Future of Battlegrounds

Haki_7 · November 26

@Weesacs I saw the thread you created. I can attempt to explain why the worst problems plaguing two-sided BGs have almost nothing to do with the matchmaking.

Here's your average match, with lots of spawncamping, horrible for everyone without exception:

Do you think that moving some of the players who were '''doing well'' to the opposing team would have made the match enjoyable?

Moonspawn · November 27

Haki_7 wrote: »

@Weesacs I saw the thread you created. I can attempt to explain why the worst problems plaguing two-sided BGs have almost nothing to do with the matchmaking.

I have information that suggests the matchmaking we have right now is very likely the best we're going to get. Problem is I'm not sure we're allowed to discuss it. Something caused this thread to suddenly be closed without any warning whatsoever. I would prefer if it didn't happen again.

i11ionward · November 27

ZOS_Volpe wrote: »

Greetings,

After review, we have decided to reopen this thread. This is a friendly reminder that all comments should adhere to our Community Rules and remain civil and constructive to avoid thread derailment.

Please note that if any additional “future of battleground” threads are created, they will be closed and the discussion will be redirected to this thread.

Thank you for your understanding

Thanks for reopening this thread — I really hope this is a positive signal from ZOS toward the future of Battlegrounds.

Haki_7 · November 28

Has it been considered that the only way to fix the enormous queue times is to go back to the 3-sided format?

Impossible to lose (dom 1):

Impossible to lose (dom 2):

Impossible to win (ck 1): Spawncamping from start to finish

Impossible to lose (relic):

Impossible to lose (ck 2) :

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 110: Waiting 22 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/EwMyIhy5bcQ

Thumbless_Bot · November 28

i11ionward wrote: »

ZOS_Volpe wrote: »

Greetings,

After review, we have decided to reopen this thread. This is a friendly reminder that all comments should adhere to our Community Rules and remain civil and constructive to avoid thread derailment.

Please note that if any additional “future of battleground” threads are created, they will be closed and the discussion will be redirected to this thread.

Thank you for your understanding

Thanks for reopening this thread — I really hope this is a positive signal from ZOS toward the future of Battlegrounds.

Im curious to see what this new smaller 3 team pvp thing is. It's really my final straw. If that flops as bad a ls 2 team bgs, i'll bounce.

Arboz · November 28

Haki_7 wrote: »

Has it been considered that the only way to fix the enormous queue times is to go back to the 3-sided format?

Impossible to lose (dom 1):
Impossible to lose (dom 2):
Impossible to win (ck 1): Spawncamping from start to finish
Impossible to lose (relic):
Impossible to lose (ck 2) :

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 110: Waiting 22 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)
https://youtu.be/EwMyIhy5bcQ

No wonder you always wins, almost everyone is inert and overeaten in the meanwhile, having played at your side for so long time now..

Moonspawn · November 29

Haki_7 wrote: »

Has it been considered that the only way to fix the enormous queue times is to go back to the 3-sided format?

Since it's been more than a year, maybe ZOS could enable 4v4v4 as a test to see if it fixes the queue time problem. It should at least point them in the right direction ?

Xarc · November 29

just asking it here but :

how about Vengeance battleground ?
(It doesnt mean normal bg wouldnt exist too)

CatoUnchained · November 29

Two man team BG's has been a disaster. The matching system is non existent or severely broken, and you really notice it when there are only two teams. At least with three teams there is more balance by default.

Xarc · November 29

I play a lot of Battlegrounds (BGs). My main character is a healer, and my 6-7 other characters play damage dealers and tanks. Here's what I've noticed about the changes ZOS has made:

MMR is tied to a character, even though the total medal count for all characters on an account is combined for ranking (with the last character used appearing in the ranking).
During prime time and weekends, the chance of encountering a Deathmarch-type BG is around 80% (or maybe more). Thanks to this, I find that Capture the Flag matches are much more respected than before. I wasn't expecting this, but it's worked, in a way.
It's no longer uncommon to have 3v4 matches right from the start of the game, and sometimes for the entire duration. It's unfair, even if the game sometimes tries to put very strong players on the side of 3.
At a very high MMR (league of the top 25 ranked players), some 4v4 fights are endless or completely unbalanced. Putting a tank and two healers in the same group in a deathmatch is nonsense and a guaranteed defeat.
There's clearly a disparity in the medals a healer, tank, or damage dealer can earn.
I understand that prioritizing healer points leads to more players choosing healers and improves fight longevity, but I think that as a result, healers are almost entirely absent at low MMR levels, where players are potentially the weakest and also need healing. Conversely, at very high levels, we sometimes find groups of three healers, which makes the game really strange.

