Maintenance for the week of September 8:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – September 8
• PC/Mac: EU megaserver for maintenance – September 9, 22:00 UTC (6:00PM EDT) - September 10, 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/682784
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – September 8
• PC/Mac: EU megaserver for maintenance – September 9, 22:00 UTC (6:00PM EDT) - September 10, 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/682784
Future of Battlegrounds
-
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭Avran_Sylt wrote: »
Yeah, it's because you make the experience worse for anyone you queue with not matched to your skill/build.
Not exactly. Three-teams BGs could be balanced by placing one or two BG regulars per team and filling the rest of the slots with newcomers. You could easily create matches with extremely high probability of being fun for everyone, regardless of skill level. Doing the exact same thing in two-teams BGs just doesn't have the same result. Here's why:- Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's difficult for BG regulars to engage each other without discarding everything they know about positioning and target selection.
1) Here's a typical 8v8 Deathmatch, pointless, horrifying and destined to die the moment that players are allowed to return to the three-sided version. Very unbalanced, yes?
2)Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:
3)Analyze the target order. Although there are exceptions, it will generally be determined by squishiness. Tanks and pure healers at the back, gankers and bombers at the front.
4) Do you notice how the BG regular is number 6 out of 8? It means that numbers 1,2 and 3 will just keep coming back before it's time to engage number 6. And if not, 4 and 5 are right there.
The format being 4v4v4 would decrease number 6 position all the way to 3 or 4. If their team was inside a sandwich, it would drop even lower.
Do you see how it was much easier for BG regulars to engage each other in 4v4v4? - 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.
- Spawncamping in a 3-sided match meant leaving your teammates outnumbered against the third team. Doing the same thing in 2-sided gives your own team the numerical advantage.
- If PvPers on both sides perceive the newfound usefulness of spawncamping, there's a decent chance they'll spend the entire match on opposite ends of the map. Not having to fight each other makes the practice even easier.
- It's no longer possible to use one team against another to escape the sandwich.
- People just give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place.
The only solution I have to these game-breaking problems is to go back to the three-teams format. Do you have another?
Edited by Moonspawn on September 1, 2025 4:27PM5 - Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's difficult for BG regulars to engage each other without discarding everything they know about positioning and target selection.
-
JinKC98✭✭✭Lots of excellent suggestions. On my end, I just want a "Concede" option; some matches are just hopeless.2
-
Markytous✭✭✭✭The future of Battlegrounds is, as a primarily PVP player (now almost solely Imperial City), I will queue until I get a Class Script Scrap (because I will not do the PVE methods of getting these) then never dare touch the queue. 4v4v4 getting removed felt like getting my money stolen. Seeing 4v4v4 go, then seeing Cyrodiil performance deteriorate, then seeing Imperial City queue-in implemented (no more riding to Lake Rumare sewer entrances) is just too much pain for me to push myself to "just adapt" to it anymore. What I have loved about ESO PVP has been ripped right out of my hands over and over again. I'm tired, bros! I'M TIRED!1 -
Avran_Sylt✭✭✭✭✭
✭Not exactly. Three-teams BGs could be balanced by placing one or two BG regulars per team and filling the rest of the slots with newcomers. You could easily create matches with extremely high probability of being fun for everyone, regardless of skill level. Doing the exact same thing in two-teams BGs just doesn't have the same result. Here's why:- 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.
And what exactly was that target selection? Bursting down the non-regular before fighting the regular? Piledriving the weakest player in a 1v2 before going 1v1? Depending on the distribution of "regulars" vs "non-regulars" it can become more of a pubstomp for the "non-regulars".
I suppose it would make fighting 1vX more easy too, since your assailants can get distracted, have more of a possibility of being blindsided as any encounter could become a 4v8, certainly killing players that aren't prepared even faster than now.- The most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now.
I do agree with spawncamping being a problem. I recall a 4v4v4 map that was a tower with teleport pads to multiple exits. I'd like to see multiple teleport exits in the current BG's.- Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.
See above- People just give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place.
You mean first loser? 66% of players will lose in 4v4v4 matches not obtaining the largest reward compared to 4v4/8v8
As far as dailies though, currently only 50% of players will achieve that in the outcome of a single match, which could be improved upon to 1 win or 3 matches.
I also agree with what another poster has said about a concede option.The only solution I have to these game-breaking problems is to go back to the three-teams format. Do you have another?
