Future of Battlegrounds

Moonspawn · September 27

@Iriidius No feedback on the changes to Capture the Relic?

Haki_7 · September 27

No one wanted to grab the chaosballs. The match devolved into 15 minutes of excruciating agony for every single player involved.

This is the result:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 98: Waiting 24 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/4_IhGNayK-4

Moonspawn · September 28

Iriidius wrote: »

Solo already take much longer to turn a flag.

It takes 6 seconds for a solo player to make a flag stop giving points.

Haki_7 · September 28

They kept returning and interrupting us faster than we could kill them. They saw the opportunity to make us suffer the lopsided snoozefest right there with them for the full duration, and they took it.

Moonspawn · September 29

@MincMincMinc It should be interesting to imagine how your idea would affect the critical flaws of the two-sided format. Let us assume that it is possible to create 8v8 matches filled with nothing but BG regulars of similar skill. Let us pretend population is infinite, and the matchmaking never needs to expand enough to grab whatever players are available at any given time.

Here's the first flaw:

1. Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's 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. Very unbalanced, yes?

2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:

3) Identify 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order.
1- Becoming squishier by any means, such as taking damage or even changing builds.
2- Being out of position.
3- Getting caught inside a sandwich. (obs: lets keep this one separate, even though it should technically be included in the previous option)
Can you think of any other way?

MincMincMinc · September 29

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc It should be interesting to imagine how your idea would affect the critical flaws of the two-sided format. Let us assume that it is possible to create 8v8 matches filled with nothing but BG regulars of similar skill. Let us pretend population is infinite, and the matchmaking never needs to expand enough to grab whatever players are available at any given time.

Here's the first flaw:

1. Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's 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. Very unbalanced, yes?

2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:

3) Identify 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order.
1- Becoming squishier. Be it by changing builds or by taking damage, for example.
2- Being out of position.
3- Getting caught inside a sandwich. (obs: lets keep this one separate, even though it should technically be included in the previous option)
Can you think of any other way?

Problem with your example there is that you are drawing match K/D or order from a non mmr match. With closer MMR matches your teams would have relatively equal amounts of kills. It would be unlikely that one person ends up with a vast majority of the match kills unless they had discovered an exploit or new meta. For a while in BGs 4v4v4 we had people abusing the silver leash into light attack proc sets that were not working correctly. The pull and stun wouldnt let you counter in time before the light/heavy attack procs desync'd you and killed you regardless of any healing ticks. (Procs trivializing GCD play/counterplay is one of the big reasons to not have procs not tied to a GCD without a telegraph)

Your 3 ways to die faster are correct, generally this is what 4v4v4 came down to most of the time at high MMR. We would go 5+ mins with nobody dying and people just avoiding these points. The three teams would continuously circle the map like a mexican standoff. Trying to reposition such that one of the teams is between the other two. Only then would teams engage and target the weakest link. After engaging usually the 3rd team to enter the fight would just clean up. Good players learned how to orbit and bounce off of the sandwiched enemy team instead of engaging fully.

8v8 sort of is the same dynamic except in 2 team format people are moving and repositioning to engage where chokeholds block the line of sight from the enemy healers. Or whether a squishy enemy pushes too much.

Moonspawn · September 29

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc It should be interesting to imagine how your idea would affect the critical flaws of the two-sided format. Let us assume that it is possible to create 8v8 matches filled with nothing but BG regulars of similar skill. Let us pretend population is infinite, and the matchmaking never needs to expand enough to grab whatever players are available at any given time.

Here's the first flaw:

1. Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's 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. Very unbalanced, yes?

2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:

3) Identify 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order.
1- Becoming squishier. Be it by changing builds or by taking damage, for example.
2- Being out of position.
3- Getting caught inside a sandwich. (obs: lets keep this one separate, even though it should technically be included in the previous option)
Can you think of any other way?

Problem with your example there is that you are drawing match K/D or order from a non mmr match. With closer MMR matches your teams would have relatively equal amounts of kills.

Would they?
We're pretending that every single one of the 16 players are BG regulars of similar skill. If they all knew how to position, and were capable of identifying the target order, wouldn't the latter remain mostly unchanging for the entirety of the match?