On the other hand, perhaps a medal is missing that equates a critical heal to 7500 points in a single hit. It might be interesting to have a medal for a specific 7500k point hit, for example. This would help to harmonize scores and distribute healers more evenly across the rankings and MMR.

SummersetCitizen · November 30

I would love to see Vengeance rules applied to Battlegrounds. At least to one of the modes, whether teams of 4 or 8.

I would still strongly oppose the idea of going back to 4-4-4. I really like them the way they are now.

Haki_7 · November 30

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

I would love to see Vengeance rules applied to Battlegrounds. At least to one of the modes, whether teams of 4 or 8.

I would still strongly oppose the idea of going back to 4-4-4. I really like them the way they are now.

@SummersetCitizen can you please point out what you didn't like about 4v4v4? We've only been able to identify 3 flaws so far:

1) Zenimax forcing people who only wanted to play deathmatch into the objective modes.
2) It was far too easy for the third team to complete the objective uncontested.
3) Almost no incentive. Rewards did not include endeavors, golden pursuits, tokens and obscene amounts of transmutation crystals.

Weesacs · November 30

Haki_7 wrote:

Here's your average match, with lots of spawncamping, horrible for everyone without exception:

Do you think that moving some of the players who were '''doing well'' to the opposing team would have made the match enjoyable?

Hi @Haki_7 ,

This is something that I have mentioned before in other threads. I think that teams should be rotated after every round in TDM so that subsequent rounds are more evenly matched. Obviously this only relates to solo queuing.

However, I think there is a bigger issue going on here. Firstly, before a game begins, and as someone who pretty much only plays BGs, I can put my hand on heart and say I can pretty much, about 80%-100% of the time tell who is going to win the game just by looking at the team names.

Now how do I know this? Essentially based on previous experience and building up a picture of who does well in each game whenever I come up against them.

It doesn't matter what skills they are using, the top end players will always do well regardless of their builds.

Therefore, if I can analyse this information and predict with some degree of certainly how the teams should be set out, then im sure a computer, which can analyse stats from previous matches (e.g. kills, healing done, damage absorbed, objectives played, etc) can surely do something similar? Infact I would go as far to say that they should be able to do it more precisely than I can!

But alas, the teams that I see in BGs show that this is blatantly not the case, hence why I think there is not MMR or is it very poorly implemented.

Infact, in WoW, your MMR is shown before each game and compared with your team and the other team, and based on average, you are placed within a team ... not sure why something like this cannot be implemented and why there is such a lack of transparency from ZoS on this subject.

I almost choked when I read on their recent update regarding PvP that they wanted transparency hence why they released all this data on Cyrodill. Well lets do the same in BGs! Show us our MMR and everyone elses before each match ... explain to us how the match making system works?

You say you want to provide transparency to your customers ... well give us it then.

Haki_7 · November 30

@Weesacs have you read these? Specifically, numbers one and three?

SummersetCitizen · November 30

Haki_7 wrote: »

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

I would love to see Vengeance rules applied to Battlegrounds. At least to one of the modes, whether teams of 4 or 8.

I would still strongly oppose the idea of going back to 4-4-4. I really like them the way they are now.

@SummersetCitizen can you please point out what you didn't like about 4v4v4? We've only been able to identify 3 flaws so far:

The new battlegrounds are more fun to play.

I see more variety of players and fewer matches with only hardcore, sweaty players. It feels more approachable for all skill levels.

I find this much more enjoyable and would never want to go back to the old format.

Haki_7 · November 30

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

I would love to see Vengeance rules applied to Battlegrounds. At least to one of the modes, whether teams of 4 or 8.

I would still strongly oppose the idea of going back to 4-4-4. I really like them the way they are now.

@SummersetCitizen can you please point out what you didn't like about 4v4v4? We've only been able to identify 3 flaws so far:

The new battlegrounds are more fun to play.

I see more variety of players and fewer matches with only hardcore, sweaty players. It feels more approachable for all skill levels.

I find this much more enjoyable and would never want to go back to the old format.

