Future of Battlegrounds

Haki_7 · August 31

No one wanted to play the objective, not even to extend the match. Just mindless spawncamping for no rhyme or reason.
Green: 1,3,5,6,7
Orange: 3,4,6,7
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.

''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.''

Moonspawn · August 31

Updated the thread with the reasons spawncamping is encouraged in the two-sided format:

Spawncamping in a 3-sided match meant leaving your teammates outnumbered against the third team. Doing the same thing in 2-sided gives your own team the numerical advantage.
If PvPers on both sides perceive the newfound usefulness of spawncamping, there's a decent chance they'll spend the entire match on opposite ends of the map. Not having to fight each other makes the practice even easier.
It's no longer possible to use one team against another to escape the sandwich.

xylena_lazarow · August 31

Haki_7 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.

Really easy for me in 3s to go 10-0-X killing the same guy 10 times in between running and hiding like a rat, drawing little to no aggro at all. It's significantly harder to avoid aggro like that in 2s. Maybe 3s would work better in small arenas.

Unholy_Holywarrior · August 31

i hope they seriously remove 'capture the relic' from pvp queue rotation... i utterly detest that mode, it should be removed like they did that one mode where you can only respawn twice and have to spectate the rest of the match...

the issue ive seen with relic games, if your team doesnt score first, the next 20 mins is a complete waste of time, 90% of the time. every relic match i play comes down to who can spawn lock the other team first. its not fun, there is very little chance to turn the tides of a match with current meta of invincible, invisible lightning guys teleport stunning everywhere

also another thing what i think needs to be retooled is waiting 20 minutes in queue, to join a horrible losing match already in progress, with no hope of winning beyond the point of turning it around. seriously, joining those kinds of matches several times in a row, makes me quit the pvp battlegrounds grind for the day...

Thumbless_Bot · August 31

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

i hope they seriously remove 'capture the relic' from pvp queue rotation... i utterly detest that mode, it should be removed like they did that one mode where you can only respawn twice and have to spectate the rest of the match...

the issue ive seen with relic games, if your team doesnt score first, the next 20 mins is a complete waste of time, 90% of the time. every relic match i play comes down to who can spawn lock the other team first. its not fun, there is very little chance to turn the tides of a match with current meta of invincible, invisible lightning guys teleport stunning everywhere

also another thing what i think needs to be retooled is waiting 20 minutes in queue, to join a horrible losing match already in progress, with no hope of winning beyond the point of turning it around. seriously, joining those kinds of matches several times in a row, makes me quit the pvp battlegrounds grind for the day...

I am pretty sure the respawn twice thing still exists. It is 4v4 death match. Don't do 4s much any more so not certain.

Some people really enjoy relic. I am against removing content people enjoy.

I think the answer is to allow people the ability to queue for the mode(s) they want. You know, play the way you want and all that jazz. You might have to wait longer to get a game, maybe not, but at least you'll get a game you actually want to play. Could be like dungeon queues. If you want to run x dungeon you might have to wait, especially if you're not a tank, but you get the content you want. You could also queue into any bg, just like any dungeon, for the daily bonus and xp.

Unholy_Holywarrior · August 31

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

i hope they seriously remove 'capture the relic' from pvp queue rotation... i utterly detest that mode, it should be removed like they did that one mode where you can only respawn twice and have to spectate the rest of the match...

the issue ive seen with relic games, if your team doesnt score first, the next 20 mins is a complete waste of time, 90% of the time. every relic match i play comes down to who can spawn lock the other team first. its not fun, there is very little chance to turn the tides of a match with current meta of invincible, invisible lightning guys teleport stunning everywhere

also another thing what i think needs to be retooled is waiting 20 minutes in queue, to join a horrible losing match already in progress, with no hope of winning beyond the point of turning it around. seriously, joining those kinds of matches several times in a row, makes me quit the pvp battlegrounds grind for the day...

I am pretty sure the respawn twice thing still exists. It is 4v4 death match. Don't do 4s much any more so not certain.

Some people really enjoy relic. I am against removing content people enjoy.