The three team format isn't going to solve matchmaking issues, and this bloke is still going to have the same kind of issues as even if it does return (I wouldn't mind the variety and novelty of events like that), I imagine that MMR has likely been changed under the hood since the "refresh" of BG's, likely meaning they'll still face large queue times.Edited by Avran_Sylt on August 4, 2025 11:04AM2 -
ScardyFox✭✭✭✭✭Switching from 3 teams to 2 in Battlegrounds has turned the game into a stale, lopsided mess. With just two teams, scoring becomes a farce and gameplay feels like it’s stuck in a rut. Three teams, on the other hand, offer a more dynamic experience and make matches feel like they actually matter. If the concern is not enough players for three teams, maybe they should consider adding better rewards as an incentive. Because this “improved” system certainly isn’t going to fix the matchmaking disaster we’re dealing with. No matter how you spin it, two teams create a funneling effect—skill gaps be damned—while three teams naturally lead to more varied and exciting gameplay. The current change just feels like a cheap shortcut that nobody asked for.
Oh, and if they’re really worried about participation, they could toss in:
*Increased XP boosts for winning teams
*Rare cosmetics like mounts, skins, or titles—if they can part with those
*Higher chances for crafting materials
*Exclusive pets to make us feel like we earned it
***Maybe even a loot box if you rack up enough wins in the month
But, hey, don’t hold your breath for that one.3 -
Decimus✭✭✭✭✭
✭A friendly reminder that getting second place is not "winning", hiding/third partying kills is not a good form of skill expression and grass isn't always greener on the other side.
There are big issues with matchmaking for sure, but these issues have always existed (and exist in every competitive game btw) and using the two team format as a scapegoat isn't really going to accomplish anything. The only difference is that your chances of being last place as a team are on average 33% +-personal contribution, where as at the moment it's 50/50 +- personal contribution.
If people care about the daily rewards, I'd recommend offering them to everyone regardless of the outcome of the match while providing additional rewards (repeatable, not daily) for the winners.
Besides that and some bugs (chaosball ww stomp causing a huge lag spike for everyone etc), the only thing we're really missing is a proper scoring system & consequently a functional MMR that places players in teams based on their win rate/average contribution.
BGs as they are at the moment are more popular than 3-way format ever was, which is no surprise considering team vs team is the standard for any competitive sport/video game and the only thing adding more teams provides is frustration.4 -
Decimus✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Well, I'm seeing new names almost every BG I do and the queues are popping instantly most of the time.
930 BGs done so far this year... I also played the previous ones 6-7 hours a day since they were introduced in 2017, by the end of the 3-way era you'd have literally the same names in every single lobby.
That's just my personal experience though, if you're getting long queue times and seeing the same names over and over again in solo queue I'd be very curious to know the platform - I'm on PC/EU.
Asking this because I know they are also working towards cross-platform according to some recent interviews, which could solve a lot of the queue issues on consoles in particular.2 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭BGs as they are at the moment are more popular than 3-way format ever was...
Three-teams BGs rewards: Daily XP.
Two-teams BGs rewards: Daily XP, endeavors, golden pursuits, battlemaster tokens and obscene amounts of transmutation crystals.
Edited by Moonspawn on August 4, 2025 12:26PM0 -
Decimus✭✭✭✭✭
✭@Decimus
Can you explain why we can't have a Three-Teams Deathmatch Queue?
Why you can't have more queues in general? Pretty sure I've already explained it to you in the previous thread that was closed.
In a game with ESO's population, you cannot have more queues without splintering the player population and causing queue time issues.
As an example you can have alternative game modes like ARAM in League for example because the game is massively popular... however PvP in ESO never has been on the same level of popularity.
Your best hope for another game mode is the cross-platform they're working towards, or 2-way BGs/Vengeance incentivizing more people to step into PvP since it's actually fun without third partying, empty objective running or ball groups, respectively.
You need to first have the population in order to have the additional queues.Edited by Decimus on August 4, 2025 12:36PM4 -
ScardyFox✭✭✭✭✭
I’ve been playing since the game’s beta, so I’ve seen the ins and outs of this game over the years, and I’m not convinced that 2 teams is as universally loved as you’re making it out to be. Sure, the queues might be faster and you’re seeing some new names, but that doesn’t automatically mean it’s a win.
I don’t really consider anecdotal evidence to be all that strong, especially when you're clearly in favor of the 2-team format. A lot of players still miss the depth and strategy that came with 3 teams, and if you ask anyone who enjoyed that system, they’ll tell you that the 2-team setup feels pretty flat. So, while it’s working for you, I wouldn’t be so quick to call this the overall success some might think it is.
If I were to rely on anecdotal evidence, all I remember is the sheer vitriol it sparked. But let’s be real—that’s just noise. What actually matters is that it’s a downgraded format, plain and simple.2 -
Decimus✭✭✭✭✭
✭
I’ve been playing since the game’s beta, so I’ve seen the ins and outs of this game over the years, and I’m not convinced that 2 teams is as universally loved as you’re making it out to be. Sure, the queues might be faster and you’re seeing some new names, but that doesn’t automatically mean it’s a win.