MincMincMinc · September 29

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc It should be interesting to imagine how your idea would affect the critical flaws of the two-sided format. Let us assume that it is possible to create 8v8 matches filled with nothing but BG regulars of similar skill. Let us pretend population is infinite, and the matchmaking never needs to expand enough to grab whatever players are available at any given time.

Here's the first flaw:

1. Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's 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. Very unbalanced, yes?

2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:

3) Identify 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order.
1- Becoming squishier. Be it by changing builds or by taking damage, for example.
2- Being out of position.
3- Getting caught inside a sandwich. (obs: lets keep this one separate, even though it should technically be included in the previous option)
Can you think of any other way?

Problem with your example there is that you are drawing match K/D or order from a non mmr match. With closer MMR matches your teams would have relatively equal amounts of kills.

Would they?
We're pretending that every single one of the 16 players are BG regulars of similar skill. If they all know how to position, and are capable of identifying the target order, do you see how the latter would be even more obnoxiously static than usual?

At the peak of bgs (PCNA atleast) the mmr functioned somewhat better and yes we had matches that were very close skill wise. MMR resetting is still the main driver to how widespread the K/D is of each match. Like we all discussed pages ago.

If they all knew how to position and target, yes it does get annoyingly boring at times. Matches can be 15min long with maybe 1-2 fights because people are so even they just circle around each other. Some of the best bg matches were when everyone would be on their Openworld solo builds because people would actually moshpit and fight. Some of the most obnoxious games would be when everyone is on guaranteed output BG "Premade" builds where combat is so even it dissolves into a first to stick their neck out loses kinda match.

Moonspawn · September 29

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc It should be interesting to imagine how your idea would affect the critical flaws of the two-sided format. Let us assume that it is possible to create 8v8 matches filled with nothing but BG regulars of similar skill. Let us pretend population is infinite, and the matchmaking never needs to expand enough to grab whatever players are available at any given time.

Here's the first flaw:

1. Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's 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. Very unbalanced, yes?

2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:

3) Identify 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order.
1- Becoming squishier. Be it by changing builds or by taking damage, for example.
2- Being out of position.
3- Getting caught inside a sandwich. (obs: lets keep this one separate, even though it should technically be included in the previous option)
Can you think of any other way?

Problem with your example there is that you are drawing match K/D or order from a non mmr match. With closer MMR matches your teams would have relatively equal amounts of kills.

Would they?
We're pretending that every single one of the 16 players are BG regulars of similar skill. If they all know how to position, and are capable of identifying the target order, do you see how the latter would be even more obnoxiously static than usual?

At the peak of bgs (PCNA atleast) the mmr functioned somewhat better and yes we had matches that were very close skill wise. MMR resetting is still the main driver to how widespread the K/D is of each match. Like we all discussed pages ago.

If they all knew how to position and target, yes it does get annoyingly boring at times. Matches can be 15min long with maybe 1-2 fights because people are so even they just circle around each other. Some of the best bg matches were when everyone would be on their Openworld solo builds because people would actually moshpit and fight. Some of the most obnoxious games would be when everyone is on guaranteed output BG "Premade" builds where combat is so even it dissolves into a first to stick their neck out loses kinda match.

But if everyone was of equal skill, and considering the 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order, do you see how it would remain mostly unchanging for the entirety of the match?

MincMincMinc · September 29

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc It should be interesting to imagine how your idea would affect the critical flaws of the two-sided format. Let us assume that it is possible to create 8v8 matches filled with nothing but BG regulars of similar skill. Let us pretend population is infinite, and the matchmaking never needs to expand enough to grab whatever players are available at any given time.

Here's the first flaw:

1. Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's 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. Very unbalanced, yes?

2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:

3) Identify 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order.
1- Becoming squishier. Be it by changing builds or by taking damage, for example.
2- Being out of position.
3- Getting caught inside a sandwich. (obs: lets keep this one separate, even though it should technically be included in the previous option)
Can you think of any other way?

Problem with your example there is that you are drawing match K/D or order from a non mmr match. With closer MMR matches your teams would have relatively equal amounts of kills.