I think the answer is to allow people the ability to queue for the mode(s) they want. You know, play the way you want and all that jazz. You might have to wait longer to get a game, maybe not, but at least you'll get a game you actually want to play. Could be like dungeon queues. If you want to run x dungeon you might have to wait, especially if you're not a tank, but you get the content you want. You could also queue into any bg, just like any dungeon, for the daily bonus and xp.

and i simply drop the match anytime i load in to a relic match. i simply do not enjoy it. mmr, if it means anything, be damned.

Moonspawn · September 1

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

i hope they seriously remove 'capture the relic' from pvp queue rotation... i utterly detest that mode, it should be removed like they did that one mode where you can only respawn twice and have to spectate the rest of the match...

the issue ive seen with relic games, if your team doesnt score first, the next 20 mins is a complete waste of time, 90% of the time. every relic match i play comes down to who can spawn lock the other team first. its not fun, there is very little chance to turn the tides of a match with current meta of invincible, invisible lightning guys teleport stunning everywhere

also another thing what i think needs to be retooled is waiting 20 minutes in queue, to join a horrible losing match already in progress, with no hope of winning beyond the point of turning it around. seriously, joining those kinds of matches several times in a row, makes me quit the pvp battlegrounds grind for the day...

I am pretty sure the respawn twice thing still exists. It is 4v4 death match. Don't do 4s much any more so not certain.

Some people really enjoy relic. I am against removing content people enjoy.

I think the answer is to allow people the ability to queue for the mode(s) they want. You know, play the way you want and all that jazz. You might have to wait longer to get a game, maybe not, but at least you'll get a game you actually want to play. Could be like dungeon queues. If you want to run x dungeon you might have to wait, especially if you're not a tank, but you get the content you want. You could also queue into any bg, just like any dungeon, for the daily bonus and xp.

and i simply drop the match anytime i load in to a relic match. i simply do not enjoy it. mmr, if it means anything, be damned.

@Unholy_Holywarrior Would you play Capture the Relic if it was revamped in this way? https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8362882#Comment_8362882

Haki_7 · September 1

Standard 8v8 Deathmatch. Once again, promptly giving up after a single bomb.

''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.''

Moonspawn · September 1

Haki_7 wrote: »

No one wanted to play the objective, not even to extend the match. Just mindless spawncamping for no rhyme or reason.
Green: 1,3,5,6,7
Orange: 3,4,6,7
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.

''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.''

Perhaps it was quicker to let the opponents win the lopsided nightmare because they were already ahead.

Giraffon · September 2

I don't see anyone talking about the possibility that some players might be manipulating things in order to somehow have what is effectively a premade group going into a battleground. What I see day after day is extremely lopsided matches where one team seems to work like a well oiled machine with the sole purpose of racking up as many kills as possible and the other team is just there for target practice. Objectives be damned.

Oh, and there's no randomness to the match type either. When these groups of players are active, you will queue into the same match type over and over and over and over. It's not random. I suspect the organized group have all agreed to queue into a specific type of match and then somehow they are always on the same team with each other while people that queue into a random are just sent to them to fill in the match and thus become target practice.

I know this sounds like a lot of speculation, but if you play BGs enough, you will see this pattern.

You want to give Battlegrounds a future? Fix this.

Moonspawn · September 2

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn 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.

Ok so assuming that mixing high and low MMR players is inevitable, we need to find ways to make the three-sided objective modes fun for everyone, regardless of skill level.

Here's how I'd fix Domination and Crazy King:
Reduce the amount of points each flag gives per tick. Domination from 8 to 4, Crazy King from 8 to 6.

Modify flags to require a minimum of two players to be fully captured. Solo players would still be able to hinder the opponents' progress by turning them white, but running around without even drawing weapons would no longer be the ultimate winning strategy.

Even in the worst case scenario (two teams fight while the third flips all remaining flags uncontested), it would be impossible to end any of these matches in less than 10 minutes.
@MincMincMinc Do you see any problem with these changes?

