Future of Battlegrounds

Artisian0001 · December 2025

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>

Haki_7 · December 2025

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Are you really that desperate to keep it alive? 2 team BGs are more competitive than 3 team ones

What I'm desperate for is solving all seven flaws that plague Battlegrounds. So far, we've only been able to find solutions to three of them. The three that ruined 4v4v4.

Chaosball 1 & 2, no way to lose. The usual pointless staring contest with ball carriers.

Relic 1, no way to win.

Relic 2, no way to lose. Only four opponents remained.

Deathmatch 1 & 2, no way to lose.

Crazy King, no way to lose.

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 124: Waiting 20 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/no0EQh7M-fs

Moonspawn · December 2025

@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 · December 2025

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.

Decimus · December 2025

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:

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.
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).

Artisian0001 · December 2025

Haki_7 wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Are you really that desperate to keep it alive? 2 team BGs are more competitive than 3 team ones

What I'm desperate for is solving all seven flaws that plague Battlegrounds. So far, we've only been able to find solutions to three of them. The three that ruined 4v4v4.

Chaosball 1 & 2, no way to lose. The usual pointless staring contest with ball carriers.

Relic 1, no way to win.

Relic 2, no way to lose. Only four opponents remained.

Deathmatch 1 & 2, no way to lose.

Crazy King, no way to lose.

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 124: Waiting 20 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)
https://youtu.be/no0EQh7M-fs

2 team BGs are more competitive. 3 team BGs are casual. You want to farm random people while you 3rd party on a sorc, you are the reason 2 team BGs are better. The sooner you accept that, the better.

LPapirius · December 2025

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 · December 2025

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

Artisian0001 · December 2025

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.

Haki_7 · December 2025

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 123: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)
https://youtu.be/vczp918MO4Q

At what time? We know you like to queue at 3am which is when next to no one is online. Expecting to find a game at that time of day within a short period is unrealistic, yet you keep doing it and recording the queue as if it proves a point.

There is a reason you never include the time of day since you accidentally showed it the first time, and haven't done since, and ignore all comments on it because you know it doesn't align with your narrative. Giving full transparency breaks the veil.

This was the first of these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65jjoP7c9OU

Why do you believe it was recorded at 3 AM?

Deathmatch 1, no possibility of losing.

Deathmatch 2, no possibility of winning. The encouraged play for damage dealers in this situation would be to ditch their teammates to go spawncamp some newcomers (first and third flaws).

Chaosball 1 & 2, no possibility of losing. They couldn't reach the objective.

Relic 1 & 2, no possibility of losing.

Domination, no possibility of losing. They were literally running around flags without even drawing weapons, the exact same way it happened in both land grab modes of 4v4v4. We've already found a simple and straightforward solution to this particular problem.

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 125: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/BuN9DKf30qw

Thumbless_Bot · December 2025

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...

Moonspawn · December 2025

Haki_7 wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 123: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)
https://youtu.be/vczp918MO4Q

At what time? We know you like to queue at 3am which is when next to no one is online. Expecting to find a game at that time of day within a short period is unrealistic, yet you keep doing it and recording the queue as if it proves a point.

There is a reason you never include the time of day since you accidentally showed it the first time, and haven't done since, and ignore all comments on it because you know it doesn't align with your narrative. Giving full transparency breaks the veil.

This was the first of these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65jjoP7c9OU
Why do you believe it was recorded at 3 AM?

Maybe he's referring to the first video that was actually named ''destruction of battlegrounds''?

Haki_7 · December 2025

Artisian0001 wrote: »

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.

It sure was chaotic to have half the participants playing the objective while the other half only wanted to play deathmatch. It was the worst of the 3 flaws that ruined 4v4v4. Easily solvable by having a separate objectives queue, yes? There would be no more chaos, only real competition in all 4 queue options.

Relic 1, no way to lose.

Relic 2, no way to win. Teammates talked about how they miss 4v4v4.

Deathmatch 1 & 2, no way to lose:

Crazy King, no way to lose:

Domination, no way to lose. They could barely arrive at the flags.

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 126: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/gM0H2zvKs0U

Artisian0001 · December 2025

Haki_7 wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

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.

It sure was chaotic to have half the participants playing the objective while the other half only wanted to play deathmatch. It was the worst of the 3 flaws that ruined 4v4v4. Easily solvable by having a separate objectives queue, isn't it? There would be no more chaos, only real competition in all 4 queue options.

