitive format we've ever had, to be honest. 4 point differential off the rip that isn't clear as to the winner until the last tick. I want a 1 ball 4v4 Chaosball. The main problem in old BGs was how the maps and 3 team formats promoted evasion over engagement. The small maps on 4v4 resolve the issue of those who just want to fight and those who want to win having opposite interests.