Maintenance for the week of December 8:
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – December 10, 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – December 10, 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
Future of Battlegrounds
-
Haki_7✭✭✭
What were the problems with 3-teams BGs? Was it just forcing people who only wanted to play deathmatch into the objective modes?cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »
@cuddles_with_wroble but hasn't it already been formally demonstrated that all of the worst problems of two-teams bgs would remain even if population was infinite and matchmaking was perfect?cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »B ) add a real mmr system so we can have somewhat balanced matches that arent 1 sided stomps
All of the problems of 3 team would also remain with infinite pop and matchmaking.
Another one was that it was far too easy for the third team to complete the objective uncontested.
@cuddles_with_wroble if you'd like to know why two teams working together against the third was almost never a problem in 4v4v4 just give me a heads up. I'd be more than happy to explain. We have two issues so far, can you think of another?
The third problem would be low rewards. I believe that's the last one?
I can't think of any other. Maybe we could reach out to the people who voted wrong in that poll they did a few months ago.
What poll?
No way to win:
No way to lose:
Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 113: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)0 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭
I think I voted but didn't comment, so I'm having trouble finding the post.
What were the problems with 3-teams BGs? Was it just forcing people who only wanted to play deathmatch into the objective modes?cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »
@cuddles_with_wroble but hasn't it already been formally demonstrated that all of the worst problems of two-teams bgs would remain even if population was infinite and matchmaking was perfect?cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »B ) add a real mmr system so we can have somewhat balanced matches that arent 1 sided stomps
All of the problems of 3 team would also remain with infinite pop and matchmaking.
Another one was that it was far too easy for the third team to complete the objective uncontested.
@cuddles_with_wroble if you'd like to know why two teams working together against the third was almost never a problem in 4v4v4 just give me a heads up. I'd be more than happy to explain. We have two issues so far, can you think of another?
The third problem would be low rewards. I believe that's the last one?
I can't think of any other. Maybe we could reach out to the people who voted wrong in that poll they did a few months ago.
What poll?
Can you help solve any of the FOUR critical flaws of Two-Teams BGs ?
Looking for feedback on How to fix the Three-Teams objective modes0 -
Haki_7✭✭✭
I think I voted but didn't comment, so I'm having trouble finding the post.
What were the problems with 3-teams BGs? Was it just forcing people who only wanted to play deathmatch into the objective modes?cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »
@cuddles_with_wroble but hasn't it already been formally demonstrated that all of the worst problems of two-teams bgs would remain even if population was infinite and matchmaking was perfect?cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »B ) add a real mmr system so we can have somewhat balanced matches that arent 1 sided stomps
All of the problems of 3 team would also remain with infinite pop and matchmaking.
Another one was that it was far too easy for the third team to complete the objective uncontested.
@cuddles_with_wroble if you'd like to know why two teams working together against the third was almost never a problem in 4v4v4 just give me a heads up. I'd be more than happy to explain. We have two issues so far, can you think of another?
The third problem would be low rewards. I believe that's the last one?
I can't think of any other. Maybe we could reach out to the people who voted wrong in that poll they did a few months ago.
What poll?
I'll look too. I might have done the same thing. Was it in general?
Standard 510-0 deathmatch. No risk of losing.32 points land grab. No risk of losing.
Zero points land grab. No risk of losing.
Edited by Haki_7 on December 7, 2025 2:03PM0 -
Radiate77✭✭✭✭✭SummersetCitizen wrote: »Many 3-way matches were just as painful as these cherry picked examples.
Yeah, I’ve seen way more engagement in 2-team BGs than I ever did with 3-team.
Queues pop in under 5 minutes, regularly, where 30 minutes for 3-team was the running joke.
People should just be honest and say they personally, liked 3-team better, instead of trying to jump through hoops to convince us that they were somehow more popular.
No reason we shouldn’t have both.Edited by Radiate77 on December 7, 2025 5:26PM4 -
I just hope they fix the map so that we don't have to look at guys sitting on their base when they loose hard. Either create a surrender button, or make the spawn point accessible/throw them out after a few seconds.Edited by dwolfgheist on December 8, 2025 12:59AM0
-
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭SummersetCitizen wrote: »Many 3-way matches were just as painful as these cherry picked examples.
I thought the sheer number prove they're not being cherry picked. Just out of curiosity, how many of these do you think have been posted so far?Can you help solve any of the FOUR critical flaws of Two-Teams BGs ?
Looking for feedback on How to fix the Three-Teams objective modes0 -
Jierdanit✭✭✭✭✭
✭SummersetCitizen wrote: »Many 3-way matches were just as painful as these cherry picked examples.
I thought the sheer number prove they're not being cherry picked. Just out of curiosity, how many of these do you think have been posted so far?
balanced chaosball:
balanced chaosball 2:
balanced crazy king:
balanced crazy king 2:
balanced domination (with Haki):
balanced deathmatch (with Haki):
balanced deathmatch 2:
Its very much cherry picked (very surprising @Haki_7 didnt post the actually balanced matches he was part of, I know
).
I can also cherry pick more matches like that if you want to act like that proves anything.PC/EU, StamSorc Main4 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭Thumbless_Bot wrote: »i11ionward 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.
It is bound to flop. Right now we have 120 player per faction cyrodil. However we know that all it takes is a zerg and maybe two ball groups to lag the server. Generally each faction has a zerg guild of 12-24 players online and then a ball group of 10-12. This is enough to lag things out. Do we really think going down to 60 players per faction is going to change anything?
