Maintenance for the week of September 29:
• [IN PROGRESS] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 29, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
· Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – October 1, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
· PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – October 1, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
• [IN PROGRESS] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 29, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
· Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – October 1, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
· PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – October 1, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
We are currently investigating connection issues some players are having on the North American and European megaservers. We will update as new information becomes available.
Future of Battlegrounds
-
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents. However having a functional MMR reduces the difference build wise between the strongest enemy and the weakest enemy. With a proper MMR system you will avoid scenarios where the Damage dealers are in completely different leagues.
You keep brining up examples like they are a nail in the coffin or show something special. In reality they just prove my points. BGs need a functional mmr system and better mechanics like spawning to help enable better fights. There is literally no alternative, not that I have seen one proposed yet.Zos should hire pvp consultants2 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Edited by Moonspawn on August 24, 2025 9:52PMCan you help solve any of the FOUR critical flaws of Two-Teams BGs ?
Looking for feedback on How to fix the Three-Teams objective modes0 -
shadoza✭✭✭✭
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
But if you are all at the same level block, it is a fair battle, yes?1 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......Zos should hire pvp consultants0 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭MincMincMinc wrote: »
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?Can you help solve any of the FOUR critical flaws of Two-Teams BGs ?
Looking for feedback on How to fix the Three-Teams objective modes0 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭MincMincMinc wrote: »
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system. two team or three team or even four team, it doesn't matter. The only time you can escape an mmr system is when you have a constant ongoing gamemode that is so large players autonomously decide their own matches. Cyrodil as an example.
Are you saying you don't like that players target the squishiest players in the match? You will never get rid of that in ESO, even in vengeance it is the core concept in group play.Edited by MincMincMinc on August 25, 2025 12:32AMZos should hire pvp consultants1 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing its existence, but we can talk about them later. Regarding your mmr idea, how many ranks?MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system.
Can you help solve any of the FOUR critical flaws of Two-Teams BGs ?
Looking for feedback on How to fix the Three-Teams objective modes1 -
NxJoeyD✭✭✭
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing its existence, but we can talk about them later. Regarding your mmr idea, how many ranks?MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system.
You’re right.
The problem is that it’s impossible to tweak MRR the way people are suggesting.
There’s no real way to put players together of a similar experience base. How would one determine that?
You can’t go by “group” match result because if you happen to be on a team with a healer or broken meta build then your results would be skewed by their performance.
You can’t go by individual stats because many of the PvP contents don’t score properly. For example, players aren’t rewarded points for guarding their Relic OR by fighting to defend their Ball carrier, and even though those are critical contributions they aren’t recorded in individual player stats. Meanwhile, the ones who ignore the objectives and just go run off to grab kills are rewarded so this is moot.
You can’t go by CP because you’ve got lots of players who focus more on PvE content and only dabble in PvP for the resource rewards so their level isn’t reflective of any true experience in PvP …
You can’t go by kills or TTK because everyone’s slotting either Assassin’s Blade, or Merciless Resolve, or Mages Wrath to snatch kills. So while in the past players couldn’t just lean on spamming executes, they can now.
So how would one match make? This is why matchmaking is broken as it is, because there’s no real; true, way to put solid groups together based on any of those metrics.
You can’t use results based measures in this game to match make. We need to use something else.0 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing its existence, but we can talk about them later. Regarding your mmr idea, how many ranks?MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system.
What? You can't just claim my ideas are invalid or without purpose and instead try to say you have a solution to no problem that exists. What kinda argument logic is this? Make an actual point to talk about, I can't keep guessing what you sort of might, maybe mean.
As far as ranks do you mean like the titles? Like bronze, silver, gold, platinum? At the very least playerbase wise you have pve vs pvp players at the very least. Go a step further for both of those and you have VetPvPers, VetPvEers, NewPvPers, NewPvEers. MMR wise you could guess that a newpvper might place close to vetPvEers who never participated in pvp.Zos should hire pvp consultants0 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing its existence, but we can talk about them later. Regarding your mmr idea, how many ranks?MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system.
You’re right.
The problem is that it’s impossible to tweak MRR the way people are suggesting.
There’s no real way to put players together of a similar experience base. How would one determine that?
You can’t go by “group” match result because if you happen to be on a team with a healer or broken meta build then your results would be skewed by their performance.
You can’t go by individual stats because many of the PvP contents don’t score properly. For example, players aren’t rewarded points for guarding their Relic OR by fighting to defend their Ball carrier, and even though those are critical contributions they aren’t recorded in individual player stats. Meanwhile, the ones who ignore the objectives and just go run off to grab kills are rewarded so this is moot.