Relic 1, no way to lose.

Relic 2, no way to win. Teammates talked about how they miss 4v4v4.

Deathmatch 1 & 2, no way to lose:

Crazy King, no way to lose:

Domination, no way to lose. They could barely arrive at the flags.

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 126: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)
https://youtu.be/gM0H2zvKs0U

Why do you always choose to go back and respond to 2 week old comments when your responses to me have been deleted several times? Are you okay? Stop digging up old comments because the thread is dead @ZOS_Icy this person has had their comments deleted on multiple occasions for going back and pinging me specifically and continues to do it.

3 team BGs are bad, move on.

Moonspawn · December 2025

Artisian0001 wrote: »

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.

That's not a forum signature. Look closer.

Artisian0001 · December 2025

Moonspawn wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

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.

That's not a forum signature. Look closer.

If he does this intentionally after every messages just to flood the forums it's even worse. There is no need to spam that in every response when it isn't even relevant, it's just obnoxious.

ZOS_GregoryV · December 2025

Greetings,

At this time, we are reopening this thread as 3-Sided Battlegrounds is up on PTS for testing. Please keep the conversation civil, constructive, and within the guidelines of the Community Rules. Thank you.

Regards,
-Greg-

Haki_7 · February 4

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 123: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)
https://youtu.be/vczp918MO4Q

At what time? We know you like to queue at 3am which is when next to no one is online. Expecting to find a game at that time of day within a short period is unrealistic, yet you keep doing it and recording the queue as if it proves a point.

There is a reason you never include the time of day since you accidentally showed it the first time, and haven't done since, and ignore all comments on it because you know it doesn't align with your narrative. Giving full transparency breaks the veil.

This was the first of these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65jjoP7c9OU
Why do you believe it was recorded at 3 AM?

Maybe he's referring to the first video that was actually named ''destruction of battlegrounds''?

Got it. Here it is:
Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 1: Waiting 37 minutes for a lopsided match

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFhcqmz--Zc

@Major_Toughness Why would anyone believe any of these videos was recorded at 3 AM?

Domination 1, no risk of losing:

Domination 2, no risk of winning. Five flags land grab that ended in a flash. Green-5 ditched us to go seek a newcomer to farm after a single encounter.

Deathmatch 1, no risk of losing:

Deathmatch 2, exactly like the one before:

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

Cap the relic, no risk of losing:

Crazy king, no risk of losing. Two players even left:

xylena · February 4

@Haki_7 maybe instead of trashing 2-sided for another 27 pages you should thank the new dev team for listening to feedback and go help them test 3-sided on PTS.

If 3-sided BGs are something that so many players geniunely want, then I'm glad the devs are bringing them back, anything that generates interest in this PvP is a win at this point.

Moonspawn · February 4

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

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.

That's not a forum signature. Look closer.

If he does this intentionally after every messages just to flood the forums it's even worse. There is no need to spam that in every response when it isn't even relevant, it's just obnoxious.

As I was saying, these scoreboards are incontrovertible proof that most 2-sided matches appear tailor-made to drive people away from Battlegrounds (and pvp itself). How can you say they're not relevant?

Haki_7 · February 5

xylena wrote: »

@Haki_7 maybe instead of trashing 2-sided for another 27 pages

Trashing 2-sided? I thought this thread was about finding solutions to the game-breaking problems that plague all forms of Battlegrounds. If we manage to do that, I don't think it matters if they're two or three-sided.

Crazy King, no way to win. Even though our team had healing and theirs did not, we were unable to stand on any flag long enough to get a single point.

Deathmatch 1 & 2, no way to lose:

Domination 1 & 2, no way to lose:

Relic, no way to lose:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 127: Waiting 18 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/jqpcr-bhNmg

Chaosball, no way to lose. This nightmare somehow went on for over 10 minutes.

Arboz · February 5

I agree that actually many matches are very unbalanced and one can foresee which side will win. Often after less than a minute.

I like the 8vs8 mode, but it would be a neat feature to have a surrender-option - if enough players vote to surrender, the match immediately ends and everyone has saved time for a new one.

imPDA · February 5

Btw, speaking about transparency, @ZOS_Kevin could you tell us more about MMR in BGs? I saw development of this started and postponed, idk why, probably because of priorities. Will this feature ever be delivered? Does it exist in some form under the hood, so complete newbies would not play against veterans, or it is absent completely? Any plans to bring it live one sunny day in the future?

