Future of Battlegrounds

Avran_Sylt · August 5

Markytous wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

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.

Or it means that group queue is dead. And/or you have the inverse problem: your MMR is low in comparison to other players that group, that you have a hard time finding a match with other players looking to group, and presumably, coordinate/synergize sets/abilities/etc. I'll have to solo group into... Huh, popped in 7s (but it is prime-time, and I am a filler, and they might have separate MMR brackets per mode)

There really must be that many group queues that need 1 more player to work hahaha Thats funny

Well it did also appear that I started with fresh MMR for that category. The players I was matched on that first match could get killed with a single Snipe/Elemental weapon weave (42 Kills while running relic... But our team also had a bunch of healers and theirs didn't).

The second match (4 min qeuue) the players were a bit hardier and both teams had healers.

Third (popped almost instantly) and the players were a bit hardier still and the match was actually pretty touch and go. had about a 1:1 KD. Was a good one.

ZOS_Icy · August 5

Greetings,

We've removed some comments due to spamming and thread bumping, please keep the threads constructive and on topic. To review our community rules, you may find them here.

The Elder Scrolls Online Team

Moonspawn · August 5

lostineternity wrote: »

I never thought I would miss PvPvP battlegrounds so much until they were removed.
It generated so many unique situations, the current implementation is just boring, and all matches are the same

Sadly we can't have three-teams BGs anymore because some people need their anti-gaming to be as easy as possible 😢.

Moonspawn · August 5

@Avran_Sylt If you want I can try to explain the first of the four main reasons why a better matchmaking will not fix two-teams BGs. Here's a typical 8v8 Deathmatch, pointless, horrifying and destined to die the moment that players are allowed to return to the three-sided version. Very unbalanced, yes?

Avran_Sylt · August 5

Moonspawn wrote: »

@Avran_Sylt If you want I can try to explain the first of the four main reasons why a better matchmaking will not fix two-teams BGs. Here's a typical 8v8 Deathmatch, pointless, horrifying and destined to die the very moment that players are allowed to return to the three-sided version. Very unbalanced, yes?

So your rebuttal against a better matchmaking system for the 2-team is to then propose matching regulars and non-regulars into even splits between the three teams in a 4v4v4?

(I mean yes, absolutely, but that's just another form of matchmaking so I don't know why you're using this to take aim at improving the matchmaking system for 2-team)

Edit: I've already replied to your post before. 3 posts down.

Moonspawn · August 5

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I mean yes, absolutely

Perfect. Now let us assume we had a Magical Matchmaking capable of doing this:

Is the match balanced now?

Avran_Sylt · August 5

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I mean yes, absolutely

Perfect. Now let us assume we had a Magical Matchmaking capable of doing this:

Is the match balanced now?

Oh cool. Both teams have healers this time instead of one team having none.

But guess what was still an issue in 4v4v4? Randomly disparate builds.

Are you suggesting role-based matchmaking?

Urzigurumash · August 6

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I mean yes, absolutely

Perfect. Now let us assume we had a Magical Matchmaking capable of doing this:

Is the match balanced now?

Oh cool. Both teams have healers this time instead of one team having none.

But guess what was still an issue in 4v4v4? Randomly disparate builds.

Are you suggesting role-based matchmaking?

Well it would be nice. I just got 1 assist off 3.7m damage in a 5 Healer 4v4.

But as noted by one of those Healers, an Armory Station in the loading dock would suffice.

Avran_Sylt · August 6

Urzigurumash wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I mean yes, absolutely

Perfect. Now let us assume we had a Magical Matchmaking capable of doing this:

Is the match balanced now?

Oh cool. Both teams have healers this time instead of one team having none.

But guess what was still an issue in 4v4v4? Randomly disparate builds.

Are you suggesting role-based matchmaking?

Well it would be nice. I just got 1 assist off 3.7m damage in a 5 Healer 4v4.

But as noted by one of those Healers, an Armory Station in the loading dock would suffice.