Would they?
We're pretending that every single one of the 16 players are BG regulars of similar skill. If they all know how to position, and are capable of identifying the target order, do you see how the latter would be even more obnoxiously static than usual?

At the peak of bgs (PCNA atleast) the mmr functioned somewhat better and yes we had matches that were very close skill wise. MMR resetting is still the main driver to how widespread the K/D is of each match. Like we all discussed pages ago.

If they all knew how to position and target, yes it does get annoyingly boring at times. Matches can be 15min long with maybe 1-2 fights because people are so even they just circle around each other. Some of the best bg matches were when everyone would be on their Openworld solo builds because people would actually moshpit and fight. Some of the most obnoxious games would be when everyone is on guaranteed output BG "Premade" builds where combat is so even it dissolves into a first to stick their neck out loses kinda match.

But if everyone was of equal skill, and considering the 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order, do you see how it would remain mostly unchanging for the entirety of the match?

What would remain mostly unchanging?

Moonspawn · September 29

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc It should be interesting to imagine how your idea would affect the critical flaws of the two-sided format. Let us assume that it is possible to create 8v8 matches filled with nothing but BG regulars of similar skill. Let us pretend population is infinite, and the matchmaking never needs to expand enough to grab whatever players are available at any given time.

Here's the first flaw:

1. Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's 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. Very unbalanced, yes?

2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:

3) Identify 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order.
1- Becoming squishier. Be it by changing builds or by taking damage, for example.
2- Being out of position.
3- Getting caught inside a sandwich. (obs: lets keep this one separate, even though it should technically be included in the previous option)
Can you think of any other way?

Problem with your example there is that you are drawing match K/D or order from a non mmr match. With closer MMR matches your teams would have relatively equal amounts of kills.

Would they?
We're pretending that every single one of the 16 players are BG regulars of similar skill. If they all know how to position, and are capable of identifying the target order, do you see how the latter would be even more obnoxiously static than usual?

At the peak of bgs (PCNA atleast) the mmr functioned somewhat better and yes we had matches that were very close skill wise. MMR resetting is still the main driver to how widespread the K/D is of each match. Like we all discussed pages ago.

If they all knew how to position and target, yes it does get annoyingly boring at times. Matches can be 15min long with maybe 1-2 fights because people are so even they just circle around each other. Some of the best bg matches were when everyone would be on their Openworld solo builds because people would actually moshpit and fight. Some of the most obnoxious games would be when everyone is on guaranteed output BG "Premade" builds where combat is so even it dissolves into a first to stick their neck out loses kinda match.

But if everyone was of equal skill, and considering the 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order, do you see how it would remain mostly unchanging for the entirety of the match?

What would remain mostly unchanging?

The target order.

''1- Becoming squishier by any means, such as taking damage or even changing builds.''
If every single player knew how to identify the target order, there would be no deviating from it, for any reason.

''2- Being out of position.''
In our shared fantasy, all 16 players know how to position.

''3- Getting caught inside a sandwich.''
There is no sandwich.

MincMincMinc · September 29

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc It should be interesting to imagine how your idea would affect the critical flaws of the two-sided format. Let us assume that it is possible to create 8v8 matches filled with nothing but BG regulars of similar skill. Let us pretend population is infinite, and the matchmaking never needs to expand enough to grab whatever players are available at any given time.

Here's the first flaw:

1. Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's 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. Very unbalanced, yes?

2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:

3) Identify 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order.
1- Becoming squishier. Be it by changing builds or by taking damage, for example.
2- Being out of position.
3- Getting caught inside a sandwich. (obs: lets keep this one separate, even though it should technically be included in the previous option)
Can you think of any other way?

Problem with your example there is that you are drawing match K/D or order from a non mmr match. With closer MMR matches your teams would have relatively equal amounts of kills.

Would they?
We're pretending that every single one of the 16 players are BG regulars of similar skill. If they all know how to position, and are capable of identifying the target order, do you see how the latter would be even more obnoxiously static than usual?

