Decimus wrote: »

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]

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

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]

Well indeed it did sound arrogant, thank you for saying I live under a rock.

I did use the term parasocial for a reason. It's a one-sided relationship.

But your scoreboard seems contradictory to you being an objective player and "nothing having happened": How did you reach top medals without picking up a ball? You would have certainly died at least once through escalation damage. You didn't heal your teams carrier back at spawn, you only had 7k team-healing. The only method of score gain at that point would be to be constantly killing/damaging the opponent ball-carrier, and one has to wonder why the seemingly immortal 4-man never managed to kill you while you slaughtered their teams ball carriers.

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

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]

Well indeed it did sound arrogant, thank you for saying I live under a rock.

I did use the term parasocial for a reason. It's a one-sided relationship.

But your scoreboard seems contradictory to you being an objective player and "nothing having happened": How did you reach top medals without picking up a ball? You would have certainly died at least once through escalation damage. You didn't heal your teams carrier back at spawn, you only had 7k team-healing. The only method of score gain at that point would be to be constantly killing/damaging the opponent ball-carrier, and one has to wonder why the seemingly immortal 4-man never managed to kill you while you slaughtered their teams ball carriers.

Markytous wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

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]

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.

That's not true though... usually the smaller content creators try to streamsnipe the bigger ones to try and get clout and "expose clips".

If you mean established bigger streamers, we do also fight each other all the time. I've had many BGs against Bislobo, Khamul etc for example where we definitely attack each other when it makes sense (see the previous post).

The fact that content creators play differently at all is the problem. Whether "within reason" or clout chasing.
EDIT: In the same way, it is unfair for TOS to unfairly protect content creators. Its so tiresome when a content creator gets criticized someone gets a "Name and Shame" temp ban or if you defeat a content creator in PVP more than once its considered "targeted harassment". This kind of thing is unacceptable.

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

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]

Well indeed it did sound arrogant, thank you for saying I live under a rock.

I did use the term parasocial for a reason. It's a one-sided relationship.

But your scoreboard seems contradictory to you being an objective player and "nothing having happened": How did you reach top medals without picking up a ball? You would have certainly died at least once through escalation damage. You didn't heal your teams carrier back at spawn, you only had 7k team-healing. The only method of score gain at that point would be to be constantly killing/damaging the opponent ball-carrier, and one has to wonder why the seemingly immortal 4-man never managed to kill you while you slaughtered their teams ball carriers.

Your best chance at winning the BG is focusing the ball carriers and hoping your team mates pick them up, not picking up something that disables your CC & mobility skill. Your team loses their most valuable asset if you're forced to go in hiding with one Chaos Ball while opponents still hold on to the other two.


This is simply optimal tactics.

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

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]

Well indeed it did sound arrogant, thank you for saying I live under a rock.

I did use the term parasocial for a reason. It's a one-sided relationship.

But your scoreboard seems contradictory to you being an objective player and "nothing having happened": How did you reach top medals without picking up a ball? You would have certainly died at least once through escalation damage. You didn't heal your teams carrier back at spawn, you only had 7k team-healing. The only method of score gain at that point would be to be constantly killing/damaging the opponent ball-carrier, and one has to wonder why the seemingly immortal 4-man never managed to kill you while you slaughtered their teams ball carriers.

Your best chance at winning the BG is focusing the ball carriers and hoping your team mates pick them up, not picking up something that disables your CC & mobility skill. Your team loses their most valuable asset if you're forced to go in hiding with one Chaos Ball while opponents still hold on to the other two.


This is simply optimal tactics.

You do realize that if everyone in Chaosball "hopes your team mates pick them up [Chaosball]" no one would pick up the dang ball?

C'mon, pick it up.

Don't just assume your blokes will.

I'm a NB that relies on Cloak for some defense and I still pick that stuff up to at least move the dang thing away and draw aggro. I got roll-dodge, I can block-cast spam Shrewd Offering. I'm being a team player.

If no one in your team is capable of killing the enemy team with the other two balls that is a losing strategy that only results in frustration. Sometimes you can't win a BG, but you can still do your best to try and win it... and the best way is slowing down opponents' point generation/allowing your team chances to pick up the balls if they make it out of the spawn. I've also picked up chaos balls many times, when it makes sense.