No that makes sense. Really its more like zos just needs to tune the games to be a standard duration. No matter the game mode you shouldnt be able to end it objectively in 2 mins, when other games are 15mins full duration.

Things like chaos ball being held at spawn, why not make it only held in a designated area so they are more prone to actually fighting over it?

3 team CTF is probably the hardest to deal with. Nothing to stop the third team from running 5 flags uncontested within a minute if they really wanted to. Youd probably have to require them to capture both enemy flags in order to gain points. CTF is really more of a two sided gamemode.

Crazy king also shouldn't be spamming uncontested flags all over the place, incentivizing people to not pvp

Two objective modes down, two to go. I'm leaving CTF for last, but there is a plan for that too.

Chaosball

PROBLEMS
Ball carrier could move around the map at high speed. Would be all but impossible to catch.

Players could take the ball to cheesy places where they couldn't be damaged OR where you had to give up your life to damage them.

SOLUTIONS
Reduce ball carrier speed by 30%

Fix cheesy places.

Anything missing?

To fix cheesy places I think you are better off suggesting to make a delivery location or a general location on the map to hold the chaos ball to get points.

Being able to hold the ball under your own spawn is an issue and leads to players just standing around instead of actually fighting.

Wouldn't it be better for the ball carrier to move slowly around the map instead of staying still? Haki mentioned something similar earlier. By moving away in a 3-sided fight he could force the other two teams into the same space, where they would be vulnerable to ult dumps AND to each other.

Well the movement speed reduction is fine. Honestly if they saw they should prevent streak.....they should prevent any movement bonuses like major/minor or any other speed buff from the base movement speed. Then you wouldn't need the fake snare.

But what im suggesting is to prevent players from just holding under their own spawn in a heavily advantageous position. Make them have to hold the chaos ball in the center of the map where it can be contested. Or make checkpoints you have to walk through to obtain points with the ball, so you literally can't cheese certain corners or ledges for points.

I know that fixing the cheesy spots would be a pain, but holding and defending specific locations is already the idea behind both Land Grab gamemodes, especially Crazy King. It would be nice if Chaosball had a different one.

Haki_7 · September 2

Pit Daemons: 1,3,4,5,6,7
Fire Drakes: 1,3,4,5,6
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: Horrific nightmare.

''3. Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.''

i11ionward · September 2

I don’t think anyone has brought this up yet, but sometimes the new 8v8 just feels like zerg vs zerg. Most of the time it’s one giant cluster fight with almost no space for smaller skirmishes — or on the flip side, you suddenly get caught in a 1v8 and there’s nothing you can do.

With the old 4v4v4, you’d run into way more 1v2 or 2v2 fights, and that made it feel a lot closer to real small-scale PvP inside BGs. That’s the kind of gameplay I’m actually looking for.

Does anyone else miss that side of 4v4v4?

Moonspawn · September 2

i11ionward wrote: »

I don’t think anyone has brought this up yet, but sometimes the new 8v8 just feels like zerg vs zerg. Most of the time it’s one giant cluster fight with almost no space for smaller skirmishes — or on the flip side, you suddenly get caught in a 1v8 and there’s nothing you can do.

With the old 4v4v4, you’d run into way more 1v2 or 2v2 fights, and that made it feel a lot closer to real small-scale PvP inside BGs. That’s the kind of gameplay I’m actually looking for.

Does anyone else miss that side of 4v4v4?

You'd see a lot of 1v2 and 2v2 fights in 4v4v4 Domination if they made two small tweaks:

Reduce the amount of points each flag gives per tick. Domination from 8 to 4, Crazy King from 8 to 6.
Modify flags to require a minimum of two players to be fully captured. Solo players would still be able to hinder the opponents' progress by turning them white, but running around without even drawing weapons would no longer be the ultimate winning strategy.

Even in the worst case scenario (two teams fight while the third flips all remaining flags uncontested), it would be impossible to end any game in less than 10 minutes. Most matches would be small skirmishes all around for the full 15 minutes.

Moonspawn · September 2

Sarannah wrote: »

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!

@Sarannah But if we had unpredictable and competitive matches with the potential to be fun for everyone, regardless of skill level, then people would want to play them, yes?