At the peak of bgs (PCNA atleast) the mmr functioned somewhat better and yes we had matches that were very close skill wise. MMR resetting is still the main driver to how widespread the K/D is of each match. Like we all discussed pages ago.

If they all knew how to position and target, yes it does get annoyingly boring at times. Matches can be 15min long with maybe 1-2 fights because people are so even they just circle around each other. Some of the best bg matches were when everyone would be on their Openworld solo builds because people would actually moshpit and fight. Some of the most obnoxious games would be when everyone is on guaranteed output BG "Premade" builds where combat is so even it dissolves into a first to stick their neck out loses kinda match.

But if everyone was of equal skill, and considering the 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order, do you see how it would remain mostly unchanging for the entirety of the match?

What would remain mostly unchanging?

The target order.

''1- Becoming squishier by any means, such as taking damage or even changing builds.''
If every single player knew how to identify the target order, there would be no deviating from it, for any reason.

''2- Being out of position.''
In our shared fantasy, all 16 players know how to position.

''3- Getting caught inside a sandwich.''
There is no sandwich.

Yeah those are basic survival of the fittest concepts. Be strong, dont put yourself in danger, dont get cornered by predators.

You wont be able to remove those dynamics

propertyOfUndefined · September 30

8v8 almost always ends with 1 team on their balcony.

4v4v4 may have had teams who tried to avoid fighting to instead work towards the match objective, but I never considered that a bad thing. As fun as death matches are, I enjoy winning more -- especially if it's achieved in a clever way. Honestly, those victories are the most satisfying.

Why not bring back 4v4v4, but re-purpose 4v4 as arena death matches?

Thumbless_Bot · September 30

propertyOfUndefined wrote: »

8v8 almost always ends with 1 team on their balcony.

4v4v4 may have had teams who tried to avoid fighting to instead work towards the match objective, but I never considered that a bad thing. As fun as death matches are, I enjoy winning more -- especially if it's achieved in a clever way. Honestly, those victories are the most satisfying.

Why not bring back 4v4v4, but re-purpose 4v4 as arena death matches?

Agree mostly. I would just change one thing. You mentioned balconies. I never thought of the spawn as balconies. But it makes sense. I recommend they turn 4v4 maps into housing.

Mostly kidding. Some like 4v4 so they shouldn't be left out in the cold like zos did to those of use who prefer 4v4v4.

NxJoeyD · September 30

Haki_7 wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

It was impossible for an unpredictable 4v4v4 match to be boring. As long as no one cheesed the ball, three-sided Chaosball had the potential to be the most unpredictable game mode of all. Instead, here's what we get:

This time, I was lucky enough to briefly catch a glimpse of a single opponent at the beginning of the match.

It's hard to tell, but that looks like the map where they bungled the Chaosball points, the normal one is granting 10, while the other two are only worth 3 each. Do you think it's related?

How many unbelievably fun three-sided matches could've been formed with these players?

Is that a rhetorical question? It probably can be calculated.

Let's do it. I've tried asking mathGPT, but I must be doing something wrong because it keeps giving me almost a billion possibilities of balanced matches for three-sided. @MincMincMinc where's the Minc math?

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 97: Waiting 20 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)
https://youtu.be/fDBbeDonBKs

The reason you can’t calculate it is because you don’t have enough criteria for any realistic analysis.

The only value you might be able to give a formula is an estimation of population size. At that point, all the math can do is exponentially factor out match combinations based on the total server population; and that’s going to be an enormous number that’s inaccurate.

There are 3 teams.

Each team has 4 players.

The maximum number of available veterans is 12 (all distinct).

Each team must have the same number of veterans and at least 1 veteran per team.

There are 9 distinct newcomers available.

Since each team has 4 players, the number of veterans per team can be 1, 2, 3, or 4, as long as it is the same for all teams and the total number of veterans used does not exceed 12.

How many different matches can be created under these conditions?

Well for starters you have no population demographics. It’s one thing to say, for example, each team must have an even number of veterans but we have no idea what proportion of the population is veterans.

What defines a “newcomer”? Where do you want MathGPT to draw the line between “veteran” & “newcomer”?

