Major_Mangle wrote: »

@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.

Same posts? These are all different matches. Different videos too.

xylena wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

@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.

Was there a change in mod policy? They didn't even censor posts in other threads directly bashing devs. Still funny these 2 guys think their identical video posts "prove" anything.

@xylena , @Major_Mangle You don't think that having matches that are either 100% guaranteed wins or 100% guaranteed losses drives people away from Battlegrounds?

Haki_7 wrote: »

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

This is non-responsive to the quote you are responding to. Cherry picked screenshots don't prove anything, are you going to respond to that at all or just move past it?

I always want BGs to improve. There is more competitive nature in a 2 team BG. Do I like the chaos of a 3 team BG? Sure, sometimes, but I prefer real competition to casual chaos. What I propose that I don't think anyone else has proposed, that you would like (but will never be implemented even though it's VERY EASY to do) is to take the 2 team BGs and make them the competitive option. For instance, make the 4v4 and 8v8 team ques the competitive option and GIVE THEM AN ACTUAL LEADERBOARD BASED OFF WIN/LOSS NOT JUST TIME PLAYED. Then take the existing non competitive ones and just replace those with casual 3 team BGs. This will make everyone happy.

Moonspawn wrote: »

3way matches with 0% chance of either winning or losing? Those were extremely rare. How many do you have? Can you please send them to me?

I posted a bunch of them in that other BGs thread including a 512-0-0 shutout.

You weren't swayed, you instead hypothetically shuffled players between teams.

Moonspawn wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@xylena , @Major_Mangle You don't think that having matches that are either 100% guaranteed wins or 100% guaranteed losses drives people away from Battlegrounds?

It absolutely does! Same exact problem when it was 3way though.

3way matches with 0% chance of either winning or losing? Those were extremely rare. How many do you have? Can you please send them to me?

I just spent like 3 minutes going over old BG screenshots and found about 30 matches where 2 teams had absolutely no chance of winning. Would probably be more than twice that if I also counted matches where 1 team did not have any chances of winning.
One of those happened in easily 75%+ of the 3way matches I had. You not wanting to remember that is just delusional.

Haki_7 wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

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

This is non-responsive to the quote you are responding to. Cherry picked screenshots don't prove anything, are you going to respond to that at all or just move past it?

My question was poorly phrased and your answer just made everything even more confusing. Best to break it down into parts: Do you believe these 4 critical flaws have made Battlegrounds objectively worse? Do you want said flaws to be eliminated?

Relic 1,2 and 3, 100% guaranteed to win:

Chaosball, 100% guaranteed to lose. We couldn't even get to the objective. Pvpers on my side had no choice but to go around targeting newcomers. Once again, the opposite of everything bgs are supposed to be. Opponents mostly died to chaosball damage:

Crazy king, 100% guaranteed to win:

DM, 100% guaranteed to win:

Domination, 100% guaranteed to win:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 117: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/L3Tu4eKZESo

No. The points don't make any sense.

Point 1 is "Since you can't use one team against another anymore..." What does this even mean? There are only 2 teams, you can use one team against another for anything, point 1 is incoherent.

Point 2 "The most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now." These are just words thrown together without any meaning. I can make the same argument that anti gaming is the 3 team system where 2 teams fight and one team runs the flags by themselves to end the game in 30 secconds.

Point 3 "Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode" If one team is vastly better than the other maybe, but this is just a pure design issue. There should be spawn protection and forced removal within 10 seconds of the entire team spawning.

Point 4 "People give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place." People are guaranteed second place with only 2 teams.

Are these really your 4 pain points? Most mean nothing.

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

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

This is non-responsive to the quote you are responding to. Cherry picked screenshots don't prove anything, are you going to respond to that at all or just move past it?

My question was poorly phrased and your answer just made everything even more confusing. Best to break it down into parts: Do you believe these 4 critical flaws have made Battlegrounds objectively worse? Do you want said flaws to be eliminated?

Relic 1,2 and 3, 100% guaranteed to win:

Chaosball, 100% guaranteed to lose. We couldn't even get to the objective. Pvpers on my side had no choice but to go around targeting newcomers. Once again, the opposite of everything bgs are supposed to be. Opponents mostly died to chaosball damage:

Crazy king, 100% guaranteed to win:

DM, 100% guaranteed to win:

Domination, 100% guaranteed to win:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 117: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/L3Tu4eKZESo

No. The points don't make any sense.

Point 1 is "Since you can't use one team against another anymore..." What does this even mean? There are only 2 teams, you can use one team against another for anything, point 1 is incoherent.

Point 2 "The most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now." These are just words thrown together without any meaning. I can make the same argument that anti gaming is the 3 team system where 2 teams fight and one team runs the flags by themselves to end the game in 30 secconds.

Point 3 "Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode" If one team is vastly better than the other maybe, but this is just a pure design issue. There should be spawn protection and forced removal within 10 seconds of the entire team spawning.

Point 4 "People give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place." People are guaranteed second place with only 2 teams.

Are these really your 4 pain points? Most mean nothing.

@Artisian0001 you need to click on the spoilers tabs to see the explanations. Some of them can only be read on pc. Phone screen is too small.

Cap the Relic 1 and 2 (0% chance of losing):
DM 1 (0% chance of losing):
DM 2 (0% chance of winning) All our kills were Orange-4 coming out of stealth to gank newcomers.
Crazy King 1 and 2 (0% chance of losing):
Domination (0% chance of losing):
Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 118: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

BGs are dead we were in Q the other night for 1.5 hours (2 people) lol

Moonspawn wrote: »

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?

@Radiate77 I'd like to see these videos too. Could you please post them? You must be talking about that time when the queue was bugged.

Deathmatch 1 & 2, no chance of losing:
Relic 1 & 2, no chance of losing:
Chaosball 1, no chance of winning. Sacrificed myself at the beginning to keep them from the damage sigil. It worked, but didn't matter. By exclusively targeting our team's newcomers and avoiding pvpers they were able to completely stop us from getting any points. If the format had been 4v4v4 I could have forced nearly all of their damage dealers to focus me, and the match would have been fun for everyone:
Chaosball 2, no chance of losing:
Domination, no chance of losing:
Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 119: Waiting 19 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

Regardless of whether its 2 team or 3 team BGs, the underlying issue is team balancing, if they can fix that, then most of the issues mentioned in this thread will dissipate.