That would actually be nice, but is also prohibitively dependent on payment, knowledge, grind, and coordination.

I doubt your once a day queuers have that all setup, and as such are at the mercy of "Does my team have any healer, or even any self-healing for that matter?"

Jierdanit · August 6

Moonspawn wrote: »

@Avran_Sylt If you want I can try to explain the first of the four main reasons why a better matchmaking will not fix two-teams BGs. Here's a typical 8v8 Deathmatch, pointless, horrifying and destined to die the moment that players are allowed to return to the three-sided version. Very unbalanced, yes?

It is definitely possible to have close and balanced 2 sided BGs if the matchmaking is working properly.

Moonspawn · August 6

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I mean yes, absolutely

Perfect. Now let us assume we had a Magical Matchmaking capable of doing this:

Is the match balanced now?

Oh cool. Both teams have healers this time instead of one team having none.

But guess what was still an issue in 4v4v4? Randomly disparate builds.

Are you suggesting role-based matchmaking?

And here's 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. @Avran_Sylt Are you with me so far?

Jierdanit · August 6

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I mean yes, absolutely

Perfect. Now let us assume we had a Magical Matchmaking capable of doing this:

Is the match balanced now?

Oh cool. Both teams have healers this time instead of one team having none.

But guess what was still an issue in 4v4v4? Randomly disparate builds.

Are you suggesting role-based matchmaking?

And here's 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. @Avran_Sylt Are you with me so far?

Having pure healers at the last spots in target order is so wrong its actually crazy.

Avran_Sylt · August 6

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I mean yes, absolutely

Perfect. Now let us assume we had a Magical Matchmaking capable of doing this:

Is the match balanced now?

Oh cool. Both teams have healers this time instead of one team having none.

But guess what was still an issue in 4v4v4? Randomly disparate builds.

Are you suggesting role-based matchmaking?

And here's 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. @Avran_Sylt Are you with me so far?

Yes, healing is rather overtuned to the point that healers are not targeted.

What's your point, because I can come up with several:
1. Healing is overtuned to the point that consolidated damage even from squishes/gankers isn't even enough to take one out. This has been a longstanding topic.
2. Your "squishies" still got kills and decent assist participation except for the bottom player. How many assists helped the "regular" finish off a player?
3. Gankers and bombers are target priority #1 given the tanks can't be killed easily, possibly an issue with damage mitigation potential and overall setup requirement of burst favoring brawlers/"regulars".
4. You classifying players as such gives even further credence to role-based matchmaking.
5. Regulars can be bombers, but if a bomber is chosen as the "regular" for a team, that team may not have any healing leading the squishies and the bomber themselves to get rolled by the team(s) that do.

Moonspawn · August 6

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I mean yes, absolutely

Perfect. Now let us assume we had a Magical Matchmaking capable of doing this:

Is the match balanced now?

Oh cool. Both teams have healers this time instead of one team having none.

But guess what was still an issue in 4v4v4? Randomly disparate builds.

Are you suggesting role-based matchmaking?

And here's 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. @Avran_Sylt Are you with me so far?

Yes, healing is rather overtuned to the point that healers are not targeted.

What's your point, because I can come up with several:

I'm simply trying to explain a natural phenomenon, which happens to be the first of the four main reasons why two-teams BGs are so much harder to balance when compared to three-teams. Here:

''Since you can't use one team against another anymore, its difficult for BG regulars to engage each other without discarding everything they know about positioning and target selection.''

Do you notice how the BG regular is number 6 out of 8?

licenturion · August 6

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I mean yes, absolutely

Perfect. Now let us assume we had a Magical Matchmaking capable of doing this:

Is the match balanced now?

Oh cool. Both teams have healers this time instead of one team having none.

But guess what was still an issue in 4v4v4? Randomly disparate builds.

Are you suggesting role-based matchmaking?

And here's 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. @Avran_Sylt Are you with me so far?