Chances are the solo/casual/smallman players will log in and log out more often vs the coordinated scheduled guilds. So chances are the server of 60 will be diluted and held by the 36-48 zerg guild and ball group players. Do we really think kicking out the pugs that light attack will solve lag created by the coordinated groups? Not to mention the smaller map is going to push everyone more into a singularity where the lag fights are quicker and more frequently happening.
Inevitably the servers will die like how u50 and nocp pvp servers died. The large pvp groups will drown out the solo/casual/smallman groups until they dont play. Then pvp will just be the coordinated groups filling the server. Then all it takes is a guild leader to leave the game and suddenly an entire faction doesnt exist because that whole guild quit. Then the map will flip all to one color and suddenly the second remaining faction leaves. Once the map remains only one color it only takes a month or two for everyone to bet bored and leave.Zos should hire pvp consultants0 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭
What hoops?
People should just be honest and say they personally, liked 3-team better, instead of trying to jump through hoops to convince us that they were somehow more popular.SummersetCitizen wrote: »Many 3-way matches were just as painful as these cherry picked examples.
Can you help solve any of the FOUR critical flaws of Two-Teams BGs ?
Looking for feedback on How to fix the Three-Teams objective modes0 -
i11ionward✭✭✭✭Hello everyone,
Today I want to remind people about how medal scoring in BGs can sometimes be seriously unfair — especially when healers end up with many more medals because of what seems like a bug. I had two matches that motivated me to write this.
First match (death-match mode):
My kills: 13
My assists: 9, total kills+assists = 22
Total kills made by my team: 25, my participation: 22/25 = 88%
I also had the highest damage dealt on the team.
Sure, my cross-healing was 0.
My total earned medals: 4179, which put me 2nd on the leaderboards — seems fair based on my stats.
Now let’s look at the player who ended up 1st:
Kills: 1
Damage dealt: 50 k
Healing done: 1 042 k
Their total earned medals: 8100
Yes, it’s obvious they played a healer, and I don’t deny that without their healing I’d probably have much worse stats for that match. But come on, their medal count is twice as high as mine. Does that mean they contributed twice as much as I did? That they were twice as important to the team? It’s kind of frustrating, not because medals themselves matter deeply to me, but because they are supposed to reflect how much each player contributed to the objective of the mode, right?
Second match (death-match mode):
I got the most kills, dealt twice as much damage as the rest of my entire team, but I still ended up with nearly three times fewer points than the first-place player. Yes, my teammates healed a lot of damage, and maybe without them my numbers would look very different. But damn, the point difference is insane.
I just wanted to point out these cases because it feels like the current medal scoring system doesn’t always reflect actual contribution properly. I hope the devs can take a look at the scoring logic.Edited by i11ionward on December 9, 2025 7:46PM1 -
Thumbless_Bot✭✭✭✭✭
✭MincMincMinc wrote: »Thumbless_Bot wrote: »i11ionward 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.
It is bound to flop. Right now we have 120 player per faction cyrodil. However we know that all it takes is a zerg and maybe two ball groups to lag the server. Generally each faction has a zerg guild of 12-24 players online and then a ball group of 10-12. This is enough to lag things out. Do we really think going down to 60 players per faction is going to change anything?
Chances are the solo/casual/smallman players will log in and log out more often vs the coordinated scheduled guilds. So chances are the server of 60 will be diluted and held by the 36-48 zerg guild and ball group players. Do we really think kicking out the pugs that light attack will solve lag created by the coordinated groups? Not to mention the smaller map is going to push everyone more into a singularity where the lag fights are quicker and more frequently happening.
Inevitably the servers will die like how u50 and nocp pvp servers died. The large pvp groups will drown out the solo/casual/smallman groups until they dont play. Then pvp will just be the coordinated groups filling the server. Then all it takes is a guild leader to leave the game and suddenly an entire faction doesnt exist because that whole guild quit. Then the map will flip all to one color and suddenly the second remaining faction leaves. Once the map remains only one color it only takes a month or two for everyone to bet bored and leave.
I hope not... and remeber Red, "hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever died", Andy Dufresne.0 -
Moonspawn✭✭✭✭Is this the poll?
Capt the relic 1,2 and 3: zero chance of losing
Domination: zero chance of winning
Deathmatch 1,2 and 3: zero chance of losing
Can't say for certain, but doesn't look like it is.Can you help solve any of the FOUR critical flaws of Two-Teams BGs ?
Looking for feedback on How to fix the Three-Teams objective modes0 -
Haki_7✭✭✭Can't say for certain, but doesn't look like it is.
Last try, it's gotta be this one: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/669150/now-that-its-been-a-bit-do-you-wish-for-the-old-bgs-back/p1
Deathmatch 1, no way of losing:
Deathmatch 2, no way of losing. Notice how Green-3 has no choice but to ditch the team and go around targeting newcomers. Even if the match had been minimally balanced, the mere act of glancing at another pvper would likely result in being zerged down. This is the true essence of 8v8, and the main reason that what will happen the very moment players are allowed to choose 4v4v4 is a mathematical certainty.
Standard Capture the relic 1 and 2, no way of losing:
Crazy king 1 and 2, no way of losing:
Domination, no way of losing:
Edited by Haki_7 on December 11, 2025 10:12AM0
https://youtu.be/K5vIn62Dwk4