All MathGPT is going to do is take the criteria you gave it and, assuming you gave it a total player base population, it will just exponentially math out the number of 3x4 combinations which leaves you with a big number. It’s not going to actually give you a result of actual scenarios.

And even then, that wouldn’t do squat for the CP500s running the Crit meta and climbing MRR by leaning on mechanics rather than combat strategy; which throws your entire “veteran” vs “newcomer” approach right out the window.

MathGPT would likely look at a CP500 as a relative newcomer but given the current game state they can run an MRR profile equal to a long term veteran which would skew the scenario anyway.

Either way, it can give you a total number of how many combinations of bodies could end in 3x4 team layouts but it couldn’t give you any scenarios without more data or assumptions.

Moonspawn · September 30

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc It should be interesting to imagine how your idea would affect the critical flaws of the two-sided format. Let us assume that it is possible to create 8v8 matches filled with nothing but BG regulars of similar skill. Let us pretend population is infinite, and the matchmaking never needs to expand enough to grab whatever players are available at any given time.

Here's the first flaw:

1. Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's 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. Very unbalanced, yes?

2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:

3) Identify 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order.
1- Becoming squishier. Be it by changing builds or by taking damage, for example.
2- Being out of position.
3- Getting caught inside a sandwich. (obs: lets keep this one separate, even though it should technically be included in the previous option)
Can you think of any other way?

Problem with your example there is that you are drawing match K/D or order from a non mmr match. With closer MMR matches your teams would have relatively equal amounts of kills.

Would they?
We're pretending that every single one of the 16 players are BG regulars of similar skill. If they all know how to position, and are capable of identifying the target order, do you see how the latter would be even more obnoxiously static than usual?

At the peak of bgs (PCNA atleast) the mmr functioned somewhat better and yes we had matches that were very close skill wise. MMR resetting is still the main driver to how widespread the K/D is of each match. Like we all discussed pages ago.

If they all knew how to position and target, yes it does get annoyingly boring at times. Matches can be 15min long with maybe 1-2 fights because people are so even they just circle around each other. Some of the best bg matches were when everyone would be on their Openworld solo builds because people would actually moshpit and fight. Some of the most obnoxious games would be when everyone is on guaranteed output BG "Premade" builds where combat is so even it dissolves into a first to stick their neck out loses kinda match.

But if everyone was of equal skill, and considering the 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order, do you see how it would remain mostly unchanging for the entirety of the match?

What would remain mostly unchanging?

The target order.

''1- Becoming squishier by any means, such as taking damage or even changing builds.''
If every single player knew how to identify the target order, there would be no deviating from it, for any reason.

''2- Being out of position.''
In our shared fantasy, all 16 players know how to position.

''3- Getting caught inside a sandwich.''
There is no sandwich.

Yeah those are basic survival of the fittest concepts. Be strong, dont put yourself in danger, dont get cornered by predators.

You wont be able to remove those dynamics

I know, and that's the first flaw: the imutability of the target order. It would persist even if matchmaking was perfect and population was infinite.

In three-sided there was a target order too, but it was a lot easier to deviate from it because of the possibility of being sandwiched, and for the simple reason that numbers went from 1 to 4, instead of 1 to 8. In 8v8, you don't even need to identify the entire sequence.

Ready to move on to the third flaw? We'll go back to the second one later.

Dock01 · September 30

BG is basically rage bait pvp, anyone who actually plays real pvp games outside of eso can see how pathetic this is. The match up is rigged , 4v4 and somehow the enemy gets a healer while we don’t, and we’re thrown in with 500 cp players against 3k plus. Yeah real fair and real "competitive". CP does matter even if disabled, the gears and experience gap is massive. How is this still a thing? What exactly is the team even doing for bg.If dungeons can have roles then so can BG lmaooo. It’s like they never even touched a real pvp game like League or Dota, so why even bother trying to make one. Nobody even knows BG exists, And yes those are real pvp games.You’ll never see an esport stadium packed for BG like League did, not now not ever. It’s trying way too hard to look competitive.