Moonspawn · September 2

Giraffon wrote: »

I don't see anyone talking about the possibility that some players might be manipulating things in order to somehow have what is effectively a premade group going into a battleground. What I see day after day is extremely lopsided matches where one team seems to work like a well oiled machine with the sole purpose of racking up as many kills as possible and the other team is just there for target practice. Objectives be damned.

Oh, and there's no randomness to the match type either. When these groups of players are active, you will queue into the same match type over and over and over and over. It's not random. I suspect the organized group have all agreed to queue into a specific type of match and then somehow they are always on the same team with each other while people that queue into a random are just sent to them to fill in the match and thus become target practice.

I know this sounds like a lot of speculation, but if you play BGs enough, you will see this pattern.

You want to give Battlegrounds a future? Fix this.

Mostly static target order and no possibility to use one team against the other to change things up- whether to kill other pvpers or help teammates escape a sandwich. @Giraffon what platform are you on?

Haki_7 · September 3

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 92: Waiting 18 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/F4hGRVbYtjE

Giraffon · September 3

Moonspawn wrote: »

Giraffon wrote: »

I don't see anyone talking about the possibility that some players might be manipulating things in order to somehow have what is effectively a premade group going into a battleground. What I see day after day is extremely lopsided matches where one team seems to work like a well oiled machine with the sole purpose of racking up as many kills as possible and the other team is just there for target practice. Objectives be damned.

Oh, and there's no randomness to the match type either. When these groups of players are active, you will queue into the same match type over and over and over and over. It's not random. I suspect the organized group have all agreed to queue into a specific type of match and then somehow they are always on the same team with each other while people that queue into a random are just sent to them to fill in the match and thus become target practice.

I know this sounds like a lot of speculation, but if you play BGs enough, you will see this pattern.

You want to give Battlegrounds a future? Fix this.

Mostly static target order and no possibility to use one team against the other to change things up- whether to kill other pvpers or help teammates escape a sandwich. @Giraffon what platform are you on?

PC NA

Sarannah · September 3

Moonspawn wrote: »

Sarannah wrote: »

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!

@Sarannah But if we had unpredictable and competitive matches with the potential to be fun for everyone, regardless of skill level, then people would want to play them, yes?

That depends... If the PvP would be fun for everyone especially casuals, then yes more people would probably play BGs. This can be seen in other MMO's.

Not sure on these numbers, but I believe it was only 10% of the population who does any PvP at all. That means if ZOS can get even a small percentage of those other 90% into PvP, that would massively increase the PvP population.

Personally I would make a random casual PvP queue with random games and random rulesets. With capture the relic, crazy king, chaos ball, and some new chaotic 'PvP' modes like: Werewolf behemoth 8vs8, vampire lord 8vs8, some kind of PvP race where we can snare/CC but not harm other players(like the race in the greenshade's main story, first over the finishline wins), some kind of high ledge fall(where 4 players have to fall down a really long wall from ledge to ledge but players can blow others off to their deaths like the white gold tower boss does, first one down safely wins). Maybe come up with some more crazy PvP type modes(some of this stuff is already in the game).
Adding to all these PvP modes some completely random rulesets: Standard(as PvP works now), Survivor mode(1M+ hp per player for longer battles), Vengeance test1 ruleset(base PvP), Last Chance(die once and you are done), random two/three teams, etc.
So many modes and rulesets to come up with. Not every ruleset or game mode has to be player characters vs player characters.

Basically making the random games have random rulesets as well, not knowing what you may end up doing if your queue pops. While at the same time making PvP fun for everyone. Hopefully attracting more players.

Then once more players get into PvP, ZOS could expand the modes/rulesets and maybe even give PvP more content. But it has to be done by getting the casual players to enjoy PvP first. Otherwise it won't work.

MincMincMinc · September 3

Sarannah wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Sarannah wrote: »

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!

@Sarannah But if we had unpredictable and competitive matches with the potential to be fun for everyone, regardless of skill level, then people would want to play them, yes?