You can’t go by CP because you’ve got lots of players who focus more on PvE content and only dabble in PvP for the resource rewards so their level isn’t reflective of any true experience in PvP …
You can’t go by kills or TTK because everyone’s slotting either Assassin’s Blade, or Merciless Resolve, or Mages Wrath to snatch kills. So while in the past players couldn’t just lean on spamming executes, they can now.
So how would one match make? This is why matchmaking is broken as it is, because there’s no real; true, way to put solid groups together based on any of those metrics.
You can’t use results based measures in this game to match make. We need to use something else.
I already talked about this when pointing out that there are no metrics other than KDA and healing value. For mmr eso is too complicated to match make compared to a game like overwatch which has flat expected values for similar defined characters. In those games Healers do X, Damage dealers output Y, Tanks block Z.......ESO you can go anywhere between X,Y, and Z. So you have to ignore the system entirely and use only the output of the system which is KDA. Healing is an extra which could simply be a saved variable after every match to help balance the teams once the players are matched together.Zos should hire pvp consultants1 -
Major_Mangle✭✭✭✭✭@MincMincMinc , I somewhat admire you for putting up with the mental gymnastics in this thread from certain individuals, but honestly just leave them be. There has been several other BG threads and all they do is spam the same 2-3 sentences/pre-written posts that makes little to no sense and only serves to derail and nitpick words out of context.Edited by Major_Mangle on August 25, 2025 12:27PMPs4 EU 2016-2020
PC/EU: 2020 -3 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭Major_Mangle wrote: »@MincMincMinc , I somewhat admire you for putting up with the mental gymnastics in this thread from certain individuals, but honestly just leave them be. There has been several other BG threads and all they do is spam the same 2-3 sentences/pre-written posts that makes little to no sense and only serves to derail and nitpick words out of context.
Ima be honest, I got nothing else to do at work but run numbers. We are in between projects and I only have about 8 or so hours of actual work to do a week. So instead I run numbers on UESP and rant about things zos will never see on the forums. Atleast as the thread goes on and hits more and more pages, there is the chance someone at zos goes "Hey people are interested in bgs". Then its up to them whether they actually read or get information from people that argue in good faith or make concise arguments. 80% of the time they probably just pull from the streamteam discord for ideas on what "players think". Which makes sense because streamers are just a quick crowdsource of knowledge.
I'm not even bothered. At least they are not bad faith arguments, they are just not really cohesive towards any direction. Talking on the forums gets so much easier once people understand all you should be doing is assuming people are reading your post for the first time every time. Back and forth, or guessing people can read your mind doesn't work. You will do well to stick to a simple explanation method of "i think this, because of this reason"....."I dont like this because of this reason". This way others can respond in ways that should be clear by saying "Well your reason makes sense or your reason doesnt make sense because of this reason"
For BGs in order the most important things zos could do going forward in order are:- Implement a NON resetting constant Account wide MMR system based on KDA
- The resetting mmr places old players in matches with new players. While comical for 5s in discord, it gets boring going 50/0 for a week straight while you regain leaderboard
- Account wide makes sense because 90% of eso depends on knowledge, build theory, and mechanics which all translate between builds and classes now since combat is not unique between different classes. Everyone sustains the same, everyone has similar debuffs, everyone has similar buffs, everyone has similar healing methods, everyone has a timed burst......combat is just the same boring template now adays.
- The game's build systems are far to complex to numerically matchmake players based on stats or calculated outputs. Even hub build sites like UESP can only realistically compare Burst builds. Dot builds and crit builds start to become numerically impossible to compare and are better off just parsing or dueling to compare. THE ONLY thing in common between these 3 setups is Kills, Deaths, and Assists. Which is a simple output comparison metric of player skill since the days of .... idk quake or halo?
- Balance match made teams based on previous match's healing values
This is because of how prolific ESO's healing builds are. So many things are simple aoe auto mechanics that play the game for you. So many skills on live are hidden aoe conal smart heals when they should be more single target aimed skills like their damage counterparts.
- Change spawns to be at level with the ground and use methods like one way walls, or slaughterfish to get players out of spawn and prevent enemies from going into the spawns.
Current spawns trap the losing team up on a very high keep wall essentially. Dropping down lets the enemy team of 8 players focus and hit you for multiple GCDs. Even if you survive, you were just the first penguin off the ledge. Chances are your whole uncoordinated team didn't jump off at the same time. Having spawns at level with the ground lets the more hesitant players leave the nest with the rest of the group. Not only this, but you could punish or make it impossible for birds to stay in the nest forever.
