Will ZOS make BGs great again???

Freez6661 · August 29

Do you think they have any plans to improve BGs? I've never experienced more boring BGs in TESO.

I'm sick of:

- The most boring BGs ever in general. Map design is mediocre this problem is HUGE and also t's like how many? 3-4 maps? remember how it was before when they had like maybe 8 maps? and they were diverse. Why not to bring back old ones and keep new ones too? why I have to play same 3 maps over and over again. Is it biggest mmorpg or small indie?

- What's up with those small cages you put us to fight in for 4x4 mode? 10+ years of game support and development and you came up with this? I'm not even mention that 8x8 designed so bad that some lobbies turn that mode into 'ball groups' so you can't do ANYTHING. 8 players in 1 team is too much.

- What made you think that 2 teams is a great idea? back in a days it was 3 teams and if 1 team was bad at least we could fight against the other team. Fights were WAAAAY more interesting.

- At least one AFK player in 90% of my games. PVE players doing daily quest in 99% of my games. I can't kick them and I can't report them.

- 3 mil. heals by just 1 player. Full crossheals lobbies where 2 teams fight but can't kill each other (it's really that moment in your game when developers should pay attention to crossheals and finally nerf it so PVP could feel like PVP again, not PVE)

- What's up with group que? Can't find BG as a duo with my friend ever friday night. I'm not even saying about the way it balance groups. I can have 5-6 useless afk pve bots and the other team gonna have pure PVP monsters. Can't you compare players by damage maybe or something. Not that hard.

Moonspawn · August 29

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.

Bogaisha · September 1

4v4v4 was better. The more recent push to try to shoehorn 8 in as the magic number for team size in PvP is just awkward since the game was always balanced for 4v4, and that's why the only PvP tournament hosted by ZoS at QuakeCon was a 4v4. However, it wasn't merit-based or open-invite sadly. The short-lived days of ZoS trying to make ESO into an esport lol

Thumbless_Bot · September 2

Worth a read: https://www.thegamer.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-lead-pvp-designer-brian-wheeler-interview-update-44-battlegrounds/

It basically says why we are where we are. They want battlegrounds to be less intense.

Ulvich · September 2

First off, I have been here since the Beta testing in November 2013. Right after launch I wanted to check out every aspect of the game, which included battlegrounds. That was the last time I entered a BG until yesterday. I would think that after 10 years the ZoS would figure out the difference between and battleground and an arena. Because the two battlegrounds I entered into yesterday where nothing more then that. Just an arenas.
I remember during my WoW days we would fight it out in such places as Alterac Valley or Isle of Conquest. We had an open world to ride up and attack. We need something like these places.
Imagine Cyrodiil but on a much smaller scale. A fortress at either end with a boss, or flag to capture. The fortress can be breached by using Cyrodiil type siege. This is how I vision a battleground. Not this out of control arena style.
Also, guild battlegrounds. A place where guild members can compete against each other.

Islyn · September 2

IDK but any 'great again' stuff just makes me sick.

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Worth a read: https://www.thegamer.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-lead-pvp-designer-brian-wheeler-interview-update-44-battlegrounds/

It basically says why we are where we are. They want battlegrounds to be less intense.

WHY?

CameraBeardThePirate · September 2

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Worth a read: https://www.thegamer.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-lead-pvp-designer-brian-wheeler-interview-update-44-battlegrounds/

It basically says why we are where we are. They want battlegrounds to be less intense.

Tragic honestly. The more standardized PvP environments like BGs should be the more serious/competitive environment.

xylena_lazarow · September 2

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Worth a read: https://www.thegamer.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-lead-pvp-designer-brian-wheeler-interview-update-44-battlegrounds/

It basically says why we are where we are. They want battlegrounds to be less intense.

Not exactly. He wants to make it less punishing. There are good and bad ways to do this.

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

The more standardized PvP environments like BGs should be the more serious/competitive environment.

Questionable strat without a ladder and ELO type system, given past failures here. Personally, a big reason I've played ESO over more "serious" competitive games is specifically that I don't need to be "on" every millisecond of the 15 minutes, in ESO on average I can space out or take breaks without screwing over myself or my team.

MincMincMinc · September 2

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Worth a read: https://www.thegamer.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-lead-pvp-designer-brian-wheeler-interview-update-44-battlegrounds/

It basically says why we are where we are. They want battlegrounds to be less intense.

Not exactly. He wants to make it less punishing. There are good and bad ways to do this.

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

The more standardized PvP environments like BGs should be the more serious/competitive environment.

Questionable strat without a ladder and ELO type system, given past failures here. Personally, a big reason I've played ESO over more "serious" competitive games is specifically that I don't need to be "on" every millisecond of the 15 minutes, in ESO on average I can space out or take breaks without screwing over myself or my team.

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Worth a read: https://www.thegamer.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-lead-pvp-designer-brian-wheeler-interview-update-44-battlegrounds/

It basically says why we are where we are. They want battlegrounds to be less intense.

The funny part is that everything they are pointing out about being too intense has to do with the actual combat issues in the game and not bg format at all.

IMO I see no reason to not have 2 team and 3 team. The difference there is so minimal to the experience compared to mmr and the power gap between vet and new players. If anything like they said having more players makes your individual impact less....so why not 8v8v8? Why not 12v12v12?

xylena_lazarow · September 2

MincMincMinc wrote: »

The funny part is that everything they are pointing out about being too intense has to do with the actual combat issues in the game and not bg format at all.