That depends... If the PvP would be fun for everyone especially casuals, then yes more people would probably play BGs. This can be seen in other MMO's.

Not sure on these numbers, but I believe it was only 10% of the population who does any PvP at all. That means if ZOS can get even a small percentage of those other 90% into PvP, that would massively increase the PvP population.

Do we really think the pvp population is only 10%?

Most games with an economy have about 10-15% bot accounts. Steamcharts say about 10k daily now adays. So that means we are at best 9k players. Split NA and EU for 4.5k each.

Cyrodil is about 300 players with a 30man que about half an hour long so 80/hr. Primetime for most is between 6pm est to 11pm est so about 5 hours so 300+30*3faction*5hrs*2halfhours = 1200 players entering and leaving LIVE cyrodil on PCNA a day or about 26% of the 4.5k

BGs are a bit harder to estimate, but the PCNA deathmatch guild run by Ruskii capped out within a month at 500 players. Average daily is about 300 of us login. So now we are at 1500 daily PvP specific players. or 33% of the actual playerbase.

Its much harder for us to estimate the more casual crowd of people that farm bg rewards daily. Considering how bad live cyrodil is, I would assume most of the casual playerbase is doing BGs to try out pvp. The game as a whole has split the endgame player strength so far away from the casual newbie strength that cyro is basically impossible to enter without having access to an endgame raid group to learn in. You could probably use the vengeance estimated numbers where they say they passed the original pvp tests of 1800 players on a server. Even if you assume 2/3 or 1k of the PvP playerbase participates, we are talking 800 pugs at least maybe double that by the time you factor in people leaving and entering per hour.

Not too far off to assume 33%-50%+ of the game's playerbase has some sort of interest in pvp content. If it were 10% zos would certainly not be investing half of the team for a year+ to be working on fixing it. Or at least If I had a company I wouldn't. After the shitshow that was subclassing, I am honestly still surprised vengeance wasn't abandoned. We should look for future subclassing designs as they work through the vengeance morphs and passives. Like looking for class passives that cant stack between classes.

Moonspawn · September 3

Giraffon wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Giraffon wrote: »

I don't see anyone talking about the possibility that some players might be manipulating things in order to somehow have what is effectively a premade group going into a battleground. What I see day after day is extremely lopsided matches where one team seems to work like a well oiled machine with the sole purpose of racking up as many kills as possible and the other team is just there for target practice. Objectives be damned.

Oh, and there's no randomness to the match type either. When these groups of players are active, you will queue into the same match type over and over and over and over. It's not random. I suspect the organized group have all agreed to queue into a specific type of match and then somehow they are always on the same team with each other while people that queue into a random are just sent to them to fill in the match and thus become target practice.

I know this sounds like a lot of speculation, but if you play BGs enough, you will see this pattern.

You want to give Battlegrounds a future? Fix this.

Mostly static target order and no possibility to use one team against the other to change things up- whether to kill other pvpers or help teammates escape a sandwich. @Giraffon what platform are you on?

PC NA

It's the slippery slope effect caused by 3 of the 4 abominations.

Moonspawn · September 4

JinKC98 wrote: »

Lots of excellent suggestions. On my end, I just want a "Concede" option; some matches are just hopeless.

After the return of the real three-teams, I suspect a ''concede'' option would only hasten the inevitable fate that awaits two-sided BGs. I'm all for it.

Moonspawn · September 4

MincMincMinc wrote: »

[*] Balance match made teams based on previous match's healing values
[/list]

@MincMincMinc How? Healing values vary greatly based on match duration, game mode, whether teammates stay together, and whether they are taking damage.

MincMincMinc · September 4

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

[*] Balance match made teams based on previous match's healing values
[/list]

@MincMincMinc How? Healing values vary greatly based on match duration, game mode, whether teammates stay together, and whether they are taking damage.

You are right, its not a perfect metric. However it does generally allow you to determine a healer vs a dps. Even just making sure matches don't group up known healers all on one team.

This isn't to base an MMR value off of healing, but to simply ensure one team doesnt get 4 players that healed last game compared to the other team if that makes sense.