I don’t really consider anecdotal evidence to be all that strong, especially when you're clearly in favor of the 2-team format. A lot of players still miss the depth and strategy that came with 3 teams, and if you ask anyone who enjoyed that system, they’ll tell you that the 2-team setup feels pretty flat. So, while it’s working for you, I wouldn’t be so quick to call this the overall success some might think it is.
If I were to rely on anecdotal evidence, all I remember is the sheer vitriol it sparked. But let’s be real—that’s just noise. What actually matters is that it’s a downgraded format, plain and simple.
I mean, there's also been polls on the subject (not my stream/community):
Most people I talk to in game are also much in favor of the 2-way BGs, some people even returned to the game precisely thanks to them.
...but sure, everything is anecdotal I suppose and whatever we express here are just personal opinions.
The only ones who know the truth is ZOS since they probably have data on BG populations... and they'll likely always act based on that data and to a degree based on community sentiment here on the forums on reddit etc, which is a big reason why I'm bothering posting here at all.2 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭@Avran_Sylt This is what I meant when I said that the most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now:
0 -
Avran_Sylt✭✭✭✭✭
✭@Avran_Sylt This is what I meant when I said that the most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now:
And per Decimus, and what I wrote myself, that's still going to happen in 4v4v4. The regulars are going to stomp on the non-regulars because they're the easiest target.
I don't know who the pit daemons sorc was, but they sure don't seem like they're trying to kill anyone other than the squishies.3 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭Avran_Sylt wrote: »@Avran_Sylt This is what I meant when I said that the most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now:
And per Decimus, and what I wrote myself, that's still going to happen in 4v4v4. The regulars are going to stomp on the non-regulars because they're the easiest target.
I don't know who the pit daemons sorc was, but they sure don't seem like they're trying to kill anyone other than the squishies.
It's not a matter of ''going after squishies first''. The players highlighted in vomit green are playing as if they were on the same team. They deliberately avoid even light attacking each other. Surely you realize how doing the exact same thing would be a thousand times harder if they were split between 3 teams instead of 2.
[snip]
[edited for baiting]Edited by ZOS_Icy on August 4, 2025 6:22PM1 -
ScardyFox✭✭✭✭✭...but sure, everything is anecdotal I suppose and whatever we express here are just personal opinions.
Yes, most conversations end up being anecdotal, which is fine—otherwise, we’d never have anything to say. But what really matters is the functionality behind the disagreement. In other words, 3 teams offer superior gameplay. The added complexity and the need for alliances make matches more dynamic and force real strategy. With three teams, it’s more unpredictable, tactical, and engaging. The two-team format, on the other hand, just feels flat and predictable, lacking the excitement that comes from having that extra layer of competition.4 -
Major_Mangle✭✭✭✭✭...but sure, everything is anecdotal I suppose and whatever we express here are just personal opinions.
Yes, most conversations end up being anecdotal, which is fine—otherwise, we’d never have anything to say. But what really matters is the functionality behind the disagreement. In other words, 3 teams offer superior gameplay. The added complexity and the need for alliances make matches more dynamic and force real strategy. With three teams, it’s more unpredictable, tactical, and engaging. The two-team format, on the other hand, just feels flat and predictable, lacking the excitement that comes from having that extra layer of competition.
Except the only time it was ever tactical was when 3 premades fought eachother in a deathmatch, and even then you could make an argument about the "Just wait and 3rd party" side of things. All of the objective modes encouraged you to avoid the other teams and rarely ever fight over objectives. 3 team objective game "tactics" can unironically be condensed into this:
Domination: Run between empty flags and avoid the other team since you don´t gain anything by defending the ones you´ve.
Capture the relic: Pray the the other 2 teams fight eachother and capture empty/undefended relics
Chaos ball: Run away with the ball (even worse if the player knew obscure spots that you couldn´t reach)
Crazy king: Fine until 2nd and 3rd flag spawned, then it was the same problem as domination where you were better off running to an empty flag avoiding PvP than trying to defend the ones you had.
None of this is "tactical" and the gaslighting trying to convince people that it was is insane. Objective modes should´ve always been 2 teams, deathmatch was somewhat interesting with 3 teams and I kinda want it back to a degree but god forbid the objective modes ever come back as a 3 team format.
As said numerous times: The format isn´t the problem, the lack of a proper matchmaking system is.