Yes, healing is rather overtuned to the point that healers are not targeted.

What's your point, because I can come up with several:

I'm simply trying to explain a natural phenomenon, which happens to be the first of the four main reasons why two-teams BGs are so much harder to balance when compared to three-teams. Here:

''Since you can't use one team against another anymore, its difficult for BG regulars to engage each other without discarding everything they know about positioning and target selection.''

Do you notice how the BG regular is number 6 out of 8?

U got the solution right in your posts a few times. BG regulars with high KDA should always be matched against other BG regulars with high KDA.

It doesn't matter what sets you wear, what skills you use or how your attributes are configured. If you overperform with KDA in a match the matchmaker should kick you to sweat heaven after 1 or 2 matches and only slowly downrank you if you underperform in subsequent matches.

New characters at level 50 should always give you 3 placements and the matchmaker should kick you into the right matches once again.

Almost all games use this data to balance things. I don't know why this is so hard for ZOS to get right. For this to work healing another player for a specific amount should also count as 'assist'.

Avran_Sylt · August 6

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I mean yes, absolutely

Perfect. Now let us assume we had a Magical Matchmaking capable of doing this:

Is the match balanced now?

Oh cool. Both teams have healers this time instead of one team having none.

But guess what was still an issue in 4v4v4? Randomly disparate builds.

Are you suggesting role-based matchmaking?

And here's 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. @Avran_Sylt Are you with me so far?

Yes, healing is rather overtuned to the point that healers are not targeted.

What's your point, because I can come up with several:

I'm simply trying to explain a natural phenomenon, which happens to be the first of the four main reasons why two-teams BGs are so much harder to balance when compared to three-teams. Here:

''Since you can't use one team against another anymore, its difficult for BG regulars to engage each other without discarding everything they know about positioning and target selection.''

Do you notice how the BG regular is number 6 out of 8?

I'm aware, and while you might find Decimus's outlier match example to be "appalling", what doesn't change is that regardless regular players will not engage with each other first, they will remove the additional threat that could potentially open them up to a burst window first. And especially in TDM, will chase score first. Like you said, Tanks and dedicated healers are the last priority, gankers and bombers first.

Guess which category undergeared players typically fall under?

Guess what is still going to happen regardless in a 4v4v4 match?

By the way, what is your "natural phenomenon", kill the squishier player first?

Is your complaint that you're annoyed that the amount of squishier players prevents you from trying to kill the opposing tankier targets via situational teamups with the opposition?

Is your complaint that you have noobs in your lobby in the first place?

ScardyFox · August 6

Are we still pretending two team BG is better than three team BG?

Avran_Sylt · August 6

I also want to clarify: I wouldn't be against seeing a 4v4v4 mode introduced, I'd support it. But it's not going to be the magic "cure-all" so many seem to think it is.

Moonspawn · August 6

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I'm aware,

Exactly. 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?

Avran_Sylt · August 6

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I'm aware,

Exactly. It means that numbers 1,2 and 3 will just keep coming back before its 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?

lol, so your issue is that there's too many scrubs. (But yes, I see that)

Play 4v4.

Decimus · August 6

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I'm aware,

Exactly. It means that numbers 1,2 and 3 will just keep coming back before its 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?

It really wasn't though, that's just blatantly false - most players' BG kill records are still from the 3-way BG era.

It was only easier for toxic individuals to 3rd party and grief in the past, or for objective-minded people to ignore PvP entirely to "win" while other teams fought and tried to have fun.

The "BG regulars" would always go for the squishiest, highest damage targets (i.e. priority ones) first and then attack any 3rd party ganker that tried to ruin a good 1v1/2v2/whatever.

Source: literally thousands of BGs at the top MMR on PC/EU.

The problem lies with the matchmaking (and lack of player base) and has always existed.

Avran_Sylt · August 6

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I'm aware,

Exactly. It means that numbers 1,2 and 3 will just keep coming back before its 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?

