xylena wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

The thing is you really shouldn't be making these changes out of order

FWIW we as players don't need to get involved in the logistics of development, it just ends up like the heal stack thread, we simply stay focused on communicating to the devs that BGs MMR is the most severe pain point, with spawn and format issues as other major pain points.

Sure we shouldn't have to, but at some point when you have zos thinking its better to prioritize resetting MMR to give everyone a chance at seeing their name on a monthly resetting leaderboard.......compared to having a functional more fun matchmaking experience with a working MMR. Ehhhhhhh they need a little more of a bump than us just all agreeing its broken.

EDIT: ok imagine if we started mixing in everyone from the NFL to little league flag football skill wise. Creating absurdly unbalanced matches making people at both levels not have fun with the reasoning that we want everyone to get the chance at obtaining a participation trophy. This is the situation we are in essentially on live. Its a cozy thought to want everyone to get a chance at being on the top of the leaderboard, but in reality you are going to lose 10x the players because of the imbalance.

Also if we all just agree that the mmr is broken, this thread would die in a day and look less appealing to zos to take action. Happens all the time on the PTS cycles where the threads we see acknowledged are ones with controversy causing back and forth discussion. So us being in agreement on MMR reset = bad should be the main point agreed on, but to keep the thread alive we need to discuss how to have a functional skill based MMR system in a non resetting system using the current BG data available like KDA, healing, damage, etc.

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Chaosball 1, impossible to lose. We almost did because

Haki_7 wrote: »

Domination, impossible to lose. We did because

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you're writing stuff like this for over 30 pages? These hyperboles only serve to undermine whatever it is you're trying to say.


impossible
/ɪmˈpɒsɪbl/
adjective
not able to occur, exist, or be done.

He won't respond to you because you are not part of his echo chamber. Haki only responds to people he knows and already agree with him.

@Major_Toughness It has already been explained that improving Battlegrounds and maintaining any of their critical flaws are diametrically opposing goals.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Chaosball 1, impossible to lose. We almost did because

Haki_7 wrote: »

Domination, impossible to lose. We did because

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you're writing stuff like this for over 30 pages? These hyperboles only serve to undermine whatever it is you're trying to say.


impossible
/ɪmˈpɒsɪbl/
adjective
not able to occur, exist, or be done.

He won't respond to you because you are not part of his echo chamber. Haki only responds to people he knows and already agree with him.

@Major_Toughness It has already been explained that improving Battlegrounds and maintaining any of their critical flaws are diametrically opposing goals.

What does that even mean. Improving Battlegrounds, and fixing their flaws are opposing goals? Sound the same to me.

Dont understand the drama.
We dont have enough players to build several pools, so everyone ready to PvP just gets thrown in.
There are always Elite Players and its always the responsibility of the rest to adapt and evolve or keep being the victim.
If you Like PvP, you will do exactly that, die, learn, adapt, repeat.
Otherwise you will keep dying and shouldnt expect that the devs can do anything about it.

The format of BGs doesnt change anything about this.
If you cant compete (yet) with good players, it doesnt matter if you play 4vs4vs4 or 8vs8.

Arboz wrote: »

Dont understand the drama.
We dont have enough players to build several pools, so everyone ready to PvP just gets thrown in.
There are always Elite Players and its always the responsibility of the rest to adapt and evolve or keep being the victim.
If you Like PvP, you will do exactly that, die, learn, adapt, repeat.
Otherwise you will keep dying and shouldnt expect that the devs can do anything about it.

The format of BGs doesnt change anything about this.
If you cant compete (yet) with good players, it doesnt matter if you play 4vs4vs4 or 8vs8.

Exactly right.

And Haki just wants MMR removed so they get matched faster and with even more inexperienced players so they can win more, while using 4v4v4 as a scapegoat.

At least that's what I assume, since like with Call of Duty the only players that moaned about MMR were the sweaters that were angy about not going on massive killstreaks anymore while pubstomping.

xylena wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

At least that's what I assume, since like with Call of Duty the only players that moaned about MMR were the sweaters that were angy about not going on massive killstreaks anymore while pubstomping.

This is what we meant saying Haki and Moonspawn are obfuscating serious issues, like the seriously busted resetting MMR that blocks competitive players from finding competitive matches.

MMR has been broken since the beginning, in 3s any vet sweatlord who wanted to pug stomp just had to make a new toon, boom they're down in Low MMR again.

Now in 2s the game does some sort of wacky reset that deliberately puts all the vet sweatlords back down in Low MMR every week (?) or whatever. No High MMR bracket even has time to form, you get maybe a day of competitive matches, then it's back to lopsided noob matches.