@ZOS_Icy How is the bumping of this thread still not being addressed (referring to users like Haki here), when it´s clearly against the forum rules? I´ve 0 problem with people posting constructive comments but spamming a thread with random BG screenshots with 0 context and the same pre-written lines every day isn´t constructive and doesn´t bring any value to the discussion.Ps4 EU 2016-2020
PC/EU: 2020 -3 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭Major_Mangle wrote: »...but sure, everything is anecdotal I suppose and whatever we express here are just personal opinions.
Yes, most conversations end up being anecdotal, which is fine—otherwise, we’d never have anything to say. But what really matters is the functionality behind the disagreement. In other words, 3 teams offer superior gameplay. The added complexity and the need for alliances make matches more dynamic and force real strategy. With three teams, it’s more unpredictable, tactical, and engaging. The two-team format, on the other hand, just feels flat and predictable, lacking the excitement that comes from having that extra layer of competition.
Except the only time it was ever tactical was when 3 premades fought eachother in a deathmatch, and even then you could make an argument about the "Just wait and 3rd party" side of things. All of the objective modes encouraged you to avoid the other teams and rarely ever fight over objectives. 3 team objective game "tactics" can unironically be condensed into this:
Domination: Run between empty flags and avoid the other team since you don´t gain anything by defending the ones you´ve.
Capture the relic: Pray the the other 2 teams fight eachother and capture empty/undefended relics
Chaos ball: Run away with the ball (even worse if the player knew obscure spots that you couldn´t reach)
Crazy king: Fine until 2nd and 3rd flag spawned, then it was the same problem as domination where you were better off running to an empty flag avoiding PvP than trying to defend the ones you had.
None of this is "tactical" and the gaslighting trying to convince people that it was is insane. Objective modes should´ve always been 2 teams, deathmatch was somewhat interesting with 3 teams and I kinda want it back to a degree but god forbid the objective modes ever come back as a 3 team format.
As said numerous times: The format isn´t the problem, the lack of a proper matchmaking system is.
@ZOS_Icy How is the bumping of this thread still not being addressed (referring to users like Haki here), when it´s clearly against the forum rules? I´ve 0 problem with people posting constructive comments but spamming a thread with random BG screenshots with 0 context and the same pre-written lines every day isn´t constructive and doesn´t bring any value to the discussion.
Can you explain how a ''proper matchmaking'' is supposed to fix any of these problems?0 -
Markytous✭✭✭✭
Yeah I think that burns me the most on the fall of battlegrounds. The entire change was basically done for one type of player (and potentially one person full stop). If "more competitive BGs" was the goal, they could have made a new queue for "competitive ESO players" to queue. See, this couldn't happen and they will explain to you that the population doesn't exist for this but the truth is that they just want to force casual and even beginner players to exist in their "competitive" 8v8 and (LOL) 4v4 (lmao) matches to get X'd for clips on the PVP content creation scene (which is virtually nonexistent). BGs got axed so that people could make Youtube Shorts to 50 subscribers. And to finish this off, ESO PVP combat is not competitive; it always was and always will be imbalanced, wonky, jank and latency ridden. If 8v8/4v4 "competitive" matches were to ever exist, it should have been after the game's been fixed and performs properly under server load and balanced out (no exploitative mechanics).Avran_Sylt wrote: »@Avran_Sylt This is what I meant when I said that the most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now:
And per Decimus, and what I wrote myself, that's still going to happen in 4v4v4. The regulars are going to stomp on the non-regulars because they're the easiest target.
I don't know who the pit daemons sorc was, but they sure don't seem like they're trying to kill anyone other than the squishies.
It's not a matter of ''going after squishies first''. The players highlighted in vomit green are playing as if they are on the same team. They're going out of their way to not even light attack one another. Surely you realize how doing the exact same thing would be a thousand times harder if they were split between 3 teams instead of 2.
[snip]
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on August 4, 2025 6:24PM0 -
ScardyFox✭✭✭✭✭Major_Mangle wrote: »...but sure, everything is anecdotal I suppose and whatever we express here are just personal opinions.
Yes, most conversations end up being anecdotal, which is fine—otherwise, we’d never have anything to say. But what really matters is the functionality behind the disagreement. In other words, 3 teams offer superior gameplay. The added complexity and the need for alliances make matches more dynamic and force real strategy. With three teams, it’s more unpredictable, tactical, and engaging. The two-team format, on the other hand, just feels flat and predictable, lacking the excitement that comes from having that extra layer of competition.
Except the only time it was ever tactical was when 3 premades fought eachother in a deathmatch, and even then you could make an argument about the "Just wait and 3rd party" side of things. All of the objective modes encouraged you to avoid the other teams and rarely ever fight over objectives. 3 team objective game "tactics" can unironically be condensed into this:
Domination: Run between empty flags and avoid the other team since you don´t gain anything by defending the ones you´ve.