Edited by MincMincMinc on August 25, 2025 1:11PMZos should hire pvp consultants2 - Implement a NON resetting constant Account wide MMR system based on KDA
-
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭
Never claimed anything of the sort.MincMincMinc wrote: »What? You can't just claim my ideas are invalid or without purpose
I only have solutions for three-teams. But if you don't think these are problems, then how can you possibly hope to help solve them?MincMincMinc wrote: »and instead try to say you have a solution to no problem that exists.
No need to guess. My point right now is just trying to understand your suggestion, which is why I'm asking- for the third time- into how many tiers/ranks/groups do you want to split the BG population.MincMincMinc wrote: »What kinda argument logic is this? Make an actual point to talk about, I can't keep guessing what you sort of might, maybe mean.Edited by Moonspawn on August 25, 2025 2:52PMCan you help solve any of the FOUR critical flaws of Two-Teams BGs ?
Looking for feedback on How to fix the Three-Teams objective modes0 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭MincMincMinc wrote: »Major_Mangle wrote: »@MincMincMinc , I somewhat admire you for putting up with the mental gymnastics in this thread from certain individuals, but honestly just leave them be. There has been several other BG threads and all they do is spam the same 2-3 sentences/pre-written posts that makes little to no sense and only serves to derail and nitpick words out of context.
Ima be honest, I got nothing else to do at work but run numbers. We are in between projects and I only have about 8 or so hours of actual work to do a week. So instead I run numbers on UESP and rant about things zos will never see on the forums.
[/list]
Pretty much... I'm on a meeting i dont need to be on while I type this.Edited by Thumbless_Bot on August 25, 2025 2:10PM0 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Major_Mangle wrote: »@MincMincMinc , I somewhat admire you for putting up with the mental gymnastics in this thread from certain individuals, but honestly just leave them be. There has been several other BG threads and all they do is spam the same 2-3 sentences/pre-written posts that makes little to no sense and only serves to derail and nitpick words out of context.
Ima be honest, I got nothing else to do at work but run numbers. We are in between projects and I only have about 8 or so hours of actual work to do a week. So instead I run numbers on UESP and rant about things zos will never see on the forums.
[/list]
Pretty much... I'm on a meeting i dont need to be on while I type this.
The problem is that the meta is such a straight forward template that I literally can't come up with anything more stat efficient on UESP. Thus back to arguing about BG and cyrodil reform.MincMincMinc wrote: »Major_Mangle wrote: »@MincMincMinc , I somewhat admire you for putting up with the mental gymnastics in this thread from certain individuals, but honestly just leave them be. There has been several other BG threads and all they do is spam the same 2-3 sentences/pre-written posts that makes little to no sense and only serves to derail and nitpick words out of context.
For BGs in order the most important things zos could do going forward in order are:- Implement a NON resetting constant Account wide MMR system based on KDA
- The resetting mmr places old players in matches with new players. While comical for 5s in discord, it gets boring going 50/0 for a week straight while you regain leaderboard
- Account wide makes sense because 90% of eso depends on knowledge, build theory, and mechanics which all translate between builds and classes now since combat is not unique between different classes. Everyone sustains the same, everyone has similar debuffs, everyone has similar buffs, everyone has similar healing methods, everyone has a timed burst......combat is just the same boring template now adays.
- The game's build systems are far to complex to numerically matchmake players based on stats or calculated outputs. Even hub build sites like UESP can only realistically compare Burst builds. Dot builds and crit builds start to become numerically impossible to compare and are better off just parsing or dueling to compare. THE ONLY thing in common between these 3 setups is Kills, Deaths, and Assists. Which is a simple output comparison metric of player skill since the days of .... idk quake or halo?
- Balance match made teams based on previous match's healing values
This is because of how prolific ESO's healing builds are. So many things are simple aoe auto mechanics that play the game for you. So many skills on live are hidden aoe conal smart heals when they should be more single target aimed skills like their damage counterparts.
- Change spawns to be at level with the ground and use methods like one way walls, or slaughterfish to get players out of spawn and prevent enemies from going into the spawns.
Current spawns trap the losing team up on a very high keep wall essentially. Dropping down lets the enemy team of 8 players focus and hit you for multiple GCDs. Even if you survive, you were just the first penguin off the ledge. Chances are your whole uncoordinated team didn't jump off at the same time. Having spawns at level with the ground lets the more hesitant players leave the nest with the rest of the group. Not only this, but you could punish or make it impossible for birds to stay in the nest forever.