Players like Haki and Moonspawn seem to miss certain easy tactics and 2nd place rewards. I've seen serious players say they miss 3s, but I think what they really miss was being able to reliably queue into High MMR for a competitive match (at least when the queue was populated).

Gonna highlight the bolded part here. A MAJOR difference between 4v4v4 and 2 team BG´s is that back in the day the average count of proper/actual PvP players were way higher. With more competent players you automatically get more competitive matches more often. The format isn´t the problem but the lack of actual PvP players. The majority of players these days (at least PCEU) are PvP tourists with zero interest to PvP. Most just do BG`s for the same reason you do a daily random normal dungeon: For some bonus exp to level up skills/morphs. If you took the old PvP population and put them into the current format it would look way different than it does. The key to keep BG`s alive is to actually accommodate to the veterans and give them what they want:

A decent/proper competitive MMR/matchmaking system (aka deathmatch, because that´s what the actual PvP population wanna do in BG´s)

Can´t wait for 200+ more comments, sorry, spam, of cherry picked nonsense.

I’m surprised I haven’t been seeing Role-Queue mentioned. All of this talk about MMR this, and MMR that… none of that matters if you fail to restrict group composition.

One group with all bruisers will lose to a group with three bruisers and a healer, every time. That is just one example. There are several group compositions that slant you towards winning before a match even begins.

New World had role-queue for their arenas and it worked great, any update to Ranked in ESO needs to begin here. Then we can talk about MMR.

Radiate77 wrote: »

I’m surprised I haven’t been seeing Role-Queue mentioned

You've seen the countless "fake role" threads in General right?

Probably no good way to enforce a role system, nor any good way to test competency.

xylena wrote: »

@Haki_7 thanks for updating your images, have you ever considered switching from Support to DD to be able to carry 2s? Some of those would become winnable if you were on DD.

Which ones?

What's to stop someone from jumping on another character and sacking the level 50s? You know it'll happen. Let's assume we entertained this notion of grouping. If that really is something to consider, it's going to have to be ranked account wide at a very minimum. After that, they will just use their alt accounts. And do the same thing.
Im still convinced the only way is to fairly balance everyone. Each class is the same. If you're that good, you're that good. They all have the same skills, health ect. It might have been possible to enforce role requirements this way. Its not possible with Subclass.
I think the objectives are OK, capture the relic, get the ball, ect but they are all in the rear view mirror bc the entire game has devolved into a dps sludgefest. The only thing in between are cheap exploits and lag.

Radiate77 wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

I’m surprised I haven’t been seeing Role-Queue mentioned

You've seen the countless "fake role" threads in General right?

Probably no good way to enforce a role system, nor any good way to test competency.

Then perhaps it’s time for ZOS to determine what a Healer, Tank, and DPS actually are for the sake of role-queue? Other games have requirements like, “must have a Restoration Staff and 30,000 magicka” or “must have a shield and 35,000 health” and then proceed to pair people against teams that share the exact same composition.

A team without a healer should not be fighting a team with a healer, same goes for tanks.

I mean as a pureclass Crit-focused NB just using an Oakensoul Bow I can more or less act as a backline healer with 11K healing crits on my frontline (with ~80% crit chance), and setup execute thresholds/pressure enemies for allies or outright kill them with Snipe/Ele weave. So I'm kinda a Healer/DPS, but pop like bubble-wrap. I'd be able to queue as DPS but act as a side-healer if needed.

Tanks have the barspace to slot stacking damage effects like Shalks/Ulfsild's/Treatsie/Surprise Attack to pop anyone not building tanky, acting as Tank/DPS, and usually have a scribed heal. Which is kind of the meta build that lets them be Jacks (and honestly more like King's) of all trades.

In PvP there's a lot of role overlap unless you're making a dedicated ballgroup.

xylena wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

I think they're pretty substantial. How can they not be?

They're obviously cherry picked, you have the skill to adapt by playing DD but choose not to, and you can't possibly say things like this and expect to be taken in good faith:

Impossible to lose, but you lost? LOL what? The specifics don't even matter because it's obviously not "impossible" if using a bad strat costs you the match.

Could you quote the entire sentence?

xylena wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Could you

No. Not until you post a BGs board showing your performance on a clearly bad team, so we can establish whether you have the competency to meaningfully engage in this discussion.

It's most certainly something about not playing the objective, so:

''Domination, impossible to lose. We did because... team was spawncamping newcomers instead of playing the objective.''
I see that all the time. Damage dealers either being forced or choosing to ditch their teammates to go around targeting newcomers. It's the influence of the first and third critical flaws of 2-sided. So far, I've only been able to identify one way to set them free.