Capture the relic: Pray the the other 2 teams fight eachother and capture empty/undefended relics
Chaos ball: Run away with the ball (even worse if the player knew obscure spots that you couldn´t reach)
Crazy king: Fine until 2nd and 3rd flag spawned, then it was the same problem as domination where you were better off running to an empty flag avoiding PvP than trying to defend the ones you had.
None of this is "tactical" and the gaslighting trying to convince people that it was is insane. Objective modes should´ve always been 2 teams, deathmatch was somewhat interesting with 3 teams and I kinda want it back to a degree but god forbid the objective modes ever come back as a 3 team format.
As said numerous times: The format isn´t the problem, the lack of a proper matchmaking system is.
@ZOS_Icy How is the bumping of this thread still not being addressed (referring to users like Haki here), when it´s clearly against the forum rules? I´ve 0 problem with people posting constructive comments but spamming a thread with random BG screenshots with 0 context and the same pre-written lines every day isn´t constructive and doesn´t bring any value to the discussion.
I see your angle, but dismissing the tactical value of 3 teams feels like oversimplifying things. Sure, the "waiting and 3rd partying" can happen, but that’s part of the dynamic—each team has to manage the balance between objectives and fighting other teams. It’s not just about pure deathmatch; it’s about when to fight, when to avoid, and how to handle the shifting alliances and targets. Those empty flags you mention? They didn’t just happen—they were a consequence of managing the map and knowing when to push or when to hold back. It added a level of strategic thinking that the 2-team format completely lacks.
And as for your point about the matchmaking system—yes, that’s an issue, but blaming the format entirely ignores the fact that 3 teams allowed for a more varied and complex experience. Even if the objective modes weren’t perfect, they still provided more layers of decision-making, which made the matches feel more organic. The current 2-team format, with its predictable, repetitive gameplay, just doesn’t capture that same depth. So while matchmaking needs work, let’s not pretend that 3 teams didn’t bring something valuable to the table.
3 -
Markytous✭✭✭✭
Dude I miss that so much. So much of that tactical aspect gets completely overshadowed during these debates with two-team format supporters. In a higher level match, no players are trying to "third party" because each team has a balanced comp of healing and damage. In lower level matches, 4v4v4 offers an ecosystem of players trying to grow in skill level/knowledge by introducing randomness to the matches (you never know what opponents are going to do with regards to comp or map plays). Not only does three-team fit the themes of ESO much better, but it offered a unique Battlegrounds Instanced PVP experience that no other MMORPG could offer. Lets face it: 8v8/4v4 isn't the "competitive" Battlegrounds Update, its the Generic Battlegrounds update. There is nothing unique about these 8v8 and 4v4 matches. They're sterile, empty, one-sided and boring. Can you even queue up in 8v8 as an 8 lol "Competitive" huh? RIP Comps.Major_Mangle wrote: »...but sure, everything is anecdotal I suppose and whatever we express here are just personal opinions.
Yes, most conversations end up being anecdotal, which is fine—otherwise, we’d never have anything to say. But what really matters is the functionality behind the disagreement. In other words, 3 teams offer superior gameplay. The added complexity and the need for alliances make matches more dynamic and force real strategy. With three teams, it’s more unpredictable, tactical, and engaging. The two-team format, on the other hand, just feels flat and predictable, lacking the excitement that comes from having that extra layer of competition.
Except the only time it was ever tactical was when 3 premades fought eachother in a deathmatch, and even then you could make an argument about the "Just wait and 3rd party" side of things. All of the objective modes encouraged you to avoid the other teams and rarely ever fight over objectives. 3 team objective game "tactics" can unironically be condensed into this:
Domination: Run between empty flags and avoid the other team since you don´t gain anything by defending the ones you´ve.
Capture the relic: Pray the the other 2 teams fight eachother and capture empty/undefended relics
Chaos ball: Run away with the ball (even worse if the player knew obscure spots that you couldn´t reach)
Crazy king: Fine until 2nd and 3rd flag spawned, then it was the same problem as domination where you were better off running to an empty flag avoiding PvP than trying to defend the ones you had.
None of this is "tactical" and the gaslighting trying to convince people that it was is insane. Objective modes should´ve always been 2 teams, deathmatch was somewhat interesting with 3 teams and I kinda want it back to a degree but god forbid the objective modes ever come back as a 3 team format.
As said numerous times: The format isn´t the problem, the lack of a proper matchmaking system is.
@ZOS_Icy How is the bumping of this thread still not being addressed (referring to users like Haki here), when it´s clearly against the forum rules? I´ve 0 problem with people posting constructive comments but spamming a thread with random BG screenshots with 0 context and the same pre-written lines every day isn´t constructive and doesn´t bring any value to the discussion.