Thumbless_Bot · September 30

Dock01 wrote: »

BG is basically rage bait pvp, anyone who actually plays real pvp games outside of eso can see how pathetic this is. The match up is rigged , 4v4 and somehow the enemy gets a healer while we don’t, and we’re thrown in with 500 cp players against 3k plus. Yeah real fair and real "competitive". CP does matter even if disabled, the gears and experience gap is massive. How is this still a thing? What exactly is the team even doing for bg.If dungeons can have roles then so can BG lmaooo. It’s like they never even touched a real pvp game like League or Dota, so why even bother trying to make one. Nobody even knows BG exists, And yes those are real pvp games.You’ll never see an esport stadium packed for BG like League did, not now not ever. It’s trying way too hard to look competitive.

Two team bgs in eso are zos trying to follow a successful prototype of other pvp games and turn bgs into something they are not... and failing miserably. Eso pvp was successful because it was different... was... now we have two team bgs and likely vengeance being forced upon us.

No thanks

Moonspawn · September 30

propertyOfUndefined wrote: »

8v8 almost always ends with 1 team on their balcony.

4v4v4 may have had teams who tried to avoid fighting to instead work towards the match objective, but I never considered that a bad thing. As fun as death matches are, I enjoy winning more -- especially if it's achieved in a clever way. Honestly, those victories are the most satisfying.

Why not bring back 4v4v4, but re-purpose 4v4 as arena death matches?

@propertyOfUndefined I've proposed a few small changes what would make it a little harder for the third team to complete the objective modes uncontested. What do you think about this?

Haki_7 · September 30

The pointless staring contests with ball carriers are getting out of hand. When the MMR is reset tomorrow, will these matches become somehow even worse than they already are?

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 99: Waiting 21 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/_NwgdIXeSnI

propertyOfUndefined · September 30

Moonspawn wrote: »

propertyOfUndefined wrote: »

8v8 almost always ends with 1 team on their balcony.

4v4v4 may have had teams who tried to avoid fighting to instead work towards the match objective, but I never considered that a bad thing. As fun as death matches are, I enjoy winning more -- especially if it's achieved in a clever way. Honestly, those victories are the most satisfying.

Why not bring back 4v4v4, but re-purpose 4v4 as arena death matches?

@propertyOfUndefined I've proposed a few small changes what would make it a little harder for the third team to complete the objective modes uncontested. What do you think about this?

I like the ideas.

Bottom line is I just think 3 teams was way more fun -- regardless of game mode. I miss seeing chat messages like "Red coming from left! Help!"

Joy_Division · October 1

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc It should be interesting to imagine how your idea would affect the critical flaws of the two-sided format. Let us assume that it is possible to create 8v8 matches filled with nothing but BG regulars of similar skill. Let us pretend population is infinite, and the matchmaking never needs to expand enough to grab whatever players are available at any given time.

Here's the first flaw:

1. Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's 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. Very unbalanced, yes?

2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:

3) Identify 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order.
1- Becoming squishier by any means, such as taking damage or even changing builds.
2- Being out of position.
3- Getting caught inside a sandwich. (obs: lets keep this one separate, even though it should technically be included in the previous option)
Can you think of any other way?

It really isn't that hard. Many, many, many PvP oriented games over the past 3 decades have figured this out. It's not a big secret. ESO hasn't been able to deliver because instead of acting like a professional AAA company that has reportedly made $2 billion dollars via ESO, ZOS thinks it is an indie studio and has a single person in running both combat (which numerous incomplete systems and questionable balance as is) and PvP (meaning all PvP: Cyrodiil, BGs, and things like Vengeance). You could literally hand ZOS the most foolproof and flawless Battleground system design and you would never see it because so many other things have been on the backburner for this single person is in charge of everything. Did you see the combat "update" on the PTS? LOL. You see that survey about classes? After six months, they are finally doing something to address the legion of complaints of how sub-classing basically destroyed any idea of having any fun or feeling good just trying to run a Sorcerer or Templar. BGs (and PvP in general) is a mess right now not because ZOS has not repeatedly heard what its critics have been saying for 6,7 years now. It's a mess because they believe the reason they made that $2 billion is by sinking their resources into having interesting NPCs, quality aesthetics, and highly intricate overland delves (seriously, check the newer ones out. So much effort just for a few trash mobs that melt the moment they get hit with anything).