We have "MMR" in some ingame strings, like "MMR will not be decreased" or something like that if someone leaves BG, we have API functions for this (not working atm), and we have 2 BG types, and 4vs4 is "rating" match, so it is obvious, MMR was planned, but we never heard about it again after it was mentioned in one PTS note long ago and then instantly removed.

Thank you in advance!

xylena · February 5

Haki_7 wrote: »

Trashing 2-sided? I thought this thread was about finding solutions to the game-breaking problems that plague all forms of Battlegrounds.

And now that 3-sided BGs are on the PTS, that's where your solutions should go. This thread has run its course, time for a new future.

We've been over how "winning" is entirely subjective in 3-sided because some players feel like 2nd place is a win, others don't. To me, 2nd place will always be 1st loser.

@ZOS_GregoryV please close this thread (again), it will only get toxic (again).

Moonspawn · February 5

imPDA wrote: »

Btw, speaking about transparency, @ZOS_Kevin could you tell us more about MMR in BGs? I saw development of this started and postponed, idk why, probably because of priorities. Will this feature ever be delivered? Does it exist in some form under the hood, so complete newbies would not play against veterans, or it is absent completely? Any plans to bring it live one sunny day in the future?

We have "MMR" in some ingame strings, like "MMR will not be decreased" or something like that if someone leaves BG, we have API functions for this (not working atm), and we have 2 BG types, and 4vs4 is "rating" match, so it is obvious, MMR was planned, but we never heard about it again after it was mentioned in one PTS note long ago and then instantly removed.

Thank you in advance!

I suppose this is as good time as any to discuss why asking for a better matchmaking may result (and may have resulted) in resources being diverted away from Battlegrounds. @imPDA how do you think the MMR works?

ZOS_Kevin · February 5

imPDA wrote: »

Btw, speaking about transparency, @ZOS_Kevin could you tell us more about MMR in BGs? I saw development of this started and postponed, idk why, probably because of priorities. Will this feature ever be delivered? Does it exist in some form under the hood, so complete newbies would not play against veterans, or it is absent completely? Any plans to bring it live one sunny day in the future?

Hi @imPDA, wanted to follow up here. While the team would still like to address this in the future, currently with all of our other initiatives, we don't have bandwidth to properly address the MMR tech. You are correct, it was on the roadmap for a bit and then we had a priority shift to address other longstanding issues. We still want to address this, but it will be some time before we can get to it.

imPDA · February 5

Moonspawn wrote: »

@imPDA how do you think the MMR works?

How it works in general? How it calculated or what? How MMR based matchmaking works? If you clarify it, I can try to give better explanation.

To begin with, MMR is calculated differently in different games. Usually, it is zero-sum for the match, like in Elo rating system. Elo rating allows you to calculate win/lose probability of any player pair (in classic Elo, in chess for example). Any MMR system works similarly; it calculates probability of win based on some rating values, then it calculates probable MMR change. High rank player vs low rank player will not win many points, but will lose many points, because they are very probable to win according to rating. Players of same rating lose/win some equal amount; all calculations depend on particular formula developed for this particular scenario, once again, as in chess for example, FIDE has formula, some other rating can have a little bit different formula.

There are multiplayer MMR systems, but they have same base - if you have high chance to win, you will get less MMR points, and if you lose you will lose many point, with player of same strength you should get and lose same number of points.

There is zero-sum MMR (in DotA if I remember correctly), non-zero-sum MMR (ToT is ESO).

Matchmaking is simple and hard at the same time. Ideally, if number of players in pool is big enough, you should be able to form two teams of same skill all the time. If there are not enough players, you can wait until timeout (e.x., 5 min max) and form group of players who queued first to let match start faster. This way some high rank player can play with low skilled player, but it is OK, because MMR loss and gain will be adjusted based on total/average team rank.

It is basement for MMR, not in every game you can create successful MMR system, but in ESO I would really like to see if it is possible, and friends and guild members I talked with also said they would appreciate it. Current "rating" system shows nothing, and because there is no big PvP reward and there is no MMR, there is no big stimulus to continue playing BGs after 1-2 thousands of BGs. MMR can end up with dead queue because of lack of players of the same MMR, but it can be tested.