Zos should hire pvp consultants0 - Implement a NON resetting constant Account wide MMR system based on KDA
-
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Never claimed anything of the sort.MincMincMinc wrote: »What? You can't just claim my ideas are invalid or without purposeMincMincMinc wrote: »
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is.
Literally no part of the conversation before proved anything against the fact that we need an mmr system, but we can go back to the topic.But if you don't think these are problems, then how can you possibly hope to help solve them?Avran_Sylt wrote: »
Yeah, it's because you make the experience worse for anyone you queue with not matched to your skill/build.
Not exactly. Three-teams BGs could be balanced by placing one or two BG regulars per team and filling the rest of the slots with newcomers. You could easily create matches with extremely high probability of being fun for everyone, regardless of skill level. Doing the exact same thing in two-teams BGs just doesn't have the same result. Here's why:- Since you can't use one team against another anymore, its difficult for BG regulars to engage each other without discarding everything they know about positioning and target selection.
1) Here's a typical 8v8 Deathmatch, pointless, horrifying and destined to die the moment that players are allowed to return to the three-sided version. Very unbalanced, yes?
2)Now let us assume we had a Magic Matchmaking capable of making both teams identical:
3)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.
4) Do you notice how the BG regular is number 6 out of 8? It means that numbers 1,2 and 3 will just keep coming back before it's time to engage number 6. And if not, 4 and 5 are right there.
The format being 4v4v4 would decrease number 6 position all the way to 3 or 4. If their team was inside a sandwich, it would drop even lower.
Do you see how it was much easier for BG regulars to engage each other in 4v4v4? - The most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now.
- Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.
- People just give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place.
The only solution I have to these game-breaking problems is to go back to the three-teams format. Do you have another?
You want 3 sided bgs because they will fix spawncamping, pugstomping and afk players. Like I said before about making arguments more concise is that your 4 points here are all kind of the same argument just jumping all over the place. I believe these three things are major issues, and my suggestion is that there needs to be a functional MMR system.
The counter argument to the 3 sided bgs is that there was still spawncamping, there was still pugstoming, and there were still afk players all the time. When you mix high tier players that want to PvP and questers who want to just end the match what happened all the time was that the PvP players would just pugstomp instead of attacking each other to try and prevent the matches from ending too quickly so they don't go back to sitting in que. The only saving grace for questers was that because of the nature of 3 sided fights, they could just hide and run objectives while actively avoiding all PvP.....in a PvP gamemode.
MMR hits all of these pain points because when matches are far more even it gets significantly harder to spawncamp an equal force, You can't pugstomp when there are no players significantly lower skilled than you, and players will not feel the need to afk or give up since the fights would be far more evenly matched.
The main problem dynamic is that high tier PvPers want to fight without ending the game quickly and Questers don't want to fight and want to end the game quickly. You don't fix this dynamic any other way but an MMR system to separate them. At least when separated, the matches would be more even and both sides would be content doing what they believe is the main gameplay loop in their minds.Edited by MincMincMinc on August 25, 2025 2:51PMZos should hire pvp consultants3 - 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.
-
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭
Never claimed we don't need mmr system, or a better mmr system.MincMincMinc wrote: »Literally no part of the conversation before proved anything against the fact that we need an mmr system, but we can go back to the topic.
No.MincMincMinc wrote: »You want 3 sided bgs because they will fix spawncamping, pugstomping and afk players.
3 sided would fix spawncamping being encouraged in every gamemode.
3 sided would make it easier for the pvpers to go after pugstompers and other pvpers.
3 sided would make it harder for the EU pugstompers to avoid each other and play as if they were on the same team(anti-gaming). You don't need to concern yourself with this one. Doesn't happen on PC NA.
3 sided would incentivize people to keep fighting until the end (second place).
As much as I'd love to keep circling back to these, I'd prefer to understand your suggestion first. For the fourth time, into how many tiers/ranks/groups do you want to divide the BG population?
Edited by Moonspawn on August 25, 2025 5:02PMCan you help solve any of the FOUR critical flaws of Two-Teams BGs ?
Looking for feedback on How to fix the Three-Teams objective modes0 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭
No.MincMincMinc wrote: »You want 3 sided bgs because they will fix spawncamping, pugstomping and afk players.
3 sided would fix spawncamping being encouraged in every gamemode.
3 sided would make it easier for the pvpers to go after pugstompers and other pvpers.
3 sided would make it harder for the EU hive mind to avoid each other and play as if they were on the same team(anti-gaming). You don't need to concern yourself with this one. Doesn't happen on PC NA.
3 sided would incentivize people to keep fighting until the end (second place).
As much as I'd love to keep circling back to these, I'd prefer to understand your suggestion first. For the fourth time, into how many tiers/ranks/groups do you want to divide the BG population?