Insofar as the supposed flaw, it's not applicable in the vast majority of PvP scenarios, which is why other companies have made it work for three decades. You are coming from the perspective that every BG player is some serious, sweaty, group with a domineering lead who constantly berates anyone who deviates slightly from a scripted plan and rigid target selection. The only time I have ever seen anything like that is an agreed Guild Vs Guild matchup isolated from any outside interference between sweaty guilds. Even in a structure guild, there are *always* those players who either because they think they are just so damn good or have a chronic case of target fixation, they're always off YOLOing off trying to get a single kill which more often than not either drains the healer's or majicka or make the rest of us looking for flat ground for a camp. Outside of any structure (i.e., most players), most are just out there attacking whoever happens to be closest to them. This is the big complaint from objective oriented players, no? That bloodthirsty players just assume every game is deathmatch and go off charging into the enemy. This is especially true of the better, more experienced PvPers who are constantly putting themselves out of position because 1vXing is how they play the game, and more often than not they can pull it off.

There is a 4th way to put oneself higher in the target order: being bad. They can do everything correctly: copy the best build and cautiously place themselves around their teammates, yet somehow they'll always be the one who dies when the enemy pushes (even if everyone else survives). Everyone who has ever played in an organized PvP group knows exactly what I am talking about.

The point is because there are these unpredictable variables such as ego, indiscipline, player boredom, differing levels of seriousness, etc., the two team format is not destined to be perpetually fail because of some inherent flaw in the format (that somehow only ESO seems to suffer from). This is especially true for ungrouped 8v8s where there isn't a coordinated group to begin with. The many flaws in ESO BGs is a consequence of the company having one single update for BGs in the past 7 years.

Sylosi · October 1

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Eso pvp was successful because it was different..

BG's in this game weren't successful. The playerbase was so small the devs were reluctant to split it when people complained about wanting separate queues for this or that.

A successful PvP game doesn't do a complete revamp from 3 teams to 2 teams that fundamentally changes its PvP if the 3 teams were a success, you only go to that extreme when what you have is not working.

I've never played the 2 team BGs in this game, because I have not played the game in a couple of years, but 3 team BGs were trash, the absolute worst PvP I've ever played (3 teams is fundamentally flawed, which is why no one uses it) and one of the big reasons I stopped playing this game. The idea that they were successful is laughable.

Moonspawn · October 1

@MincMincMinc Before we get to how a perfect matchmaking would affect the third flaw, I need to know what to call:
1) Players that only want to avoid pvpers and farm newcomers. I remember you using the term ''pugstomper''.
2) Players that only want to avoid newcomers and kill pvpers. I've used the term ''Chad'' in the past. Can you think of a more fitting title?

Thumbless_Bot · October 1

Sylosi wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Eso pvp was successful because it was different..

BG's in this game weren't successful. The playerbase was so small the devs were reluctant to split it when people complained about wanted separate queues for this or that.

A successful PvP game doesn't do a complete revamp from 3 teams to 2 teams that fundamentally changes its PvP if the 3 teams were a success, you only go to that extreme when what you have is not working.

I've never played the 2 team BGs in this game, because I have not played the game in a couple of years, but 3 team BGs were trash, the absolute worst PvP I've ever played (3 teams is fundamentally flawed, which is why no one uses it) and one of the big reasons I stopped playing this game. The idea that they were successful is laughable.

Yeah. 3 teams is flawed. The entire pvp experience in this game outside of dueling is 3 team based. Maybe this is why you haven't played in years. Not your thing. Thats cool. As bad as three teams is, two teams is worse. Three teams needed to be improved, not replaced woth something worse.

I do not believe the population has grown with the change. If anything it is worse. At least on pcna. It was up at first because of new rewards and just the novelty of the content. But not any moooore.

Also, I agree 3 teams had many many problems. The problems were not fixed with two teams. Most of them we exacerbated and new problems were created.

So agree that a successful pvp game doesnt make changes. Yet here we are with 2 team bgs and vengeance, both of which are falling flat.