We already know how to make 3-sided matches fun for everyone, regardless of skill level. Maybe with your help we can figure out how to do it in 2-sided too.
@SummersetCitizen How can any match poisoned by these ever be fun?

Jimbru · November 30

Disclaimer: ever since the early days of UO and EQ, I have been a PVE player first and always. I believe the whole antisocial attitude of competition over cooperation, particularly the predatory ganking styles of PVP as seen in IC, enables bad people has contributed to the decline of Western civilization. I have never met any hardcore PVPer who was a genuinely decent person on the inside. As such, the entire PVP element of ESO could vanish and I would only slightly miss it.

That said, I enjoyed Cyrodiil and three-team BGs as they were before all the changes, and did moderately indulge in them when the mood struck me. I didn't think there was much wrong with them except for the unfair garbage of ball groups, bomber builds, and other ridiculousness. Nobody should be able to make themselves nigh invulnerable while still doing instakill levels of damage. The way GW2 handles its equivalent of battlegrounds, with pre-made balanced builds, could serve as a model for improving BGs in ESO.

SummersetCitizen · November 30

Haki_7 wrote: »

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

I would love to see Vengeance rules applied to Battlegrounds. At least to one of the modes, whether teams of 4 or 8.

I would still strongly oppose the idea of going back to 4-4-4. I really like them the way they are now.

@SummersetCitizen can you please point out what you didn't like about 4v4v4? We've only been able to identify 3 flaws so far:

The new battlegrounds are more fun to play.

I see more variety of players and fewer matches with only hardcore, sweaty players. It feels more approachable for all skill levels.

I find this much more enjoyable and would never want to go back to the old format.

We already know how to make 3-sided matches fun for everyone, regardless of skill level. Maybe with your help we can figure out how to do it in 2-sided too.
@SummersetCitizen How can any match poisoned by these ever be fun?

Bad matches happened in 3-ways too. Just as often in my experience.

“Poisoned” is a bit hyperbolic.

I find 2 team battlegrounds to be more fun so I wouldn’t change them.

Haki_7 · November 30

@SummersetCitizen wrote:

Bad matches happened in 3-ways too. Just as often in my experience.

Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but bad 4v4v4 matches happened when:
1) Players who only wanted DM were forced into the same matches as people who wanted to compete for the objectives. Happened pretty much always.
2) One of the teams, despite its best efforts, was incapable of moving together away from the sandwich. Extremely rare occurrence.
3) The objective was cheesed in one way or another.
4) ???

Moonspawn · December 1

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

“Poisoned” is a bit hyperbolic.

I think it's rather mild. I'd have used ''twisted'', ''warped'' or ''corrupted''.

@SummersetCitizen wrote:

I find 2 team battlegrounds to be more fun so I wouldn’t change them.

That's a strange thing to say. Surely you want the four flaws to be fixed?

Iriidius · December 1

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Something that hasn't been touched on is the fact that the BG maps could (and probably should) be specific to gamemodes. There's a reason games like OW, Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike, and the majority of other objective based PvP games have maps tailored to specific gamemodes.

When you design maps with intent, you prevent teams from wandering aimlessly, mitigate balance issues, and can help prevent things like spawn camping.

BG maps are one size fits all, which is much less development work, but very clearly shows trouble in specific gamemodes. In 3 team BGs, this meant that 2 teams would engage while the third would be able to cap unimpeded, because the maps weren't designed to force players into specific areas very well. In the two team BGs this problem exists, albeit in a different form, where the maps are sprawled out and objectives are just placed willy nilly around the map, so you end up having some players getting spawn camped the whole time while a few stragglers just run objective to objective thinking they're "helping" while their team gets obliterated because they're outmanned by the enemy team.

In CTF, for example, the maps have loads of wasted space. A couple flank routes are understandable, but lets be real: 90% of the map sees no use in CTF.

Chaosball should not allow people to bring the ball back to spawn. It creates a similar problem where now 90% of the map is useless when all 3 balls are in one place. Force the players to stay in specific areas with the ball to gain points.