Spawncamping is an artifact of one side being stronger than the other....... This gets resolved with MMR. Yes a 3 sided match can sometimes alleviate this in some niche scenarios when the third team attacks or simply ignores pvp and ends the match with objectives.
PvPers go after the squishiest targets, then go after players trying to end the game too quickly (who are typically the squishiest targets) and then they will prioritize other PvPers. Typically this leads to the spawn camping issue once you herd them back, you have to keep them there otherwise they will run objectives and end the game quicker..........Again 3 sided doesnt change this other than the fact that sometimes in niche scenarios the third team can disrupt the pugstomp or end the game with objectives sooner than expected.......The only reason this imbalance occurs in the first place is because drastically different skilled players are on different teams, thus an MMR system is the main solution.
I have no idea what you mean by EU hive mind.
3 sided does incentivize fighting for second place. This is correct except in the scenario when there are two pvp groups and the third is a pve group. At this point the pve group tries to not fight and will either afk while being spawncamped by the other two groups...... or if the other two groups are fighting, the pve group will just run objectives for their quest......again this dynamic all starts because lower skilled players were matched up with higher skilled players. Still pointing towards needing an MMR system as the main fix.
How many tiers to split up MMR? It really doesn't matter. The simplest answer is infinite where each player gets a place on the ladder. Either you are above or below someone else, we are talking the bare essentials of any matchmaking game. Matchmaking simply tries to go upwards and downwards to group people around your level............. Otherwise once zos gets the system working, you could then recreate a tiered system with titles like bronze, silver, gold etc. These stages could simply be based on a % of the total user base. However at this stage it is more important to have a functional system.Zos should hire pvp consultants1 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭
So if the matchmaking search had to expand enough it would still put players of vastly different skill levels in the same matches, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »-
How many tiers to split up MMR? It really doesn't matter. The simplest answer is infinite where each player gets a place on the ladder. Either you are above or below someone else, we are talking the bare essentials of any matchmaking game. Matchmaking simply tries to go upwards and downwards to group people around your level.............
Can you help solve any of the FOUR critical flaws of Two-Teams BGs ?
Looking for feedback on How to fix the Three-Teams objective modes0 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭Can you help solve any of the FOUR critical flaws of Two-Teams BGs ?
Looking for feedback on How to fix the Three-Teams objective modes0 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭
So if the matchmaking search had to expand enough it would still put players of vastly different skill levels in the same matches, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »-
How many tiers to split up MMR? It really doesn't matter. The simplest answer is infinite where each player gets a place on the ladder. Either you are above or below someone else, we are talking the bare essentials of any matchmaking game. Matchmaking simply tries to go upwards and downwards to group people around your level.............
Yes, if the game boils down enough in population. That doesn't act as a counter argument to MMR though. The MMR system helps prevent issues across all scenarios within any BG, it would be the single most impactful change for any issue regarding BGs. Even if the population of bgs collapsed to say 30 people, the MMR system would still function, but in these more niche scenarios you would then start leaning on other mechanics to prevent issues.
So once we address the most relevant overarching issue. Then we get into more fundamental issues or more niche scenarios and try to counteract those. Does this make sense? In order of priority you would target the largest overarching system change to alleviate the most pain. MMR hits one main pain point on the head and also cuts down on the other pain points to a large degree.
MMR would all but eliminate the Pug stomp issue if players were all even skill wise, except to a less degree if the game was imploding population wise. Otherwise all that is left is spawncamping which was primarily done and easy because of the now addressed pug stomp issue. Also we still have the AFK issue, which a large portion of which was caused by the pug stomp effect due to the MMR differences.
So then we have the Spawn Camping issue. We have already pointed out and agreed several times in this thread there are several ways to address it.- You should alter the spawns, such that the respawning team that lost the last fight is not at a combat disadvantage when trying to leave spawn. For example I suggested making spawns flat with the ground with one way walls or perhaps a slaughterfish effect for enemies that push into the enemy's spawn.
- Another suggestion that I agree with is the trifaction concept where if one faction is spawncamping, they leave themselves vulnerable to the third faction.
- The third suggestion is to HEAVILY incentivize the objectives in the game, but this would take vastly more effort on zos's part to establish a standalone leaderboard or weekly challenges with rewards that are worth farming. Being realistic, offering 10k ap to people with tens or hundreds of millions of ap is not a reward.
For the AFK issue you either address the individual player or try to solve the reason why they are afk in the first place.- Make sure matches are equally skilled so its possible to fight.
- Establish a worthwhile leaderboard with farmed rewards so they want to win.