Moonspawn · October 1

Joy_Division wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc It should be interesting to imagine how your idea would affect the critical flaws of the two-sided format. Let us assume that it is possible to create 8v8 matches filled with nothing but BG regulars of similar skill. Let us pretend population is infinite, and the matchmaking never needs to expand enough to grab whatever players are available at any given time.

Here's the first flaw:

1. Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's 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. Very unbalanced, yes?

2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:

3) Identify 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only 3 ways to lower one's place in the target order.
1- Becoming squishier by any means, such as taking damage or even changing builds.
2- Being out of position.
3- Getting caught inside a sandwich. (obs: lets keep this one separate, even though it should technically be included in the previous option)
Can you think of any other way?

The point is because there are these unpredictable variables such as ego, indiscipline, player boredom, differing levels of seriousness, etc., the two team format is not destined to be perpetually fail because of some inherent flaw in the format (that somehow only ESO seems to suffer from). This is especially true for ungrouped 8v8s where there isn't a coordinated group to begin with. The many flaws in ESO BGs is a consequence of the company having one single update for BGs in the past 7 years.

They started as ''reasons two-teams BGs are so much harder to balance when compared to three-sided''. I began calling them ''flaws'' so people would try to fix them, but maybe it can't be done. Maybe they are simply characteristics of the two-sided format. Anyway, here's the link if you'd like to help solve any of them.

Moonspawn · October 2

Iriidius 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 CTR 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?

Cheesy places should be fixxed.
Reducing ball carrier speed by 30% hits players without speed increase the same and relatively even more. Should rather set a speedcap for ballcarrier (lower than the cap for anyone else). Can be hardcap or sofcap (with reduced speed increase above).

@Iriidius I believe a speed cap would be better too, but I very much doubt ZOS is capable of cooking up something that would play nice with every speed altering effect in the game . It's the only reason I went with a flat 30% reduction.

Haki_7 · October 2

In both these matches one of the opponents ditched their teammates to go farm some newcomers. In 4v4v4, there would've been several naturally occurring opportunities for our team to intervene, without having to risk losing the entire match. It's not the case in 8v8. This phenomenon is related to the third critical flaw of the two-sided format.

P0m3k · October 2

I don't understand. You're right that the old 4vs4vs4 mode was the best, but...

Even after its return, we'll complain, or at least I will. I'll repeat myself, but this game has lost any quality since literally 90% of BG players currently play surprise attack/deep/streak/merciless. Last has long been the meta, dealing more damage than most ULTIs. It's been there for a long time, and now it's become more prevalent again, with damage stacked for several seconds at a one ms time, or taking damage after 5 seconds while hiding behind walls. Of course, I support the return of the 4v4v4 mode, but I know that the only thing it will currently do is increase pve farmer's chances of hitting daily faster. First, the game needs to be fixed and minimally balanced, because without that, no mode will be enjoyable. I just want to vomit when I see the same thing over and over again: the same 8 builds and one team ending up on the balcony, no matter which side i'm on.

P.s. Look how much ESO ratings have unfortunately dropped across all platforms. This isn't out of nowhere.

Moonspawn · October 3

P0m3k wrote: »

I don't understand. You're right that the old 4vs4vs4 mode was the best, but...

Even after its return, we'll complain, or at least I will. I'll repeat myself, but this game has lost any quality since literally 90% of BG players currently play surprise attack/deep/streak/merciless. Last has long been the meta, dealing more damage than most ULTIs. It's been there for a long time, and now it's become more prevalent again, with damage stacked for several seconds at a one ms time, or taking damage after 5 seconds while hiding behind walls. Of course, I support the return of the 4v4v4 mode, but I know that the only thing it will currently do is increase pve farmer's chances of hitting daily faster. First, the game needs to be fixed and minimally balanced, because without that, no mode will be enjoyable. I just want to vomit when I see the same thing over and over again: the same 8 builds and one team ending up on the balcony, no matter which side i'm on.

P.s. Look how much ESO ratings have unfortunately dropped across all platforms. This isn't out of nowhere.

But wouldn't the critical flaws of the two-sided format persist even through any and all balance changes?