A couple other funny parts: He talked about number of players per side making it more punishing, a problem that's only exacerbated by the unviable 4v4 random format. He acknowledges that the 8v8 is the best places for noobs/casuals, yet they keep signing up for 4v4 "competitive" just because it's the default option at the top.

MincMincMinc · September 2

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

The funny part is that everything they are pointing out about being too intense has to do with the actual combat issues in the game and not bg format at all.

A couple other funny parts: He talked about number of players per side making it more punishing, a problem that's only exacerbated by the unviable 4v4 random format. He acknowledges that the 8v8 is the best places for noobs/casuals, yet they keep signing up for 4v4 "competitive" just because it's the default option at the top.

same goes for greyhost where lvl10 players are directed to enter vet laggy ballgroup pvp isntead of the u50 campaign that is now beyond dead.

It'd do more good to make a learning environment for people under 500cp or something. Where they literally cant que into something else by accident.

Ulvich · September 2

I find it disheartening that ZoS would miss their calling on such a viable aspect as PvP. These so-called battlegrounds can be whole lot better (and popular) if only some thought was put into them.
Make the battlegrounds appealing and exciting to venture into. Not dull and boring.
It's discouraging to sit in a queue for an hour because not enough people want to enter. This is one reason we need battlegrounds for guilds (as I mentioned earlier). I'm sure there would be enough then to get things going. We have this for dungeons and trials, so why not battlegrounds?

Thumbless_Bot · September 2

MincMincMinc wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Worth a read: https://www.thegamer.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-lead-pvp-designer-brian-wheeler-interview-update-44-battlegrounds/

It basically says why we are where we are. They want battlegrounds to be less intense.

Not exactly. He wants to make it less punishing. There are good and bad ways to do this.

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

The more standardized PvP environments like BGs should be the more serious/competitive environment.

Questionable strat without a ladder and ELO type system, given past failures here. Personally, a big reason I've played ESO over more "serious" competitive games is specifically that I don't need to be "on" every millisecond of the 15 minutes, in ESO on average I can space out or take breaks without screwing over myself or my team.

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Worth a read: https://www.thegamer.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-lead-pvp-designer-brian-wheeler-interview-update-44-battlegrounds/

It basically says why we are where we are. They want battlegrounds to be less intense.

The funny part is that everything they are pointing out about being too intense has to do with the actual combat issues in the game and not bg format at all.

IMO I see no reason to not have 2 team and 3 team. The difference there is so minimal to the experience compared to mmr and the power gap between vet and new players. If anything like they said having more players makes your individual impact less....so why not 8v8v8? Why not 12v12v12?

It's just not the pvp I am used nor is it the pvp I want. I think a lot of people feel the same. These new bgs have been a terrible experience....

If customers want/wanted a less intense pvp experience they have and had options already.
.
Now the people who want real pvp are out of luck. Zos basically excluded an entire section of their pvp user base with this change and they did it intentionally. I cant wrap my head around that.

xylena_lazarow · September 3

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Now the people who want real pvp are out of luck. Zos basically excluded an entire section of their pvp user base with this change and they did it intentionally. I cant wrap my head around that.

Easy. This "entire section" was actually a very tiny number of players, and was continuing to shrink.

What exactly is "real pvp" though? Ladder with ELO? Cash tournament? IRL sports?

Freelancer_ESO · September 3

Moonspawn wrote: »

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.

I think you'd run into the issue that players might not love some of the solution options.

You could change the condition of the daily reward to be based of a player's personal contribution to the matches rather than just winning. (You'd probably need to play around with some of the less point rewarding modes)

You could change the eligibility for the Competitive and the Casual mode so that players with a low KDR and low winrate could not play in Solo Competitive and players with a high winrate or high KDR couldn't play in Solo Casual. (You'd want to also change the UI to display both Competitive and Casual if the player is able to participate in both and just one of the options if only one is open to them.)

You could have wards around the spawn areas in the modes with spawn camping issues that will buff the defenders that have recently spawned and have the power ups in non-competitive modes only be available to the team that is losing. (You'd likely want to boot people out of the spawn area a bit faster if you are enhancing their capabilities near spawn)

Thumbless_Bot · September 3

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Now the people who want real pvp are out of luck. Zos basically excluded an entire section of their pvp user base with this change and they did it intentionally. I cant wrap my head around that.

Easy. This "entire section" was actually a very tiny number of players, and was continuing to shrink.

What exactly is "real pvp" though? Ladder with ELO? Cash tournament? IRL sports?

Real pvp is discussed by Mr. Wheeler in the article I linked above as well as the reasons why zos decided to move away from it. Which is why i referenced it. Read it again, or for the first time maybe. Dont know, dont care. Your answer is there. If you can't discern what I mean from there i dont know what to tell you. I dont believe a reasonable or reasonably intelligent person who read the article would ask this queation nor would they have this question in their mind if they were acting in good faith.

Your comment on size of the sweaty population does nothing to either refute my argument or further the discussion on that topic. It's just inflammatory and sad.

I am not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. Go find another sounding board to bounce back and forth with.

Zos, give the sweats theirn3 team, intense bgs back. Dont care if I have longer queue times. Dont care if 2 teams have longer queue times. At least we will all get to play the game we want to play. That cant be a bad thing and is a great comprimise.