I have won many BGs doing what I do and wouldn't have a 75% win rate at the moment if that wasn't working. There's optimal strategies for the other game modes too (match/team comp specific of course), happy to share those if it helps people enjoy BGs more.

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

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]

Well indeed it did sound arrogant, thank you for saying I live under a rock.

I did use the term parasocial for a reason. It's a one-sided relationship.

But your scoreboard seems contradictory to you being an objective player and "nothing having happened": How did you reach top medals without picking up a ball? You would have certainly died at least once through escalation damage. You didn't heal your teams carrier back at spawn, you only had 7k team-healing. The only method of score gain at that point would be to be constantly killing/damaging the opponent ball-carrier, and one has to wonder why the seemingly immortal 4-man never managed to kill you while you slaughtered their teams ball carriers.

Your best chance at winning the BG is focusing the ball carriers and hoping your team mates pick them up, not picking up something that disables your CC & mobility skill. Your team loses their most valuable asset if you're forced to go in hiding with one Chaos Ball while opponents still hold on to the other two.


This is simply optimal tactics.

You do realize that if everyone in Chaosball "hopes your team mates pick them up [Chaosball]" no one would pick up the dang ball?

C'mon, pick it up.

Don't just assume your blokes will.

I'm a NB that relies on Cloak for some defense and I still pick that stuff up to at least move the dang thing away and draw aggro. I got roll-dodge, I can block-cast spam Shrewd Offering. I'm being a team player.

If no one in your team is capable of killing the enemy team with the other two balls that is a losing strategy that only results in frustration. Sometimes you can't win a BG, but you can still do your best to try and win it... and the best way is slowing down opponents' point generation/allowing your team chances to pick up the balls if they make it out of the spawn. I've also picked up chaos balls many times, when it makes sense.

I have won many BGs doing what I do and wouldn't have a 75% win rate at the moment if that wasn't working. There's optimal strategies for the other game modes too (match/team comp specific of course), happy to share those if it helps people enjoy BGs more.

Yeah, and bet that match is gonna look good in a montage innit?

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

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]

Well indeed it did sound arrogant, thank you for saying I live under a rock.

I did use the term parasocial for a reason. It's a one-sided relationship.

But your scoreboard seems contradictory to you being an objective player and "nothing having happened": How did you reach top medals without picking up a ball? You would have certainly died at least once through escalation damage. You didn't heal your teams carrier back at spawn, you only had 7k team-healing. The only method of score gain at that point would be to be constantly killing/damaging the opponent ball-carrier, and one has to wonder why the seemingly immortal 4-man never managed to kill you while you slaughtered their teams ball carriers.

Your best chance at winning the BG is focusing the ball carriers and hoping your team mates pick them up, not picking up something that disables your CC & mobility skill. Your team loses their most valuable asset if you're forced to go in hiding with one Chaos Ball while opponents still hold on to the other two.


This is simply optimal tactics.

You do realize that if everyone in Chaosball "hopes your team mates pick them up [Chaosball]" no one would pick up the dang ball?

C'mon, pick it up.

Don't just assume your blokes will.

I'm a NB that relies on Cloak for some defense and I still pick that stuff up to at least move the dang thing away and draw aggro. I got roll-dodge, I can block-cast spam Shrewd Offering. I'm being a team player.

If no one in your team is capable of killing the enemy team with the other two balls that is a losing strategy that only results in frustration. Sometimes you can't win a BG, but you can still do your best to try and win it... and the best way is slowing down opponents' point generation/allowing your team chances to pick up the balls if they make it out of the spawn. I've also picked up chaos balls many times, when it makes sense.

I have won many BGs doing what I do and wouldn't have a 75% win rate at the moment if that wasn't working. There's optimal strategies for the other game modes too (match/team comp specific of course), happy to share those if it helps people enjoy BGs more.

Yeah, and bet that match is gonna look good in a montage innit?

Not really, I don't feel proud of losing a BG - if that BG was a win then yes, it'd be worth uploading... farming some squishies isn't anything special, even if it's the best thing you can do in a match.

Markytous wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

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]

Well indeed it did sound arrogant, thank you for saying I live under a rock.

I did use the term parasocial for a reason. It's a one-sided relationship.

