Future of Battlegrounds

Haki_7 · December 6

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

B ) add a real mmr system so we can have somewhat balanced matches that arent 1 sided stomps

@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?

All of the problems of 3 team would also remain with infinite pop and matchmaking.

What were the problems with 3-teams BGs? Was it just forcing people who only wanted to play deathmatch into the objective modes?

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)

https://youtu.be/K5vIn62Dwk4

Moonspawn · December 6

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

B ) add a real mmr system so we can have somewhat balanced matches that arent 1 sided stomps

@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?

All of the problems of 3 team would also remain with infinite pop and matchmaking.

What were the problems with 3-teams BGs? Was it just forcing people who only wanted to play deathmatch into the objective modes?

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 think I voted but didn't comment, so I'm having trouble finding the post.

Haki_7 · December 7

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

B ) add a real mmr system so we can have somewhat balanced matches that arent 1 sided stomps

@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?

All of the problems of 3 team would also remain with infinite pop and matchmaking.

What were the problems with 3-teams BGs? Was it just forcing people who only wanted to play deathmatch into the objective modes?

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 think I voted but didn't comment, so I'm having trouble finding the post.

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.

SummersetCitizen · December 7

Many 3-way matches were just as painful as these cherry picked examples.

Radiate77 · December 7

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.

dwolfgheist · December 8

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.

Moonspawn · December 8

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?

Jierdanit · December 8

Moonspawn wrote: »

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.

MincMincMinc · December 8

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

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.

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.

Haki_7 · December 9

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

Moonspawn · December 9

Radiate77 wrote: »

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

Many 3-way matches were just as painful as these cherry picked examples.

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.

What hoops?

i11ionward · December 9

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.

Thumbless_Bot · December 10

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

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.

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.

Moonspawn · December 10

Haki_7 wrote: »

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.

Haki_7 · December 11

Moonspawn wrote: »

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:

Moonspawn · December 12

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

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

It is. Some of the people there might be able to reveal the problems with 4v4v4 that remain unaccounted for.

Haki_7 · December 13

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?

Here it is:

I bet this match can be used to explain some of the flaws. Especially the first.

Haki_7 · December 13

Here's an example of a match that doesnt look completely lopsided at first glance:

In reality there wasn't even a fight, just a ginormous waste of everyone's time. Considering we held 2 balls for the entire match, and they held one, it's obvious what happened here, isn't it?

moo_2021 · December 14

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

Many 3-way matches were just as painful as these cherry picked examples.

You can stil score as long as it's not DM.

Moonspawn · December 15

Haki_7 wrote: »

Here's an example of a match that doesnt look completely lopsided at first glance:

In reality there wasn't even a fight, just a ginormous waste of everyone's time. Considering we held 2 balls for the entire match, and they held one, it's obvious what happened here, isn't it?

It is to me. The first 4 green players stood with the chaosballs. They died to chaosball damage. Green 5 and 6 spawncamped orange. And even though the newcomers (7 and 8) were placed on the winning team, they * still * paid the price for the misconception that broke Battlegrounds:

@SummersetCitizen wrote:

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

Haki_7 · December 16

Moonspawn wrote: »

It is to me. The first 4 green players stood with the chaosballs. They died to chaosball damage. Green 5 and 6 spawncamped orange. And even though the newcomers (7 and 8) were placed on the winning team, they * still * paid the price for the misconception that broke Battlegrounds:

That's exactly what happened. Except we all paid the price.

Capture the Relic 1 & 2, no way of losing. Half of them simply left.

Domination 1 & 2, no way of losing:

DM, no way of losing:

Crazy King 1 & 2, no way of losing:

Chaosball, no way of losing:

Lucasl402 · December 16

2 team BG's are a dead end.

Bring back 3 teams and I will start playing BG's again.

Artisian0001 · December 17

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

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.

That's all people on the forums do. The 4v4 and 8v8 game modes are way better than a 3 team system that is just fighting for position to third party, which I did enjoy, but ultimately is less competitive than a straight up fight. The devs just did a bad job with the 2 team system, but it is far superior.

Haki_7 · December 18

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

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.

That's all people on the forums do. The 4v4 and 8v8 game modes are way better than a 3 team system that is just fighting for position to third party, which I did enjoy, but ultimately is less competitive than a straight up fight. The devs just did a bad job with the 2 team system, but it is far superior.

But don't the hundreds of scoreboards that have already been posted prove that the 4 flaws make 2 teams bgs objectively worse?

Relic 1 & 2, impossible to lose. Thankfully the first one ended quickly.

