@MincMincMinc do you see any problem with the way Capture the Relic could be revamped to encourage fighting? Don't know if you realized, but it would basically be a variation of Deathmatch guaranteed to never stalemate, since the relic's debuff eventually shuts down any form of healing.

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc do you see any problem with the way Capture the Relic could be revamped to encourage fighting? Don't know if you realized, but it would basically be a variation of Deathmatch guaranteed to never stalemate, since the relic's debuff eventually shuts down any form of healing.

No that could work. It kinda makes me think of a protect the VIP gamemode from older games.

I think an inverse game mode of capture the relic would work better in the two sided team format. For instance imagine if your teams have bombs that spawn and you have to deliver it to the enemy's base. This way instead of hiding and camping afk, you actually force teams into each other. Or a single bomb in the middle of the map spawns an you have to walk it slowly to the enemy base. Think of something like Sabatoge from old Modern Warfare.

Really its just that you need gamemodes that entice people to actually fight, with current game modes it boils down to who runs away and avoids fighting.

• Chaos ball rewards players who grab the ball and AFK at base
• CTF rewards players who avoid fighting and sprint flags all game
• Crazy king rewards players who avoid fighting and run to the flags uncontested.
• Deathmatch is the only gamemode where fighting puts you undeniably at an advantage.....because it literally is the gamemode.

Assuming Zenimax ever decides to spend the time (maybe two weeks?) it would take to revamp all of the three-sided objective modes, and we're granted these incredible gifts:
Chaosball >> Deathmatch with chaosball.
Crazy King >> Deathmatch with flags.
Domination >> Deathmatch all around, probably the closest we can get to a free for all.
Capture the Relic >> Deathmatch with training wheels.

Do you honestly believe anyone would still choose to play two-teams?

Moonspawn wrote: »

Assuming Zenimax ever decides to spend the time (maybe two weeks?) it would take to revamp all of the three-sided objective modes, and we're granted these incredible gifts:
Chaosball >> Deathmatch with chaosball.
Crazy King >> Deathmatch with flags.
Domination >> Deathmatch all around, probably the closest we can get to a free for all.
Capture the Relic >> Deathmatch with training wheels.

First of all its ZOS. I would be seriously surprised if they managed to make changes like that within a year.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Do you honestly believe anyone would still choose to play two-teams?

Second, yes absolutely.

i just tire of the other team instantly spawn camping, where youre dead before you hit the ground when you drop down the ledge... last match, the match began and within 5 seconds the entire enemy team of invisible lightning guys spamming AOE at our spawn before we even had a chance to group and move out... it was chaos ball, and the entire enemy team ignored the balls and tried to lock us in the spawn area... domination is not much different... im at the point any time it happens, i just drop the match, switch characters, and wait the 20 minute queue all over again... im starting to think the daily BG reward just is not worth the frustration anymore...

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

i just tire of the other team instantly spawn camping, where youre dead before you hit the ground when you drop down the ledge... last match, the match began and within 5 seconds the entire enemy team of invisible lightning guys spamming AOE at our spawn before we even had a chance to group and move out... it was chaos ball, and the entire enemy team ignored the balls and tried to lock us in the spawn area... domination is not much different... im at the point any time it happens, i just drop the match, switch characters, and wait the 20 minute queue all over again... im starting to think the daily BG reward just is not worth the frustration anymore...

@Unholy_Holywarrior There are four main reasons two-teams BGs are so much harder to balance than 4v4v4. Do you think you can help solve them? The only solution I could come up with is to go back to three-teams.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Assuming Zenimax ever decides to spend the time (maybe two weeks?) it would take to revamp all of the three-sided objective modes, and we're granted these incredible gifts:
Chaosball >> Deathmatch with chaosball.
Crazy King >> Deathmatch with flags.
Domination >> Deathmatch all around, probably the closest we can get to a free for all.
Capture the Relic >> Deathmatch with training wheels.

The problem with this is... many players do NOT want deathmatch at all. Which is why one or two years ago the deathmatch only BG's test failed, too few players queue'd up for those. Add to that the fact that most casuals now have a hard time getting the daily BG exp(two teams), and have no fun getting that daily bonus(spawn camping/instant-deaths/etc), and we have a recipe for empty BG's again. Tactics are a part of PvP as well, yet this tactics part always seems to get stripped away from PvP due to 'PvPers' who only want to combat other players without any distractions or thought behind it.