But your scoreboard seems contradictory to you being an objective player and "nothing having happened": How did you reach top medals without picking up a ball? You would have certainly died at least once through escalation damage. You didn't heal your teams carrier back at spawn, you only had 7k team-healing. The only method of score gain at that point would be to be constantly killing/damaging the opponent ball-carrier, and one has to wonder why the seemingly immortal 4-man never managed to kill you while you slaughtered their teams ball carriers.

Your best chance at winning the BG is focusing the ball carriers and hoping your team mates pick them up, not picking up something that disables your CC & mobility skill. Your team loses their most valuable asset if you're forced to go in hiding with one Chaos Ball while opponents still hold on to the other two.


This is simply optimal tactics.

You do realize that if everyone in Chaosball "hopes your team mates pick them up [Chaosball]" no one would pick up the dang ball?

C'mon, pick it up.

Don't just assume your blokes will.

I'm a NB that relies on Cloak for some defense and I still pick that stuff up to at least move the dang thing away and draw aggro. I got roll-dodge, I can block-cast spam Shrewd Offering. I'm being a team player.

Don't play Battlegrounds with Cloak or Streak if queuing in a pool where Chaosball may be in the rotation. This is basically trolling your teammates because it relinquishes responsibility of the match from you and puts it firmly on others. It serves as a filter to show which players are playing Battlegrounds to play Battlegrounds and which ones are queuing to force Deathmatch into non-Deathmatch matches. There is Cyrodiil and Imperial City for Cloak and Streak. 8v8 was created to increase the "competitive nature" of Battlegrounds aka make them generic like GW2's. There is nothing competitive or objective-driven about slotting abilities that are locked while holding a Chaosball. You can't advocate for more competitive Battlegrounds while committing to non-competitive build styles/decisions especially at the assumed knowledge and skill level.

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

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]

Well indeed it did sound arrogant, thank you for saying I live under a rock.

I did use the term parasocial for a reason. It's a one-sided relationship.

But your scoreboard seems contradictory to you being an objective player and "nothing having happened": How did you reach top medals without picking up a ball? You would have certainly died at least once through escalation damage. You didn't heal your teams carrier back at spawn, you only had 7k team-healing. The only method of score gain at that point would be to be constantly killing/damaging the opponent ball-carrier, and one has to wonder why the seemingly immortal 4-man never managed to kill you while you slaughtered their teams ball carriers.

Your best chance at winning the BG is focusing the ball carriers and hoping your team mates pick them up, not picking up something that disables your CC & mobility skill. Your team loses their most valuable asset if you're forced to go in hiding with one Chaos Ball while opponents still hold on to the other two.


This is simply optimal tactics.

You do realize that if everyone in Chaosball "hopes your team mates pick them up [Chaosball]" no one would pick up the dang ball?

C'mon, pick it up.

Don't just assume your blokes will.

I'm a NB that relies on Cloak for some defense and I still pick that stuff up to at least move the dang thing away and draw aggro. I got roll-dodge, I can block-cast spam Shrewd Offering. I'm being a team player.

Don't play Battlegrounds with Cloak or Streak if queuing in a pool where Chaosball may be in the rotation. This is basically trolling your teammates because it relinquishes responsibility of the match from you and puts it firmly on others. It serves as a filter to show which players are playing Battlegrounds to play Battlegrounds and which ones are queuing to force Deathmatch into non-Deathmatch matches. There is Cyrodiil and Imperial City for Cloak and Streak. 8v8 was created to increase the "competitive nature" of Battlegrounds aka make them generic like GW2's. There is nothing competitive or objective-driven about slotting abilities that are locked while holding a Chaosball. You can't advocate for more competitive Battlegrounds while committing to non-competitive build styles/decisions especially at the assumed knowledge and skill level.

Mandating the skills to be used in BG's eh?

I use it to setup burst on the ballcarrier without contest to scurry off with it if possible, same against relic defenders!

I'm in the backline picking people with spiky burst using Focused/Ele Weapon Weaving to dent down/burst players +Focused/Merciless. I'm usually matched with people that aren't using Miat's accessibility addon so these single-target attacks usually land and is decently effective. I'm also a situational medic that can crit heal 13K HP and keep a brawler alive.

And also I'm not advocating for competitive BG's. It's why I like 8v8, it's a bit more hectic with less singular focus on each person which I leverage for openers/assists.

But let me guess: I need to be using a Sword and board, 2H, at minimum using Animal Companions or else I'm trolling and should never touch BG's again, right?