- Have 3 teams so there is always a reason to keep playing and atleast get 2nd rewards.
- You could try to remove the option of afking by kicking them from the lobby, or booting them out of spawn after 20s, or giving them a que ban for an hour.
EDIT: To add in here another issue or scenario where the depopulation concept boils down to is balance within each match. Where it matters far more whether you have all the highmmr people on one team vs the low mmr team. So this is where the system that balances each team to have equally paired mmr players helps. Similarly the same system at this level tries to balance out healers per match.Edited by MincMincMinc on August 25, 2025 5:56PMZos should hire pvp consultants2 -
ruskiii✭✭✭The only thing they need to make spawn camping less prevalent, is to stop resetting MMR, so that players of similar levels are fighting each other (like they were for the most part in the pre U44 BGs, when we had the same mmr system, but with a long slow degradation). Spawn camping will always exist - it existed in 3 teams BGs also - but having teams be so imbalanced skill wise + objectives being more combat focused in two teams does make it more common. Again this is a symptom of unbalanced lobbies and not a root problem.
Anything beyond stopping MMR resets is overcomplicated and unnecessary imo. We don't need changes to the maps or rules of the games. Good players don't get spawn camped. Simple as that. A team full of similarly skilled players can push back another team of similarly skilled players whether they are high skill or low skill.
Healer distribution can make a hell of a difference, but that is the nature of queueing into random and not queueing as a group. There should be an RNG factor with random queues. If you play enough games you will have plenty with healers/against healers/no healers and everything in between.
The way U44 launched 2 teams BGs was the most painful options possible for old and new players alike. Now we are seeing them rethink their decisions, and test more player friendly options: they've fixed games not starting and we dont get stuck in dead lobbies for 5 minutes since U47. It would be the perfect time to stop resetting MMR, so it can have the next month or so to stabilize.
Edited by ruskiii on August 25, 2025 7:04PM1 -
ruskiii✭✭✭MincMincMinc wrote: »
So once we address the most relevant overarching issue. Then we get into more fundamental issues or more niche scenarios and try to counteract those. Does this make sense? In order of priority you would target the largest overarching system change to alleviate the most pain. MMR hits one main pain point on the head and also cuts down on the other pain points to a large degree.
100% agree with you here, minc. Its nice for people to type out their wishlists for BG features, but suggesting fixes to problems that have a very simple common problem, without addressing that common problem, is people building their castles on sand.
Really hoping we hear back from the devs soon about whether they have finally stopped resetting MMR.Edited by ruskiii on August 25, 2025 7:51PM0 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭MincMincMinc wrote: »
So once we address the most relevant overarching issue. Then we get into more fundamental issues or more niche scenarios and try to counteract those. Does this make sense? In order of priority you would target the largest overarching system change to alleviate the most pain. MMR hits one main pain point on the head and also cuts down on the other pain points to a large degree.
100% agree with you here, minc. Its nice for people to type out their wishlists for BG features, but suggesting fixes to problems that have a very simple common problem, without addressing that common problem, is people building their castles on sand.
Really hoping we hear back from the devs soon about whether they have finally stopped resetting MMR.
Yeah its weird that there were changes it seems, but with no announcement of any kind. Stopping the reset is the easiest, quickest, and most impactful part of fixing the mmr system.
I am pretty sure it only resets because its just tied to the dysfunctional leaderboard score. Much like how cyrodil server leaderboard works and resets each campaign.
I just bring up the next step because once you fix the reset issue, the problem is that the scoreboard scored still wont split up between someone who is a diehard PvP player who plays only a few matches a week vs someone who farms their daily matches every day. Actually the way it is set up I am willing to bet the daily objective farmer will net more per match in "MMR"
Did zos ever publish what plays into MMR? Or are we just assuming it is scoreboard based just adding up until reset?Zos should hire pvp consultants2 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭
I do believe population is small enough that your mmr system would need to constantly grab players of vastly different skill levels, so let's lean on other mechanics.MincMincMinc wrote: »So if the matchmaking search had to expand enough it would still put players of vastly different skill levels in the same matches, right?
Yes, (...) Even if the population of bgs collapsed to say 30 people, the MMR system would still function, but in these more niche scenarios you would then start leaning on other mechanics to prevent issues.
Can you help solve any of the FOUR critical flaws of Two-Teams BGs ?
Looking for feedback on How to fix the Three-Teams objective modes0 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭
I do believe population is small enough that your mmr system would need to constantly grab players of vastly different skill levels, so let's lean on other mechanics.MincMincMinc wrote: »So if the matchmaking search had to expand enough it would still put players of vastly different skill levels in the same matches, right?