The only way to make BG's more popular, is to get casuals to play these. And that is NOT going to work with deathmatch(both two and three teams), with the current damage/gear/survivability gap, and without more reasons to play BG's(hard to get daily exp due to two teams/no fun in two teams/etc).

In practically any other (MMO)-game players can jump in and PvP at ANY point while still being competitive, as their PvP modes are basically about skill alone and there are no major gaps in power or survivability between players. ESO's PvP needs to be like that for it to ever be able to hold a large enough population of regular players to sustain BGs!

Above all, BGs need to be fun for everyone!

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Sarannah wrote: »

In practically any other (MMO)-game players can jump in and PvP at ANY point while still being competitive, as their PvP modes are basically about skill alone and there are no major gaps in power or survivability between players. ESO's PvP needs to be like that for it to ever be able to hold a large enough population of regular players to sustain BGs!

Above all, BGs need to be fun for everyone!

This is kind of a big issue with horizontal progression and lack of power creep foresight. Everytime the game balances maybe you reign things in. However, every system you add only increases your possible workload. At the same time, continuing to add choices can further add to stats.

Look at a stat like movement speed, which in any game should not be allowed to endlessly power creep. From the start there should be an average speed in mind based on skill ranges, map size, player model size, etc. Look now adays we have way more choices to grab movement speed, but they never toned down other choices.

If before we had 100% up to say 130% if you make 2 possible choices
Say we now have 4 possible choices.....we should still only reach that 130% mark
Say we now have 6 possible choices.....we should still only reach that 130% mark

Instead zos keeps expanding the power difference so those 6 choices now bring you closer to the 190% mark (rough example, we can do the actual math if anyone really cares)

I agree here. I think what you’re saying goes to the underlying root of the issues. Power creep and severe imbalances are only possible because developer mechanics allow for it.

Sure there’s always going to be a skill factor but we have mechanics in BGs that make it hard to differentiate between actual skill & just cheese.

Revamping MMR will work but I also think it will prolong the inevitable. Once your lower MMR stat players start to reach the skilled / cheese players then the mechanical differences will become evident to the player again; almost like there’s going to be a cliff out there somewhere.

In order for this to work long term we have to do some thing about the metas because as is, once a player reaches that point in MMR their choice will simply be to either respec to the meta or lose.

At that point it’s just “matches of metas” which kills build diversity.

I agree, ZoS should make the MMR adjustment but there more they’re going to need to do past that.

Haki_7 wrote: »

Green: 1,2,3,5,6
Orange: 1,2,3,4
Assigning each of these players to a team of newcomers in 3-sided BGs: Unpredictable and fun for everyone.
Doing the exact same thing in 2-sided BGs: Disaster.
Why?
1. 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.
3. Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.
4. People just give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place.´

Spamming these kinds of messages doesn't make them any less inaccurate, I hope you're aware of that.

1. As a "BG regular" I have no problem using my team against the opponent team and positioning/target selection matters just as much as it always does. If I want to engage another "BG regular" because let's say they're a squishy healer or they annoy me I can do so with ease, as I'm sure you've noticed in your EU BGs.
2. This is the number after 1.
3. Spawncamping has always been encouraged and is created by poor matchmaking and people being able to camp in spawn - it's as simple as that. ESO has wave based respawns, just kick people down from spawn after 10 seconds rather than 2 minutes and there'll be a lot less camping and a lot more fighting. A lot less griefing own team mates as well (and everyone else in a BG).
4. If rewards are that important just give a participation trophy (the daily box/xp) for everyone, simple as that. Winning should work to advance MMR (which should be a visible, functional system), which would grant its own rewards.

MincMincMinc wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Sarannah wrote: »

In practically any other (MMO)-game players can jump in and PvP at ANY point while still being competitive, as their PvP modes are basically about skill alone and there are no major gaps in power or survivability between players. ESO's PvP needs to be like that for it to ever be able to hold a large enough population of regular players to sustain BGs!

Above all, BGs need to be fun for everyone!

This is kind of a big issue with horizontal progression and lack of power creep foresight. Everytime the game balances maybe you reign things in. However, every system you add only increases your possible workload. At the same time, continuing to add choices can further add to stats.

Look at a stat like movement speed, which in any game should not be allowed to endlessly power creep. From the start there should be an average speed in mind based on skill ranges, map size, player model size, etc. Look now adays we have way more choices to grab movement speed, but they never toned down other choices.