I see your angle, but dismissing the tactical value of 3 teams feels like oversimplifying things. Sure, the "waiting and 3rd partying" can happen, but that’s part of the dynamic—each team has to manage the balance between objectives and fighting other teams. It’s not just about pure deathmatch; it’s about when to fight, when to avoid, and how to handle the shifting alliances and targets. Those empty flags you mention? They didn’t just happen—they were a consequence of managing the map and knowing when to push or when to hold back. It added a level of strategic thinking that the 2-team format completely lacks.
And as for your point about the matchmaking system—yes, that’s an issue, but blaming the format entirely ignores the fact that 3 teams allowed for a more varied and complex experience. Even if the objective modes weren’t perfect, they still provided more layers of decision-making, which made the matches feel more organic. The current 2-team format, with its predictable, repetitive gameplay, just doesn’t capture that same depth. So while matchmaking needs work, let’s not pretend that 3 teams didn’t bring something valuable to the table.2 -
Avran_Sylt✭✭✭✭✭
✭Avran_Sylt wrote: »@Avran_Sylt This is what I meant when I said that the most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now:
And per Decimus, and what I wrote myself, that's still going to happen in 4v4v4. The regulars are going to stomp on the non-regulars because they're the easiest target.
I don't know who the pit daemons sorc was, but they sure don't seem like they're trying to kill anyone other than the squishies.
It's not a matter of ''going after squishies first''. The players highlighted in vomit green are playing as if they were on the same team. They deliberately avoid even light attacking each other. Surely you realize how doing the exact same thing would be a thousand times harder if they were split between 3 teams instead of 2.
[snip]
Oh, well that's a disgusting practice, leveraging low pop queue times coupling communication in an attempt to influence your chosen opponents (in this case allies), does seem rather exploitative.
But no, I don't see how a random selection of queued players using 3rd party communication to truce is going to be better in a 4v4v4.
Lets take the very same example you gave:
5 skilled players using 3rd party communication to circumvent solo queue grouping are in the same lobby.
this can be split
4-1-0
This is basically the same as in the 8v8, except a greater potential for one of the two groups with unknown players to have no healers, the 4-man stays unkillable and the 5th hangs around them, targeting specifically the team with nobody on it.
3-1-1
Depending on the build of the single conspirators, they may hang around the other three/bust down the rando continuously while the other 3 don't stop it, and they have functionally a 5-man group against 3-man teams that can also damage each other. Bit messier, but in this instance the players with more padded stats won't die so quickly.
2-2-1
Now this is the messiest one of all, and where I can see your point, however, now you have two teams who have active interest in screwing with their randoms and still causing the match to be a cluster.
Though TBH, I think using parasocial relationships to sabotage your own team for your and your blokes gain I think falls out of the scope of "Tri-team vs dual-team"
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on August 4, 2025 6:24PM0 -
Avran_Sylt✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yeah I think that burns me the most on the fall of battlegrounds. The entire change was basically done for one type of player (and potentially one person full stop). If "more competitive BGs" was the goal, they could have made a new queue for "competitive ESO players" to queue. See, this couldn't happen and they will explain to you that the population doesn't exist for this but the truth is that they just want to force casual and even beginner players to exist in their "competitive" 8v8 and (LOL) 4v4 (lmao) matches to get X'd for clips on the PVP content creation scene (which is virtually nonexistent). BGs got axed so that people could make Youtube Shorts to 50 subscribers. And to finish this off, ESO PVP combat is not competitive; it always was and always will be imbalanced, wonky, jank and latency ridden. If 8v8/4v4 "competitive" matches were to ever exist, it should have been after the game's been fixed and performs properly under server load and balanced out (no exploitative mechanics).
Eh, I find 8v8 solo to be pretty casual, far more than the old 4v4v4's too.
More likely to roll with a healer/tank and even if rolling with a bunch of squishies, maybe enough targeted damage to overpower your typical 4-man if you run in groups properly.0 -
CameraBeardThePirate✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 88: Waiting 24 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)
https://youtu.be/LrIYJAI-do4
Pretty much. The BG Faithfuls like Haki and I get rewarded by.... never finding a match?
It's agonizing. 20+ minutes in queue just to get put into a spawn camping fest where half the players evaporate as soon as someone sneezes at them is not fun.
2 -
CameraBeardThePirate✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Avran_Sylt wrote: »
It's not ridiculous. They're dense. It's like a Challenger LoL player moaning about queue times. Yeah, it's because you make the experience worse for anyone you queue with not matched to your skill/build.Avran_Sylt wrote: »You know what I just read? A thread where people were tagging the Devs in the comments and they actually answered. Shocking. I am Shocked. They do exist! For some players. Not us. But somewhere out there, beyond the setting sun, a Dev is living their best life, riding their unicorn on a lonely beach, composing a response to put some lucky players concerns to rest. Not ours. But someone's! Be encouraged!