Yes, (...) Even if the population of bgs collapsed to say 30 people, the MMR system would still function, but in these more niche scenarios you would then start leaning on other mechanics to prevent issues.
On PCNA the current mid to highmmr bg discord, run by Ruskii (above) has over 300 active members in it. In game there is even more, give or take purge events. That alone is enough to need a functional mmr system.
Even so, none of the systems are conflicting with each other. There is no reason they shouldn't implement any of the options in my last post or that you suggest. Zos could:- Stop resetting MMR
- Make MMR based on KDA
- Balance matched players in each lobby per MMR and healing
- Make spawns more intuitive to help newer players without knowing tricks
- Bring back 3 team bg lobbies, or even just have both 2 team and 3 team
- kick and que ban for an hour the afk players after 1 min of doing no damage, healing, or objectives
- Boot players out of spawn after 30s.
- Make a visible leaderboard ladder with medal ranks, titles, and rewards.
- etc
None of the things we talked about really impact each other and could all be implemented to improve BGs with minimal downsides. Its a matter of what can be easily implemented and have the greatest benefit for the amount of work. So something like Stop resetting MMR.Zos should hire pvp consultants1 -
NxJoeyD✭✭✭MincMincMinc wrote: »
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing its existence, but we can talk about them later. Regarding your mmr idea, how many ranks?MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system.
You’re right.
The problem is that it’s impossible to tweak MRR the way people are suggesting.
There’s no real way to put players together of a similar experience base. How would one determine that?
You can’t go by “group” match result because if you happen to be on a team with a healer or broken meta build then your results would be skewed by their performance.
You can’t go by individual stats because many of the PvP contents don’t score properly. For example, players aren’t rewarded points for guarding their Relic OR by fighting to defend their Ball carrier, and even though those are critical contributions they aren’t recorded in individual player stats. Meanwhile, the ones who ignore the objectives and just go run off to grab kills are rewarded so this is moot.
You can’t go by CP because you’ve got lots of players who focus more on PvE content and only dabble in PvP for the resource rewards so their level isn’t reflective of any true experience in PvP …
You can’t go by kills or TTK because everyone’s slotting either Assassin’s Blade, or Merciless Resolve, or Mages Wrath to snatch kills. So while in the past players couldn’t just lean on spamming executes, they can now.
So how would one match make? This is why matchmaking is broken as it is, because there’s no real; true, way to put solid groups together based on any of those metrics.
You can’t use results based measures in this game to match make. We need to use something else.
I already talked about this when pointing out that there are no metrics other than KDA and healing value. For mmr eso is too complicated to match make compared to a game like overwatch which has flat expected values for similar defined characters. In those games Healers do X, Damage dealers output Y, Tanks block Z.......ESO you can go anywhere between X,Y, and Z. So you have to ignore the system entirely and use only the output of the system which is KDA. Healing is an extra which could simply be a saved variable after every match to help balance the teams once the players are matched together.
This is still incredibly fundamentally flawed and would not provide the results you’re advocating for.
KDA in ESO PvP isn’t experienced based so you’d never get proper matchmaking.
Using a results based approach is what they do now and it just doesn’t work.
This is why, IMO, it’s more realistic to just go a different route. Rather than trying to skill based matchmake when you have no skill based metrics; just use something else.
It’s not complicated, it’s just that MRR simply doesn’t work anymore. ESO has been over developed beyond a point where a system like that will ever actually “work”.
Nobody is saying ESO should matchmake like Overwatch. My idea would see ESO balancing out builds on an individual basis for PvP. Basically, no more metas.
This solves a lot of your problems with spawn camping or abusing existing PvP game mechanics.
And it’s not even complicated, it’s been done in RPGs before. It’s not a new concept nor is it hard to do.0 -
ruskiii✭✭✭
I do believe population is small enough that your mmr system would need to constantly grab players of vastly different skill levels, so let's lean on other mechanics.MincMincMinc wrote: »So if the matchmaking search had to expand enough it would still put players of vastly different skill levels in the same matches, right?
Yes, (...) Even if the population of bgs collapsed to say 30 people, the MMR system would still function, but in these more niche scenarios you would then start leaning on other mechanics to prevent issues.
I'm guessing you are PC EU? The PC NA BG population has been in a remarkably healthy place recently. We started a BG guild and filled it 500/500 in 3 months. Unlisted guild, invite only to decent BG players. Honestly suprised me how many active BG players we have. Always assumed the population was somewhere between 50-100, but I guess I was wrong about that.Edited by ruskiii on August 25, 2025 10:15PM0 -
ruskiii✭✭✭
This is still incredibly fundamentally flawed and would not provide the results you’re advocating for.