If before we had 100% up to say 130% if you make 2 possible choices
Say we now have 4 possible choices.....we should still only reach that 130% mark
Say we now have 6 possible choices.....we should still only reach that 130% mark

Instead zos keeps expanding the power difference so those 6 choices now bring you closer to the 190% mark (rough example, we can do the actual math if anyone really cares)

Revamping MMR will work but I also think it will prolong the inevitable. Once your lower MMR stat players start to reach the skilled / cheese players then the mechanical differences will become evident to the player again; almost like there’s going to be a cliff out there somewhere.

In order for this to work long term we have to do some thing about the metas because as is, once a player reaches that point in MMR their choice will simply be to either respec to the meta or lose.

At that point it’s just “matches of metas” which kills build diversity.

I agree, ZoS should make the MMR adjustment but there more they’re going to need to do past that.

Ok you picked up on an important thing, is this bad or a good thing?

So a constant running mmr would split the playerbase in the following way:

Noob...................Vet PvPer......................Meta VetPvPer

So yes a vet pvper will lose and be below meta vet pvpers on the ladder. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Not really, it could be more beneficial in fact. If I prefer to stay out of the meta soup, I would stay fighting more similar players that fight how I prefer as well. Maybe I enjoy the meta pvp setups and dont mind going cheese for cheese to reach for the top.

I can see that. If MMR works the way we think the Vet PvPer stats should keep the noobs well enough below the metas to prevent them getting steam rolled and at least able to develop some experience.

But this also means that the Vet PvPers will ultimately “yo yo” between their MMR peer group and the Metas. As their stats inevitably change over time they’ll end up in the lower tier mix of the Metas, for some undetermined period of time, until MMR ranks them back with Vet PvPers after numerous squashes.

This interval rotation of Vet PvP population could end up being cannon fodder feed for the Meta group; being a continuous, rotating, source of body meat for BG matches.

This I think particular outcome is a bad thing and it’s not something that would happen in the initial which is why I think the move would work in the short term to give us the baseline result; but in a matter of time this is where I see MMR evolving as numbers and stats evolve.

It would give the Devs time to look at addressing the meta & power creep issue.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Disregarding the handful of individuals that can't handle being targeted by pvpers

Interesting response, considering how quickly you backed down when targeted by a PvPer.



Your energy would be better put towards a dedicated DM queue.

Decimus wrote: »

Either way, both of these issues would be solved by a proper MMR system.

Proper matchmaking is supposedly one of the hardest problems for game devs to solve. In the absence, splitting into an objective queue and a DM queue would effectively be a casual/sweaty split, a crude imperfect solution, but you can't tell me the DM queue wouldn't immediately get a rep as the sweatlord queue.

But ZOS makes PVP changes once every 10 years, lets see if ESO is still around in 10 years time for the next changes.

But seriously, they need to sort out the latency issues first before they continue tweaking game modes. Its horrendous most days.

The other issue is poor match making. 3 teams of 4 players had closer outcomes than 8v8. I have played hundreds of BGs and in the past 3 months I have only seen half a dozen that were close and only won in the last minute. A few draws with CTR but mostly 1 sided wins and spawn camping "yaawn"

SalamanNZ wrote: »

But ZOS makes PVP changes once every 10 years, lets see if ESO is still around in 10 years time for the next changes.

But seriously, they need to sort out the latency issues first before they continue tweaking game modes. Its horrendous most days.

The other issue is poor match making. 3 teams of 4 players had closer outcomes than 8v8. I have played hundreds of BGs and in the past 3 months I have only seen half a dozen that were close and only won in the last minute. A few draws with CTR but mostly 1 sided wins and spawn camping "yaawn"

Well back during the 3 team bgs we at least had a better functioning MMR system. Now a days it hardly works since it resets so much it might as well not exist. @ZOS_Kevin had said that he will be sure to bring this up with the pvp team in this week's meeting.

Still, IMO the game is too complicated already and the horizontal progression build wise has drastically made a gap between newer and vet players that the only MMR system that should exist will have to be VERY simple. The game isn't tailored and close knit enough to have a complex system.......... Figure out what the best output metric is and go off of that. >>> I would suggest based on KDA and thats really it. The BG objective score leaderboard should be its own separate reward structure and not tied to MMR at all.