For the Flag games, the opposite problem exists - the flags are placed willy nilly around the map so teams get spread out with no real incentive to stick together, leading to a snowball of death picking off stragglers until one team gets spawncamped. There's very few flags that have good rotation routes to other flags, so positioning is more or less nullified and replaced with "sprint at max speed across the map as soon as the next flag spawns and never look back". Admittedly, this game mode is arguably better in 2 team than 3 team BGs, but map design still shows to be problematic when a team can just be spawncamped endlessly while a couple Timmies wander flag to flag wondering why no one is trying to stop them (or even worse, go 0-15 because they were just bee-lining straight for the Flag with no regard for their own life or their team's well-being).

In Deathmatch, you have an issue where by designing the maps for the other objective modes, you make it too easy to traverse back to spawn to spawn camp for the enemy. Deathmatch maps should have more chokepoints closer to spawns, better sightlines for the spawning team than the attacking team, etc etc. Much like pushing a porch with oils dropping in Cyrodiil, it should be dangerous to push a team at their spawn, but it's often easier to get kills on people in their spawn with how the sightlines and spawn areas work. The problem? Since the map is designed for things like CTR/Chaosball, you can't make players too strong in their own spawn or the Relic would be untouchable. And don't get me started on the release system - releasing needs to be automatic in Deathmatch to prevent teams from trickling in. When one person gets delayed by 20 seconds because they happened to push the release button in 3 seconds rather than 2 seconds, it just causes your team to lose more. No one is really standing around reviving in Deathmatch unless someone is popping an instant res with Necro Ult.

In 3 team BGs this map design problem was mitigated somewhat by the presence of the third team, but still needed some adjustment on Objective Placement (in general, fewer objectives per gamemode) to really balance out some of the modes. At the very least it felt better even if it wasn't strictly "more balanced" because the fights were more enjoyable due to the chaos of having the third team. In 2 team BGs, it's an absolute cluster because every map feels designed to encourage spawn camping.

Maybe the gamemodes could also be made specific to 4v4, 8v8 or 4v4v4.

ZOS already started this by limiting capture the relic(CTR) and chaosball to 8v8 and while capture the relic works better/only without 3rd team stealing relict while other 2 fight and can stay in 8v8, chaosball worked better with 2 teams doubleteaming the chaosball wielder to prevent one team from keeping it all match and should return to 4v4v4.

While 4v4v4 deathmatch was most popular gamemode and 8v8 deathmatch works, 4v4 deathmatch got turned into the worst gamemode ever and needs rework or removal.
Last survivor forced to respawn only to get 4v1ed again is fun neither for him nor for other team if they have to wait for him to jump down but he decides to stay in base or dead.
Cap to 3 death per player is probably to prevent 1 bad player alone causing his team to loose by getting killed by other team often enaugh to give them 500 points but it is reason for players having to wait for last player to jump down.
ZOS should either remove it or (if they keep it for above reason) reduce number of kills required to 10 by increasing points per kill from 45 to 50.
Rounds should be cut completely, second round usually is either repetition of the first or weaker team having already given up fight is forced to jump to their execution.

Maybe it works better and problems matter less in premade queue and you want keep it there but my perspective is from solo quere where it doesnt. Premade queue can have different gamemodes.

4v4 CTF is good as it is and
Crazy King could be good if some stronger teams would not avoid taking flags to prolong match to keep farming other team.
Both modes were not that great in 4v4 and allowed 3rd team to take flags while other teams fight

MustHave:
4v4v4: deathmatch, chaosball
4v4: Capture the Flag
8v8: capture the relict, capture the flag, crazy king, deathmatch

Mediocre:
4v4: Crazy King, Improved deatmatch
8v8: Chaosball
4v4v4: CTF, Crazy King

Remove:
4v4 Deathmatch, 4v4v4 CTR

Radiate77 · December 1

Just add loose role-queue. 🤝

Haki_7 · December 2

Arboz wrote: »

No wonder you always wins, almost everyone is inert and overeaten in the meanwhile, having played at your side for so long time now..

That's good, but they all date from way before thanksgiving. Just like these:

Domination 1,2 & 3 , no way to lose:

Crazy King, no way to win:

Deathmatch 1 & 2, no way to lose:

Chaosball, no way to lose:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 111: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/AP0a6qvBQVI

SummersetCitizen · December 2

Haki_7 wrote: »

Arboz wrote: »

No wonder you always wins, almost everyone is inert and overeaten in the meanwhile, having played at your side for so long time now..