KDA in ESO PvP isn’t experienced based so you’d never get proper matchmaking.
Using a results based approach is what they do now and it just doesn’t work.
This is why, IMO, it’s more realistic to just go a different route. Rather than trying to skill based matchmake when you have no skill based metrics; just use something else.
It’s not complicated, it’s just that MRR simply doesn’t work anymore. ESO has been over developed beyond a point where a system like that will ever actually “work”.
Nobody is saying ESO should matchmake like Overwatch. My idea would see ESO balancing out builds on an individual basis for PvP. Basically, no more metas.
This solves a lot of your problems with spawn camping or abusing existing PvP game mechanics.
And it’s not even complicated, it’s been done in RPGs before. It’s not a new concept nor is it hard to do.
"Balancing out builds" so there's "no more METAs". Sounds like an extreme cut to the skill cieling, and dumbing down a key part of ESO PVP: build diversity.
You are saying MMR doesn't work anymore, but for the past 10 months or so since U44, it has been getting reset every month, not having enough time to create defined MMR tiers outside of the last week of the month where things do get noticeably better.
Also I'm interested in how you think KDA in ESO isn't skill based?
Edited by ruskiii on August 25, 2025 10:47PM1 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭MincMincMinc wrote: »
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing its existence, but we can talk about them later. Regarding your mmr idea, how many ranks?MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system.
You’re right.
The problem is that it’s impossible to tweak MRR the way people are suggesting.
There’s no real way to put players together of a similar experience base. How would one determine that?
You can’t go by “group” match result because if you happen to be on a team with a healer or broken meta build then your results would be skewed by their performance.
You can’t go by individual stats because many of the PvP contents don’t score properly. For example, players aren’t rewarded points for guarding their Relic OR by fighting to defend their Ball carrier, and even though those are critical contributions they aren’t recorded in individual player stats. Meanwhile, the ones who ignore the objectives and just go run off to grab kills are rewarded so this is moot.
You can’t go by CP because you’ve got lots of players who focus more on PvE content and only dabble in PvP for the resource rewards so their level isn’t reflective of any true experience in PvP …
You can’t go by kills or TTK because everyone’s slotting either Assassin’s Blade, or Merciless Resolve, or Mages Wrath to snatch kills. So while in the past players couldn’t just lean on spamming executes, they can now.
So how would one match make? This is why matchmaking is broken as it is, because there’s no real; true, way to put solid groups together based on any of those metrics.
You can’t use results based measures in this game to match make. We need to use something else.
I already talked about this when pointing out that there are no metrics other than KDA and healing value. For mmr eso is too complicated to match make compared to a game like overwatch which has flat expected values for similar defined characters. In those games Healers do X, Damage dealers output Y, Tanks block Z.......ESO you can go anywhere between X,Y, and Z. So you have to ignore the system entirely and use only the output of the system which is KDA. Healing is an extra which could simply be a saved variable after every match to help balance the teams once the players are matched together.
This is still incredibly fundamentally flawed and would not provide the results you’re advocating for.
KDA in ESO PvP isn’t experienced based so you’d never get proper matchmaking.
Using a results based approach is what they do now and it just doesn’t work.
This is why, IMO, it’s more realistic to just go a different route. Rather than trying to skill based matchmake when you have no skill based metrics; just use something else.
It’s not complicated, it’s just that MRR simply doesn’t work anymore. ESO has been over developed beyond a point where a system like that will ever actually “work”.
Nobody is saying ESO should matchmake like Overwatch. My idea would see ESO balancing out builds on an individual basis for PvP. Basically, no more metas.
This solves a lot of your problems with spawn camping or abusing existing PvP game mechanics.
And it’s not even complicated, it’s been done in RPGs before. It’s not a new concept nor is it hard to do.
How is KDA not a reflection of player skill? The only thing it doesnt encompass is tanking, which is basically a gimmick in eso pvp.
The "results" based approach is to simply add up your scoreboard points based on the nonsensical objective scoring....that's why it doesn't work. On top of the system being flawed, they reset the mmr so it is even worse. At least if it was constant you could separate out the newer players so they may dip their toes without sharks eating them alive.
Do you really think they can balance out builds and evaluate players based on them? Why haven't they balanced builds out over the past 10 years? It is just not feasible. The current stat system is a joke in terms of balance or stat choice tension. There was some hope with hybridization, but they hardly even started doing it before quitting.
Can you re-clarify your concept and how it works?Zos should hire pvp consultants1