Crazy King 1 & 2, impossible to lose:

DM 1, impossible to win. Green-5 had no choice but to go around targeting newcomers.

DM 2 & 3, impossible to lose:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 114: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/lnM7gj0bbvw

MincMincMinc · December 18

2 team and 3 team have their places. For instance 2 team is better for capture the relic. 3 team is better for deathmatch because it has a vicious cycle of 3rd partying helping prevent spawn camping. Crazy king works better on 2 team because on 3 team you would have two groups fight while the other just runs objective.

Regardless zos failed in both modes to do basic design preventions against spawn camping and quitting. You can see how mobas solved this situations. In spawn zones you have a ton of regeneration. If enemies enter a zone they get damaged..........Instead ESO loosely wave spawns players up onto a wall usually in the line of fire while unbuffed. To get out of spawn you need to coordinate dropping. At best your team still loses an entire gcd or two while they enemy team gets free picks. Zos literally made a free shooting range to cause spawn camping.

To top it off there is such a long timer to kick players out of spawn that a good portion of matches turn into just afking for 15mins waiting for the enemy to get booted out.

Moonspawn · December 18

Radiate77 wrote: »

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

Many 3-way matches were just as painful as these cherry picked examples.

Queues pop in under 5 minutes, regularly, where 30 minutes for 3-team was the running joke.

Do you have video evidence of that?

Haki_7 · December 19

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Crazy king works better on 2 team because on 3 team you would have two groups fight while the other just runs objective.

Are you referring to one of the 3 flaws of 4v4v4?
''2) It was far too easy for the third team to complete the objective uncontested.'''

Domination, no possibility of losing:

CK 1 & 2, no possibility of losing:

Relic 1, no possibility of winning :

Relic 2 & 3, no possibility of losing:

Standard 510-0 Deathmatch, no possibility of losing:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 115: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/cuL2eMJjlLY

Artisian0001 · December 19

Haki_7 wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

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.

That's all people on the forums do. The 4v4 and 8v8 game modes are way better than a 3 team system that is just fighting for position to third party, which I did enjoy, but ultimately is less competitive than a straight up fight. The devs just did a bad job with the 2 team system, but it is far superior.

But don't the hundreds of scoreboards that have already been posted prove that the 4 flaws make 2 teams bgs objectively worse?

Relic 1 & 2, impossible to lose. Thankfully the first one ended quickly.

Crazy King 1 & 2, impossible to lose:

DM 1, impossible to win. Green-5 had no choice but to go around targeting newcomers.

DM 2 & 3, impossible to lose:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 114: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)
https://youtu.be/lnM7gj0bbvw

No, believe it or not, posting cherry picked screenshots doesn't prove anything at all. Basketball players are typically taller than average, but I can post hundreds of videos of shorter players being better than taller players, does this prove anything? Of course not. If that's literally your standard of evidence, good luck my man.

Haki_7 · December 20

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

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.

That's all people on the forums do. The 4v4 and 8v8 game modes are way better than a 3 team system that is just fighting for position to third party, which I did enjoy, but ultimately is less competitive than a straight up fight. The devs just did a bad job with the 2 team system, but it is far superior.

But don't the hundreds of scoreboards that have already been posted prove that the 4 flaws make 2 teams bgs objectively worse?

Relic 1 & 2, impossible to lose. Thankfully the first one ended quickly.

Crazy King 1 & 2, impossible to lose:

DM 1, impossible to win. Green-5 had no choice but to go around targeting newcomers.

DM 2 & 3, impossible to lose:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 114: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)
https://youtu.be/lnM7gj0bbvw

No, believe it or not, posting cherry picked screenshots doesn't prove anything at all. Basketball players are typically taller than average, but I can post hundreds of videos of shorter players being better than taller players, does this prove anything? Of course not. If that's literally your standard of evidence, good luck my man.

Improving Battlegrounds and keeping its critical flaws are diametrically opposing goals. If you know someone who genuinely likes two-sided BGs (and not its flaws), please direct them here. We could use the help.

Deathmatch 1 & 2, unavoidable victory:

Domination 1, getting spawncamped from start to finish, unavoidable defeat:

Domination 2 & 3, unavoidable victory:

Capt the relic 1 & 2, unavoidable victory:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 116: Waiting 17 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/wDl11l9-Ls8

Major_Mangle · December 20

@ZOS_Volpe
How can the mods allow this thread to continue? The moment it´s unlocked the same two people spam the thread with the same 2-3 posts over and over again, deliberately derailing any attempt to a constructive discussion.