That's good, but they all date from way before thanksgiving. Just like these:

Domination 1,2 & 3 , no way to lose:

Crazy King, no way to win:
Deathmatch 1 & 2, no way to lose:

Chaosball, no way to lose:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 111: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)
https://youtu.be/AP0a6qvBQVI

In my opinion, BG’s are a side activity, like ToT. If you play a side activity like it is the main game, you’ll have issues.

For someone who is a hard-core BG player (based on countless match results you post) why are you playing casual 8v8 not competitive 4v4? Playing with other competitive players seems like a better place for you.

3-way matches were good for when they were introduced. The current format is best for where the player base is now.

Haki_7 · December 2

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

In my opinion, BG’s are a side activity, like ToT. If you play a side activity like it is the main game, you’ll have issues.

For someone who is a hard-core BG player (based on countless match results you post) why are you playing casual 8v8 not competitive 4v4? Playing with other competitive players seems like a better place for you.

3-way matches were good for when they were introduced. The current format is best for where the player base is now.

Before I answer that, can you please explain why do you say that 8v8 is more approachable than 3-sided for casual players? The description of the flaws already details why that's not true. Doesn't it?

Moonspawn · December 3

@SummersetCitizen do not hesitate to let me know if you're having trouble acknowledging any of the flaws. I'm always looking for ways to make them easier to understand. Speaking of which, @Haki_7 can you provide the scoreboard of a balanced match?

Arkew · December 3

Xarc wrote: »

I play a lot of Battlegrounds (BGs). My main character is a healer, and my 6-7 other characters play damage dealers and tanks. Here's what I've noticed about the changes ZOS has made:
MMR is tied to a character, even though the total medal count for all characters on an account is combined for ranking (with the last character used appearing in the ranking).

During prime time and weekends, the chance of encountering a Deathmarch-type BG is around 80% (or maybe more). Thanks to this, I find that Capture the Flag matches are much more respected than before. I wasn't expecting this, but it's worked, in a way.

It's no longer uncommon to have 3v4 matches right from the start of the game, and sometimes for the entire duration. It's unfair, even if the game sometimes tries to put very strong players on the side of 3.

At a very high MMR (league of the top 25 ranked players), some 4v4 fights are endless or completely unbalanced. Putting a tank and two healers in the same group in a deathmatch is nonsense and a guaranteed defeat.

There's clearly a disparity in the medals a healer, tank, or damage dealer can earn.
I understand that prioritizing healer points leads to more players choosing healers and improves fight longevity, but I think that as a result, healers are almost entirely absent at low MMR levels, where players are potentially the weakest and also need healing. Conversely, at very high levels, we sometimes find groups of three healers, which makes the game really strange.

On the other hand, perhaps a medal is missing that equates a critical heal to 7500 points in a single hit. It might be interesting to have a medal for a specific 7500k point hit, for example. This would help to harmonize scores and distribute healers more evenly across the rankings and MMR.

I already spoken of medal / score system and how to fix him.

post number 600 at page 20 of this discussion.

Haki_7 · December 4

Moonspawn wrote: »

@SummersetCitizen do not hesitate to let me know if you're having trouble acknowledging any of the flaws. I'm always looking for ways to make them easier to understand. Speaking of which, @Haki_7 can you provide the scoreboard of a balanced match?

Sure, I'll keep a lookout for one.

Is there anyone genuinely interested in the betterment of Battlegrounds that still believes this can be solved by matchmaking?

Relic 1 and 2, both with zero % chance of losing:

Crazy King 1 and 2, both with zero % chance of losing. We almost did the second one because most of the team was occupied spawncamping and farming newcomers:

Domination 1, zero % chance of losing. We did lose because we had too many ppl hypnotized by farming newcomers:

Domination 2 and 3, both with zero % chance of losing:

Chaosball, zero % chance of losing:

Deathmatch 1, 2 and 3, zero % chance of losing:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 112: Waiting 30 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj1ukUAJbrU

Moonspawn · December 4

Haki_7 wrote: »

Domination 1, zero % chance of losing. We did lose because we had too many ppl hypnotized by farming newcomers:

Another reason to absolutely adore two-sided BGs. TheyTheir issues bring out the worst in people. But hey at least this one was unpredictable.

Haki_7 · December 5

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Domination 1, zero % chance of losing. We did lose because we had too many ppl hypnotized by farming newcomers:

But hey at least this one was unpredictable.

So was this:

They were hellbent on stealing our relic through the wall. Unpredictable, but just as mind-numbing as all the rest.