It really wasn't though, that's just blatantly false - most players' BG kill records are still from the 3-way BG era.

It was only easier for toxic individuals to 3rd party and grief in the past, or for objective-minded people to ignore PvP entirely to "win" while other teams fought and tried to have fun.

The "BG regulars" would always go for the squishiest, highest damage targets (i.e. priority ones) first and then attack any 3rd party ganker that tried to ruin a good 1v1/2v2/whatever.

Source: literally thousands of BGs at the top MMR on PC/EU.

The problem lies with the matchmaking (and lack of player base) and has always existed.

A 12 player pool vs a 16 player pool inherently creates more regular interaction from a smaller pool size. There's 4 possible scrubs that can't be popped. (Which is also why they should play 4v4, even less chance, and grouped? Even less chance)

But to all else I agree (except "objective minded individuals", play the damn obj.)

Decimus · August 6

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I'm aware,

Exactly. It means that numbers 1,2 and 3 will just keep coming back before its 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?

It really wasn't though, that's just blatantly false - most players' BG kill records are still from the 3-way BG era.

It was only easier for toxic individuals to 3rd party and grief in the past, or for objective-minded people to ignore PvP entirely to "win" while other teams fought and tried to have fun.

The "BG regulars" would always go for the squishiest, highest damage targets (i.e. priority ones) first and then attack any 3rd party ganker that tried to ruin a good 1v1/2v2/whatever.

Source: literally thousands of BGs at the top MMR on PC/EU.

The problem lies with the matchmaking (and lack of player base) and has always existed.

A 12 player pool vs a 16 player pool inherently creates more regular interaction from a smaller pool size. There's 4 possible scrubs that can't be popped. (Which is also why they should play 4v4, even less chance, and grouped? Even less chance)

But to all else I agree (except "objective minded individuals", play the damn obj.)

Well yes, but who's to say that you'll have any serious players in the lobby either - 4 less players there. Towards the end of 3-way BGs we'd typically have 2-3 good players per BG though, but that's because there was zero interest from majority of players towards BGs and you'd just see the same names every lobby.

I'll confess I most of the time did not enjoy playing objective during 3-way BGs because it'd involve actively avoiding PvP and just running from point A to point B in order to win - 3-way BGs were just KDR gaming.

In the current ones it's quite enjoyable playing for a win however, since playing objective means actually playing PvP the vast majority of time. There's a big difference between fighting over objectives and just getting them for free.

Avran_Sylt · August 6

Decimus wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I'm aware,

Exactly. It means that numbers 1,2 and 3 will just keep coming back before its 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?

It really wasn't though, that's just blatantly false - most players' BG kill records are still from the 3-way BG era.

It was only easier for toxic individuals to 3rd party and grief in the past, or for objective-minded people to ignore PvP entirely to "win" while other teams fought and tried to have fun.

The "BG regulars" would always go for the squishiest, highest damage targets (i.e. priority ones) first and then attack any 3rd party ganker that tried to ruin a good 1v1/2v2/whatever.

Source: literally thousands of BGs at the top MMR on PC/EU.

The problem lies with the matchmaking (and lack of player base) and has always existed.

A 12 player pool vs a 16 player pool inherently creates more regular interaction from a smaller pool size. There's 4 possible scrubs that can't be popped. (Which is also why they should play 4v4, even less chance, and grouped? Even less chance)

But to all else I agree (except "objective minded individuals", play the damn obj.)

Well yes, but who's to say that you'll have any serious players in the lobby either - 4 less players there. Towards the end of 3-way BGs we'd typically have 2-3 good players per BG though, but that's because there was zero interest from majority of players towards BGs and you'd just see the same names every lobby.

I'll confess I most of the time did not enjoy playing objective during 3-way BGs because it'd involve actively avoiding PvP and just running from point A to point B in order to win - 3-way BGs were just KDR gaming.

