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:

1. 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. Very unbalanced, yes?
   
   
   
   2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:
   
   
   
   3) Identify 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?
2. The most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now.
   
3. 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 only makes the practice easier.
   • It's no longer possible to use one team against another to escape the sandwich.
4. People 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?

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!

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.

Decimus wrote: »

BGs as they are at the moment are more popular than 3-way format ever was...

Yeah, I don't buy that for a moment.

Decimus wrote: »

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.

Moonspawn wrote: »

@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.

Moonspawn wrote: »

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

Oh right, fighting for second place implies they couldn't even consider fighting for first place, which means there was another matchmaking screw up.

@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:

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn 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]

ScardyFox wrote: »

Decimus 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.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn 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]

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).
[edited to remove quote]

ScardyFox wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

ScardyFox wrote: »

Decimus 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.

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.

Markytous 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.

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Chrisilis wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Chrisilis 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.

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.

Blaming a player for problems caused by a bad matchmaking system and a dying PvP population is certainly a choice.

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn 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:

1. Kinda toxic.
2. Still takes a long time/might be impossible depending on the build of the good player.
3. Loses you the BG in the long run.

[edited to remove quote]