This thread (since the last one was closed?) is the continual bumping of the thread by a player that doesn't realize there's still MMR in 8v8 and who seems absolutely adamant to not try grouping/soloqueuing into 4v4/8v8 group comp to find a "challenge".
Didn't you think that was funny? I thought it was funny. Gently poking fun at the ridiculousness of the situation is not "bumping" its pointing out that not all players concerns are treated equally in that some topics are worthy of Developer engagement and others are, apparently, not. Just as some people have a sense of humor and others, apparently, dont.
And I'm aware there's MMR in 8v8, it tells you so several times per match when players desert the Battleground because of the awful, horrible no good very bad balance. That was also funny. In case you missed it. I dont know how 4v4 is on your platform but on PS its so hit or miss as to be almost unplayable. At least in 8v8 you get some close matches, in 4v4 its a one sided massacre 99% of the time. So ill pass.
At this point I dont think anybody really thinks these Battleground threads will make any difference, what's done is done, make the best of it. But you never know, its not hurting anything to keep the conversation going and the whole point of a forum is to exchange ideas and provide feedback. So if its okay with you, we'll continue to lament the loss of an aspect of the game we enjoyed, that we paid for that we would like back. If its okay with you, that is.
Blaming a player for problems caused by a bad matchmaking system and a dying PvP population is certainly a choice.1 -
Markytous✭✭✭✭
Gameplay-wise the "casualness" may vary. Nobody can debate that the Combat Team said that their goal in making Battlegrounds generic/standardized was to make them more "competitive". Obviously they have not reached their goals and thus we agree that 8v8 will never reach a "competition ready" state. Lets swap over to rewards. Casual ESO players don't like to waste their time. 4v4v4 gave rewards to players in 1st and 2nd place which is numerically the same amount of winning players as 8v8 HOWEVER now in 8v8 you have 8 players who get nothing instead of 4. This means among players participating, a higher percentage of players left a match in 4v4v4 Battlegrounds satisfied than with 8v8. Barring imbalanced matches, this means there are less factors in play to help casual players find their daily battleground rewards, forcing them to engage in the 8v8 system which makes their experience feel like much more of a coinflip regarding if they're going to have to queue again or not. "Well then if they don't want to PVP then why are they queuing for PVP expecting rewards?" Okay then I guess the PVP community will just stop growing and players supporting this kind of idea can enjoy knowing 8v8 is hindering the growth of ESO PVP as a whole. There is no need to argue balance because on an engagement level 8v8 is less approachable than ever and less rewarding than ever before. Things get even worse when we talk about balance and the fact that it is common for matches to turn into spawncamping. Its a total disaster.Avran_Sylt wrote: »Yeah I think that burns me the most on the fall of battlegrounds. The entire change was basically done for one type of player (and potentially one person full stop). If "more competitive BGs" was the goal, they could have made a new queue for "competitive ESO players" to queue. See, this couldn't happen and they will explain to you that the population doesn't exist for this but the truth is that they just want to force casual and even beginner players to exist in their "competitive" 8v8 and (LOL) 4v4 (lmao) matches to get X'd for clips on the PVP content creation scene (which is virtually nonexistent). BGs got axed so that people could make Youtube Shorts to 50 subscribers. And to finish this off, ESO PVP combat is not competitive; it always was and always will be imbalanced, wonky, jank and latency ridden. If 8v8/4v4 "competitive" matches were to ever exist, it should have been after the game's been fixed and performs properly under server load and balanced out (no exploitative mechanics).
Eh, I find 8v8 solo to be pretty casual, far more than the old 4v4v4's too.
More likely to roll with a healer/tank and even if rolling with a bunch of squishies, maybe enough targeted damage to overpower your typical 4-man if you run in groups properly.0 -
Decimus✭✭✭✭✭
✭Avran_Sylt wrote: »Avran_Sylt wrote: »@Avran_Sylt This is what I meant when I said that the most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now:
And per Decimus, and what I wrote myself, that's still going to happen in 4v4v4. The regulars are going to stomp on the non-regulars because they're the easiest target.
I don't know who the pit daemons sorc was, but they sure don't seem like they're trying to kill anyone other than the squishies.
It's not a matter of ''going after squishies first''. The players highlighted in vomit green are playing as if they were on the same team. They deliberately avoid even light attacking each other. Surely you realize how doing the exact same thing would be a thousand times harder if they were split between 3 teams instead of 2.
[snip]
Oh, well that's a disgusting practice, leveraging low pop queue times coupling communication in an attempt to influence your chosen opponents (in this case allies), does seem rather exploitative.