We have no access to BG data, but it would be very interesting to explore tbh, I would try to simulate to what MMR system could lead.

Haki_7 · February 5

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

imPDA wrote: »

Btw, speaking about transparency, @ZOS_Kevin could you tell us more about MMR in BGs? I saw development of this started and postponed, idk why, probably because of priorities. Will this feature ever be delivered? Does it exist in some form under the hood, so complete newbies would not play against veterans, or it is absent completely? Any plans to bring it live one sunny day in the future?

Hi @imPDA, wanted to follow up here. While the team would still like to address this in the future, currently with all of our other initiatives, we don't have bandwidth to properly address the MMR tech. You are correct, it was on the roadmap for a bit and then we had a priority shift to address other longstanding issues. We still want to address this, but it will be some time before we can get to it.

@ZOS_Kevin Here's one of the very few balanced matches I've played:
The blue arrows indicate the pvpers.

Impossible for newcomers to have fun, because the target order never leaves them.
Impossible for pvpers to have fun, because the target order almost never reaches other pvpers, and whoever dares deviate from that gets zerged down.

Doesn't matter if it's time played, win rate, damage done or KDA. The match would have turned out the same regardless of which metric was used for MMR. This is the complete opposite of everything Battlegrounds are supposed to be. The only way to change that is to solve these four critical flaws.

Moonspawn · February 5

imPDA wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@imPDA how do you think the MMR works?

How it works in general? How it calculated or what? How MMR based matchmaking works? If you clarify it, I can try to give better explanation.
To begin with, MMR is calculated differently in different games. Usually, it is zero-sum for the match, like in Elo rating system. Elo rating allows you to calculate win/lose probability of any player pair (in classic Elo, in chess for example). Any MMR system works similarly; it calculates probability of win based on some rating values, then it calculates probable MMR change. High rank player vs low rank player will not win many points, but will lose many points, because they are very probable to win according to rating. Players of same rating lose/win some equal amount; all calculations depend on particular formula developed for this particular scenario, once again, as in chess for example, FIDE has formula, some other rating can have a little bit different formula.

There are multiplayer MMR systems, but they have same base - if you have high chance to win, you will get less MMR points, and if you lose you will lose many point, with player of same strength you should get and lose same number of points.

There is zero-sum MMR (in DotA if I remember correctly), non-zero-sum MMR (ToT is ESO).

Matchmaking is simple and hard at the same time. Ideally, if number of players in pool is big enough, you should be able to form two teams of same skill all the time. If there are not enough players, you can wait until timeout (e.x., 5 min max) and form group of players who queued first to let match start faster. This way some high rank player can play with low skilled player, but it is OK, because MMR loss and gain will be adjusted based on total/average team rank.

It is basement for MMR, not in every game you can create successful MMR system, but in ESO I would really like to see if it is possible, and friends and guild members I talked with also said they would appreciate it. Current "rating" system shows nothing, and because there is no big PvP reward and there is no MMR, there is no big stimulus to continue playing BGs after 1-2 thousands of BGs. MMR can end up with dead queue because of lack of players of the same MMR, but it can be tested.

We have no access to BG data, but it would be very interesting to explore tbh, I would try to simulate to what MMR system could lead.

The current matchmaking in Battlegrounds. What do you think it's based on? Medal score, damage done, time played, KDA, win rate? Something else?

Haki_7 · February 6

xylena wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Trashing 2-sided? I thought this thread was about finding solutions to the game-breaking problems that plague all forms of Battlegrounds.

And now that 3-sided BGs are on the PTS, that's where your solutions should go.

But simple solutions have already been found to perfectly address all three of the game-breaking problems that ruined 3-sided. Don't you remember?

Deathmatch 1 & 2 , no possibility of losing. Mind-numbing spawncamping all the way.

Domination, no possibility of winning:

Chaosball 1, no possibility of losing. We did lose because no one wanted to grab the chaosballs.

Chaosball 2, no possibility of losing. We almost did because... no one wanted to grab the chaosballs again.

Crazy King, no possibility of losing. They couldn't even reach the flags.

Capt the Relic, no possibility of losing.

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 128: Waiting 15 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/gEQQR-ZkVs8