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

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]

Well indeed it did sound arrogant, thank you for saying I live under a rock.

I did use the term parasocial for a reason. It's a one-sided relationship.

But your scoreboard seems contradictory to you being an objective player and "nothing having happened": How did you reach top medals without picking up a ball? You would have certainly died at least once through escalation damage. You didn't heal your teams carrier back at spawn, you only had 7k team-healing. The only method of score gain at that point would be to be constantly killing/damaging the opponent ball-carrier, and one has to wonder why the seemingly immortal 4-man never managed to kill you while you slaughtered their teams ball carriers.

Your best chance at winning the BG is focusing the ball carriers and hoping your team mates pick them up, not picking up something that disables your CC & mobility skill. Your team loses their most valuable asset if you're forced to go in hiding with one Chaos Ball while opponents still hold on to the other two.


This is simply optimal tactics.

You do realize that if everyone in Chaosball "hopes your team mates pick them up [Chaosball]" no one would pick up the dang ball?

C'mon, pick it up.

Don't just assume your blokes will.

I'm a NB that relies on Cloak for some defense and I still pick that stuff up to at least move the dang thing away and draw aggro. I got roll-dodge, I can block-cast spam Shrewd Offering. I'm being a team player.

Don't play Battlegrounds with Cloak or Streak if queuing in a pool where Chaosball may be in the rotation. This is basically trolling your teammates because it relinquishes responsibility of the match from you and puts it firmly on others. It serves as a filter to show which players are playing Battlegrounds to play Battlegrounds and which ones are queuing to force Deathmatch into non-Deathmatch matches. There is Cyrodiil and Imperial City for Cloak and Streak. 8v8 was created to increase the "competitive nature" of Battlegrounds aka make them generic like GW2's. There is nothing competitive or objective-driven about slotting abilities that are locked while holding a Chaosball. You can't advocate for more competitive Battlegrounds while committing to non-competitive build styles/decisions especially at the assumed knowledge and skill level.

Mandating the skills to be used in BG's eh?

I use it to setup burst on the ballcarrier without contest to scurry off with it if possible, same against relic defenders!

I'm in the backline picking people with spiky burst using Focused/Ele Weapon Weaving to dent down/burst players +Focused/Merciless. I'm usually matched with people that aren't using Miat's accessibility addon so these single-target attacks usually land and is decently effective. I'm also a situational medic that can crit heal 13K HP and keep a brawler alive.

And also I'm not advocating for competitive BG's. It's why I like 8v8, it's a bit more hectic with less singular focus on each person which I leverage for openers/assists.

But let me guess: I need to be using a Sword and board, 2H, at minimum using Animal Companions or else I'm trolling and should never touch BG's again, right?

You can play however you want, but you cannot claim to be a competitive Battlegrounds player while not building around the objective. There's no excuse, either, because you can easily change your gear/skills between matches to prep for different game modes. A competitive player in ANY OTHER GAME plays to win the objective. In League of Legends, if you don't build how the game mandates your character you risk getting BANNED from the game. So, again, play however you want but don't go around claiming that building for Deathmeatch for Chaosball is "competitive play".

I've literally called myself a PvP scrub in other threads. Where did I say I was competitive in this one?

Why do you think I keep talking about 8v8 SOLO (The "non-competitive" mode)

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

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]

Well indeed it did sound arrogant, thank you for saying I live under a rock.

I did use the term parasocial for a reason. It's a one-sided relationship.

But your scoreboard seems contradictory to you being an objective player and "nothing having happened": How did you reach top medals without picking up a ball? You would have certainly died at least once through escalation damage. You didn't heal your teams carrier back at spawn, you only had 7k team-healing. The only method of score gain at that point would be to be constantly killing/damaging the opponent ball-carrier, and one has to wonder why the seemingly immortal 4-man never managed to kill you while you slaughtered their teams ball carriers.

Your best chance at winning the BG is focusing the ball carriers and hoping your team mates pick them up, not picking up something that disables your CC & mobility skill. Your team loses their most valuable asset if you're forced to go in hiding with one Chaos Ball while opponents still hold on to the other two.


This is simply optimal tactics.

You do realize that if everyone in Chaosball "hopes your team mates pick them up [Chaosball]" no one would pick up the dang ball?

C'mon, pick it up.

Don't just assume your blokes will.

