Haki_7 wrote: »

@Artisian0001 wrote: »

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.

But I've already posted countless scoreboards of 2-teams BGs that didn't have a competitive nature. Is there anything competitive about a lopsided match?

Crazy king 1 & 2, no risk of losing:

Deathmatch, no risk of losing:

Chaosball 1, no risk of losing. They couldn't even reach the objective.

Chaosball 2, no risk of losing. Even on the winning team, target order never left green-3. Lots of spawncamping newcomers and not doing the objective to prolong the lopsided snoozefest for as long as possible.

Cap the relic 1, no risk of winning. By not giving up I successfully extended everyone's suffering for the full 15 minutes. Mission accomplished.

Cap the relic 2, no risk of losing. Most just gave up and left.

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 123: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/vczp918MO4Q

<snip> you are now going even father back to mention another comment to revive this thread that is dying. Are you really that desperate to keep it alive? 2 team BGs are more competitive than 3 team ones, move on and stop pinging me about something multiple times<snip>, that's very weird and obsessive.

<snipped for Discussing Disciplinary Actions>

@xylena , when you have a moment, could you please let me know if you’ll be able to send those extremely rare 3-teams scoreboards we talked about? The ones with 100% chance winning/losing. I’d really appreciate the clarification so I know whether to keep waiting.

xylena wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@xylena , when you have a moment, could you please let me know if you’ll be able to send those extremely rare 3-teams scoreboards we talked about? The ones with 100% chance winning/losing. I’d really appreciate the clarification so I know whether to keep waiting.

I posted dozens of them in one of the other similar BGs debate threads. Check your own post history for when we last discussed this a few months back. You insisted that the problem wasn't the format, but the poor matchmaking system, which I partially agree with.

I'll post the shutout again because it's my favorite. You have no idea who these players were so please don't waste time shuffling random KDA results between teams like you did last time.

Careful posting these, on November 2nd I made one post where I linked a bunch of old 3-way BG screenshots I had saved from back in the days and my post was moderated for "Spamming". Some of us still need to adhere to the forum rules and don't have special permissions.


On the topic though, it's hilarious people still keep thinking unbalanced matches have anything to do with the format. By same logic, I guess we should go tell FIFA to add a third team to football (or soccer for the Americans) when Real Madrid goes against FC Oompaloompa and it's anything but balanced... or maybe there should've been a third boxer in that Jake Paul vs Anthony Joshua match since it was so one-sided.

These "it's the team vs team format" arguments just fall flat when you apply some logic. They also fall flat when talking to people who played the 3-way BGs and remember how they had the exact same issues and more.


Instead if people want to have some actual conversation here I think they should be honest about their reasons for preferring 3-way BGs:

1. It was easier to third party people, "rat playstyles" were more rewarded and your own skill as a player didn't matter quite as much when you could just let others (in your team or the 3rd team) do the work for you.
2. Playing a healer was even more rewarding as your heals would be guaranteed to hit the whole team and there'd be less opponents on average to focus you if you stood behind your team.

In other words, it's all about personal preference and wanting to be the "main character" in BGs, not about wanting more "balanced" BGs or fixing some "flaws".

I fail to see how that'd be good for the game and its population (which was deader than dead in 3-way BGs).

I stopped playing BG's when they mandated two team play on tiny maps.

I'll stop playing Cyrodiil when vengeance is mandated as well. And I won't play a tiny map version of cyrodiil either. It will have all the same issues as full sized Cyrodiil has just on a smaller map. ZOS will still have done nothing to limit the heal stacking, which is basically the only problem ZOS needs to solve to make normal cyrodiil viable.

Xarc wrote: »

Well this thread has turned into a dialogue between two people (@Haki_7 & @Artisian0001) , with the occasional unrelated comment from someone else, but I think we've reached its end here @ZOS_Kevin

It only looks that way because he has this giant signature in every single response to flood the post. He also responded to me 3 times before I responded to him, his comments even got deleted for doing so, but he decided to ping again. Regardless, this post should 100% be closed, he comes back after a week to respond to any random comment he can when the thread dies to bump it.

Xarc wrote: »

Well this thread has turned into a dialogue between two people (@Haki_7 & @Artisian0001) , with the occasional unrelated comment from someone else, but I think we've reached its end here @ZOS_Kevin

This thread will continue after they shut down every eso megaserver and close the crown store...