NxJoeyD · September 4

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

[*] Balance match made teams based on previous match's healing values
[/list]

@MincMincMinc How? Healing values vary greatly based on match duration, game mode, whether teammates stay together, and whether they are taking damage.

You are right, its not a perfect metric. However it does generally allow you to determine a healer vs a dps. Even just making sure matches don't group up known healers all on one team.

This isn't to base an MMR value off of healing, but to simply ensure one team doesnt get 4 players that healed last game compared to the other team if that makes sense.

I agree, going back for a moment, that’s BG pop is definitely over 10% and that’s where the casual players are landing.

I’ve been spending more time on PC but on console more of the vets play in Cyrodill & the IC because they’re familiar with all of the strats like dungeon buff and location based objective control. Our casual players don’t.

The casual players are jumping into BG’s with leveled toons that they built via YouTube videos; at least I’m seeing a lot of that. Since subclassing people are switching their primary class to take better advantage of meta stats.

Having MRR look at outward heals could help “spread the wealth” so to speak in helping both sides have primary healing characters; better than the one sided matches we see now.

That said, if this were to happen and we end up with BG teams that have a more even number of healing based players … does this mean BG’s essentially become “heal-offs”? … where we see MORE of players doing “ring around the rosie” with line of sight break objects as 4 opposing Templars trot around the map in a near-persistent state of prayer??? …. Something tells me I don’t have to spend the $0.99 per minute to call the psychic line to find out …

I agree with the MRR changes here, after reading the replies here I think they’re a great start to an immediate solution. I don’t believe the change to 2 team BG’s are what caused the state we’re in; I maintain its mechanics. I maintain ZoS needs to look at some longer term, post-subclassing tweaks to mechanics if they’re going to keep interest in BG’s beyond the top end metas.

MincMincMinc · September 5

NxJoeyD wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

[*] Balance match made teams based on previous match's healing values
[/list]

@MincMincMinc How? Healing values vary greatly based on match duration, game mode, whether teammates stay together, and whether they are taking damage.

You are right, its not a perfect metric. However it does generally allow you to determine a healer vs a dps. Even just making sure matches don't group up known healers all on one team.

This isn't to base an MMR value off of healing, but to simply ensure one team doesnt get 4 players that healed last game compared to the other team if that makes sense.

Having MRR look at outward heals could help “spread the wealth” so to speak in helping both sides have primary healing characters; better than the one sided matches we see now.

That said, if this were to happen and we end up with BG teams that have a more even number of healing based players … does this mean BG’s essentially become “heal-offs”? … where we see MORE of players doing “ring around the rosie” with line of sight break objects as 4 opposing Templars trot around the map in a near-persistent state of prayer??? …. Something tells me I don’t have to spend the $0.99 per minute to call the psychic line to find out

No, so the healing is a post MMR factor. After a match gets decided like lets say 16 players of equal MMR. The two teams would then be distributed healers equivalently as best as possible. You could go as far as to give more heal distribution to the lower mmr team.....the fine details dont really matter so much for all we care to discuss.

MMR would be based on KDA primarily with win/loss and objective score as secondary aspects.

But the biggest change that could be done is to simply stop resetting MMR so atleast us older players are not going against new players in their first bg.

dcrush · September 5

Did three BGs in a row just now, I got grouped with different low CP players every time.

And every time the opposing team was the exact same four players who worked very well together.

Are group queues and solo queue mixed again?

Moonspawn · 10:10AM

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

i hope they seriously remove 'capture the relic' from pvp queue rotation... i utterly detest that mode, it should be removed like they did that one mode where you can only respawn twice and have to spectate the rest of the match...

I wasn't aware the lives modes was removed from 4v4. Is that mentioned in the patch notes?

Moonspawn · 8:37PM

Dock01 wrote: »

its hard to enjoy someone's very flawed design, they could've give each team a healer so its fair but nope it have to be super random / also watch as my comment gets deleted for "bashing"

@Dock01 In 4v4v4 there were a lot of ways to create balanced matches even if healers were couldn't be in every team. Here's an example.