I'm a NB that relies on Cloak for some defense and I still pick that stuff up to at least move the dang thing away and draw aggro. I got roll-dodge, I can block-cast spam Shrewd Offering. I'm being a team player.

Don't play Battlegrounds with Cloak or Streak if queuing in a pool where Chaosball may be in the rotation. This is basically trolling your teammates because it relinquishes responsibility of the match from you and puts it firmly on others. It serves as a filter to show which players are playing Battlegrounds to play Battlegrounds and which ones are queuing to force Deathmatch into non-Deathmatch matches. There is Cyrodiil and Imperial City for Cloak and Streak. 8v8 was created to increase the "competitive nature" of Battlegrounds aka make them generic like GW2's. There is nothing competitive or objective-driven about slotting abilities that are locked while holding a Chaosball. You can't advocate for more competitive Battlegrounds while committing to non-competitive build styles/decisions especially at the assumed knowledge and skill level.

Mandating the skills to be used in BG's eh?

I use it to setup burst on the ballcarrier without contest to scurry off with it if possible, same against relic defenders!

I'm in the backline picking people with spiky burst using Focused/Ele Weapon Weaving to dent down/burst players +Focused/Merciless. I'm usually matched with people that aren't using Miat's accessibility addon so these single-target attacks usually land and is decently effective. I'm also a situational medic that can crit heal 13K HP and keep a brawler alive.

And also I'm not advocating for competitive BG's. It's why I like 8v8, it's a bit more hectic with less singular focus on each person which I leverage for openers/assists.

But let me guess: I need to be using a Sword and board, 2H, at minimum using Animal Companions or else I'm trolling and should never touch BG's again, right?

You can play however you want, but you cannot claim to be a competitive Battlegrounds player while not building around the objective. There's no excuse, either, because you can easily change your gear/skills between matches to prep for different game modes. A competitive player in ANY OTHER GAME plays to win the objective. In League of Legends, if you don't build how the game mandates your character you risk getting BANNED from the game. So, again, play however you want but don't go around claiming that building for Deathmeatch for Chaosball is "competitive play".

I've literally called myself a PvP scrub in other threads. Where did I say I was competitive in this one?

Why do you think I keep talking about 8v8 SOLO (The "non-competitive" mode)

Good glad that's cleared up. Then why was Brian saying we are making BGs more competitive for the "sweats" by making 8v8s and 4v4s for those PVP enthusiasts? They announced that their goal was to introduce more competitive matches. They have failed to deliver that and by admission neither you or me consider ourselves "competitive players". 8v8 and 4v4 were made for NO ONE. We never wanted "more competitive matches".

Riight but I'm enjoying the 8v8s more than the 4v4v4s (although I despise the 4v4)

Might just be updated matchmaking though couldn't tell ya.

More people, more hectic, I'm liking the sigils too as the "power ups" that spawn, akin to the kinda "sandbox" casual PvP games like Halo, where control over those can also shift the match one way or the other without being purely mechanical skill.

The increased number of people lets me be at decent range if I so choose instead of forced brawl distance, especially if there are tanks on my team.

Regarding the 4v4v4, had a lot of games where the top team is typically leagues above the other two teams and it's just kinda a slog waiting for the match to be over, especially if that 4-man just sits back at base with both relics not capping them.

But also you're talking about Wheeler right? The *** 'em off that you can't die guy?

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

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.

Markytous wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

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.

If it was good matchmaking you'd probably have even longer queues, or at the very least would need to coordinate with similarly skilled people at the same time to fill up both teams at the same time before your MMR search range increased.

The problem is it's matching you with those folks in the first place because you've been in queue for too long because no one else as skilled as you is queueing up right now. That's a player population problem, not a matchmaking system problem.

I am blaming them for conflating the switch from 4v4v4 being the cause for their long queues, not understanding it's their skill level boosting them to an MMR range with few players. The reason they're getting long queues and lopsided matches is because they're getting pity matches instead of indefinitely waiting in queue.

Thats just wrong right there, sorry. When my wife and I try to queue for group BGs we always end up waiting 30 minutes then when the queue pops someone on either side drops out which makes every single remaining player wait for the instance to close. This never happened before the Battlegrounds Overhaul. EDIT: My MMR is not high. I may do 1-3 Battleground matches a week.

@Major_Mangle wrote:

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.