In the current ones it's quite enjoyable playing for a win however, since playing objective means actually playing PvP the vast majority of time. There's a big difference between fighting over objectives and just getting them for free.

And in that regard I do agree: With the objective being contested by all available parties (binary instead of trinary which allows one to not be the target) it promotes the most PvP interaction, players can still of course ignore it. However at this point PvP balance becomes more paramount, balance issues becoming more prevalent.

Moonspawn · August 6

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I also want to clarify: I wouldn't be against seeing a 4v4v4 mode introduced, I'd support it. But it's not going to be the magic "cure-all" so many seem to think it is.

This right here tells me you're not being manipulated by people obsessed with anti-gaming. Since no one has been able to solve these problems yet, I guess we can talk about curing 4v4v4.

There were three main problems with three-teams BGs.

1) Lack of rewards. (More or less solved)

Three-teams BGs rewards: Daily XP.
Two-teams BGs rewards: Daily XP, endeavors, golden pursuits, battlemaster tokens and obscene amounts of transmutation crystals.

2) Forcing DM players into objective matches. (Could've been solved by a separate objectives queue)
3) It was too easy for the third team to complete the objective uncontested. All Zenimax had to do was make it harder. Imagine where we would be right now if they had simply done that.

Chrisilis · August 6

ScardyFox wrote: »

Are we still pretending two team BG is better than three team BG?

Exactly. Three team was more fun. Funner. It was more funner than two team. Imho, subjectively, to me personally, 3 team was better, the maps were better, the gameplay was better, the balance was better, the mmr was better, the feel was better, the experience was better.

The dumbed down dollar store all inclusive budget version two team battlegrounds are okay. Just okay. Just barely okay. Its okay, it's fine, its playable. Its also repetitive, kind of boring, kind of mind numbing but okay. its fine.

I dont care about tHe pOPuLatIoN. I dont care if some people think two team is better. Great, I'm glad your happy with 'em. Nobody wants them gone. What we want is a three team queue back. That's all, one little three team classic battleground queue, which should never have been removed in the first place, is all it would take to make everybody happy.

This thread is called the Future of Battlegrounds as if we had any say in that whatsoever. The people who know what the future of battlegrounds is aren't talking. As far as I can tell the only dev reading this is a moderator, and he ain't talking either. The only reason I personally continue to contribute to this discussion at this point is due to the recent staffing shakeup at ZOS and the possibility that new hands on the wheel will make a difference. Good chat.

Thumbless_Bot · August 6

Chrisilis wrote: »

ScardyFox wrote: »

Are we still pretending two team BG is better than three team BG?

I dont care about tHe pOPuLatIoN. I dont care if some people think two team is better. Great, I'm glad your happy with 'em. Nobody wants them gone. What we want is a three team queue back. That's all, one little three team classic battleground queue, which should never have been removed in the first place, is all it would take to make everybody happy.

2 team bgs are such a smashing success and the population has gone so far through the roof it makes literally no sense not to add 3 teams back... unless...

Let the apologetics flow...

NxJoeyD · August 7

I’ve mentioned this before in other threads but I’ll add it here as well. There IS, absolutely, way to introduce balance to BG PvP without interfering with the rest of the game: installing a “Competetive Index” to each players character.

It’s pretty simple, as you make choices within your character build, the CI index will adjust certain values to achieve balance. So, for example, if a player starts stacking attributes that make them super tanky, then their damage output will be adjusted downward; or if someone assigns resources into high damage output their resistances will be adjusted downward.

What this means is that we could still have build diversity but we wouldn’t have “metas”, we’d have builds where the range of effectiveness starts to come closer together and it ultimately comes down to the players own execution of their build which determines more of the outcome of PvP combat.

Not like what we have now where we’re seeing a lot more situations with fewer “in reality” effective counters than before. And I say “in reality” because there are a lot of potential counters to situations people will cite on paper but in real world gameplay rarely ever works out that way.