But no, I don't see how a random selection of queued players using 3rd party communication to truce is going to be better in a 4v4v4.
Lets take the very same example you gave:
5 skilled players using 3rd party communication to circumvent solo queue grouping are in the same lobby.
this can be split
4-1-0
This is basically the same as in the 8v8, except a greater potential for one of the two groups with unknown players to have no healers, the 4-man stays unkillable and the 5th hangs around them, targeting specifically the team with nobody on it.
3-1-1
Depending on the build of the single conspirators, they may hang around the other three/bust down the rando continuously while the other 3 don't stop it, and they have functionally a 5-man group against 3-man teams that can also damage each other. Bit messier, but in this instance the players with more padded stats won't die so quickly.
2-2-1
Now this is the messiest one of all, and where I can see your point, however, now you have two teams who have active interest in screwing with their randoms and still causing the match to be a cluster.
Though TBH, I think using parasocial relationships to sabotage your own team for your and your blokes gain I think falls out of the scope of "Tri-team vs dual-team"
The problem is that this "practice" only exists in someone's imagination. The linked screenshot (where I'm top score in my team due to playing the objective) is just a BG where there's 4 good players on one team and one in the other, nothing else - BGs have always looked like that since they were introduced.
People don't have to be my "friends" or "viewers" to recognize me and vice versa... this might sound a bit arrogant, but as someone who's been playing PvP since the beta one would have to be living under a rock to not recognize me in BGs (or PvP in general).
Good players fight each other but only as long as it makes sense... it doesn't make sense to follow good players outside of objectives to Xv1 them with a bunch of random squishies because:- Kinda toxic.
- Still takes a long time/might be impossible depending on the build of the good player.
- Loses you the BG in the long run.
Edited by ZOS_Icy on August 4, 2025 6:26PM2 -
Markytous✭✭✭✭
Thats wrong. "Content creator" players do avoid each other and this does get in the way of PVP in various places, especially with how small this community is already. People even get mad when you call them out with questions like "Why didn't you attack that person?" in the Imperial City and they usually tell me something about my mother. Its real and it ruins the nature of the game. Immersion breaking just because people's egos are big.Avran_Sylt wrote: »Avran_Sylt wrote: »@Avran_Sylt This is what I meant when I said that the most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now:
And per Decimus, and what I wrote myself, that's still going to happen in 4v4v4. The regulars are going to stomp on the non-regulars because they're the easiest target.
I don't know who the pit daemons sorc was, but they sure don't seem like they're trying to kill anyone other than the squishies.
It's not a matter of ''going after squishies first''. The players highlighted in vomit green are playing as if they were on the same team. They deliberately avoid even light attacking each other. Surely you realize how doing the exact same thing would be a thousand times harder if they were split between 3 teams instead of 2.
[snip]
Oh, well that's a disgusting practice, leveraging low pop queue times coupling communication in an attempt to influence your chosen opponents (in this case allies), does seem rather exploitative.
But no, I don't see how a random selection of queued players using 3rd party communication to truce is going to be better in a 4v4v4.
Lets take the very same example you gave:
5 skilled players using 3rd party communication to circumvent solo queue grouping are in the same lobby.
this can be split
4-1-0
This is basically the same as in the 8v8, except a greater potential for one of the two groups with unknown players to have no healers, the 4-man stays unkillable and the 5th hangs around them, targeting specifically the team with nobody on it.
3-1-1
Depending on the build of the single conspirators, they may hang around the other three/bust down the rando continuously while the other 3 don't stop it, and they have functionally a 5-man group against 3-man teams that can also damage each other. Bit messier, but in this instance the players with more padded stats won't die so quickly.
2-2-1
Now this is the messiest one of all, and where I can see your point, however, now you have two teams who have active interest in screwing with their randoms and still causing the match to be a cluster.
Though TBH, I think using parasocial relationships to sabotage your own team for your and your blokes gain I think falls out of the scope of "Tri-team vs dual-team"
The problem is that this "practice" only exists in someone's imagination. The linked screenshot (where I'm top score in my team due to playing the objective) is just a BG where there's 4 good players on one team and one in the other, nothing else - BGs have always looked like that since they were introduced.
People don't have to be my "friends" or "viewers" to recognize me and vice versa... this might sound a bit arrogant, but as someone who's been playing PvP since the beta one would have to be living under a rock to not recognize me in BGs (or PvP in general).
Good players fight each other but only as long as it makes sense... it doesn't make sense to follow good players outside of objectives to Xv1 them with a bunch of random squishies because:- Kinda toxic.
- Still takes a long time/might be impossible depending on the build of the good player.
- Loses you the BG in the long run.
0