Further, some QoL improvements BG’s desperately need:

1) Crowd control immunity now needs to be a blanket and apply to all forms of crowd control! So, for example, if I Stun a player, they’d be immune to all forms of CC for the immunity duration. This is huge because we have too many builds out here leaning on mindless CC spams and with subclassing players have access to CC more sources and pairings that, again, have fewer counter scenarios. We’ve all encountered the CC “break free” bug before and it’s still very much a thing. What this change would do is force players to more strategically slot and use CC in combat rather than just spam dumping it on players to either eat their stam or bug them from being able to break free.

2) Self healing needs a rework. Now, if ZoS implements a CI like I suggested that will help deal with this but as is, we have way too much self healing out there to the point where the amount of players choosing to hop on bona fide healing roles seems less and less in BG. And when one team DOES happen to get a healer and the other doesn’t, we’ll forget it, the non healer team is just body meat for the 15 minutes. A degree of self healing to get out of a tough spot is a must and no issue, but, the wild stacking of sky high mitigation and burst heals (many of which can be passive) lead to a “have vs have not” when it comes to being able to scoff of even high damage. I, personally, don’t think any player or build should be healing back to full, instantly, on their own. That, to me, is just poor mechanics; especially in the grand scheme of how BG’s are currently structured.

3) Sets! .. yep, we knew this was coming. Not all of them, I do believe the extreme variety of gear sets are one of the better aspects of ESO and only add to build diversity potential … but … we need to take a HARD look at a couple of them and at least install some mechanics to prevent mindless, skill-less, abuse of procs … and what’s a pair I’m thinking about?? You guessed it: Rush of Agony & Vicious Death. .. now I get it, VD is a Zerg break and on the surface I’m ok with that. But what we shouldn’t be doing is enabling gear combos that CREATE the very scenario we’re trying to discourage! Using RoA to, essentially, build you’re on Zerg when one doesn’t already exist, so that you can let VD do your dirty work is, well, pretty dirty. And the funny part is that this is really easy to address. RoA, for starters, needs to apply CC immunity. Getting pulled, with no telegraph, only to end up being pulled into AoE CC and then followed up with Petulant Colossus or any number of high damage AoE abilities is becoming far too common. And why not? RoA’s pull is passive and not subject to GCD, and without CC immunity it’s basically a harvest fest, a buffet of players that sees few counters. Either apply CC immunity to RoA, reduce it’s range, or give it a more proper telegraph so players know it’s been proc’d in advance. As for VD; I would set it so that the damage scale is reduced by 60% against players who have been recently “moved” whin 2 seconds. This could be achieved by using the conditions that Nibenay Bay uses but in reverse, essentially. Now, VD would have the full effect of taking out a bona fide Zerg but wouldn’t be nearly as effective if applied to a group that wasn’t Zerging but rather was player created.

When we look at the landscape of BG there’s only certain elements that are being over-used on a broad scale: CC, certain healing stacks, and a select few gear sets. It’s not all of them but we’ve all been playing long enough, we know which factors of BG are simply cracked and leaned on, it’s a monitory of elements but none the less it erodes the gameplay factor of the game mode. And if it weren’t for the daily XP rewards I think many players would just write it off but is that really what the Devs want? An entire segment of the game that gets turned into a proverbial toilet clog? Well, if so just leave things alone .. or .. just make some simple, small, patches that would go a long way in improving gameplay.

Moonspawn · August 7

ScardyFox wrote: »

Are we still pretending two team BG is better than three team BG?

We're pretending 8v8 would survive the return of the real BGs. Be sure to act suitably shocked when players are allowed to choose between the formats.

Moonspawn · August 7

Decimus wrote: »

It really wasn't though, that's just blatantly false

I'm not sure where you got lost in the explanation.

1- Take unbalanced match.
2- Apply Magic Matchmaking to make the teams identical.
3- Identify target order.
4- Target order shows that number 6 comes after numbers 1,2,3,4 and 5.

Anything false there?