Haki_7 wrote: »

@MincMincMinc I'm tagging you because I don't know if you saw my last question:

@MincMincMinc wrote:

Yeah I would probably know that resets have stopped when every other week I get to play I am not stuck fighting cp200s who don't know how to light attack. .

''Not that I doubt the accuracy of your witcher senses, but is there a different way to measure the impact of stopping the MMR resets? ''

@cuddles_with_wroble wrote:

I wait 30 - 40 min in que and fight the same 10 people all the time, I actually prefer to fight the 9 other people who actually can fight back and wait the 30 min than spend 5 min in que and get 40 kills against players who can’t fight back.

If you change your build and have a miserable experience in high mmr, that’s a sign that your build is bad and you need to go back to the kitchen. Not every build or play style is viable in high mmr bcs you fighting skilled players with good builds and that alone will counter a lot of things

Haki_7 wrote: »

Crazy King 2, unavoidable defeat. We could barely reach the flags:

MincMincMinc wrote:

Again, what is the point of you reposting random match scoreboards, you haven't made a point in multiple pages of the discussion. What are you even trying to get across to zos?

MincMincMinc wrote:

Practically all of the matches you are posting quite literally show one team with vastly different skilled players matched together

And the craziest 30+minutes queue times are also back in full force.

Haki_7 wrote: »

@NxJoeyD wrote:

Moonspawn wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Short term solutions are ones that don’t require major re-work, things that make use of the existing mechanical structures and only work to address the root causes of the most major concerns.

Examples of these would be:

Hard cap on self healing. No player of any role should be able to self heal to 90% - 95% health in a single burst, with Battle Spirit active. This creates a subset of spam players who don’t work with their teams or other roles such as healers, leaving them with little support. This is a rampant problem.

Hard cap Crit. .. we can still have crit based builds but they need a limit that cannot be exceeded. Max crit modifier is max crit, any excess is ignored not stacked above the cap.

Those 2, simple, modifications would improve BGs tremendously in the short term. They wouldn’t disenfranchise anyone but they’d kill the over reliant mechanics that are ruining BGs. They don’t require adding any assets or bloat to the game or any significant code writing, rather, just making better use of existing elements. We can live with everything else for now.

We'd still be living in a world where:
- The target order almost never reaches pvpers.
- Hideous anti-gaming is effortless.
- Spawncamping is so easy and so useful that it is encouraged in every gamemode.
- People give up on matches faster than ever because there is no longer a chance to fight for second place.

@NxJoeyD teach me how?

@Moonspawn

Where are you getting those assumptions from?

What I propose would reduce spawn camping tremendously. And capping crit is the FARTHEST thing from anti-gaming I can think of. Unless you’re a player that’s leaning on excessive crit to participate in combat then that makes no sense to say. It’s not as though there would be no crit if there was a hard cap it’s just that it wouldn’t be excessive, how is that a detriment to gameplay?

Many people on this thread are hard focusing on MMR, and they’re not wrong to say that. That’s been a pain point with BG’s since before subclassing but if we’re talking from a data driven perspective there’s a clearly defined line of how PvP combat was “before subclassing” and “after subclassing”. And we know that’s true as the Devs have all but admitted that and it’s part of the reason we’re getting class refreshes.

The idea to reset MMR is valid but not for the reasons that some people here think. Most assume that a resetting MMR aims to really separate players of certain skill levels, I’m going to tell you that’s not entirely what would happen … to some extent, yes, but to an equal extent, no. And that is down to core, fundamental, combat mechanics and how they have changed in the post-subclassing state.

This means that before subclassing you really needed skilled players and well setup builds to run a lopsided BG match or spawncamp … but now, you don’t. Even novice players can put together a build that falls into the narrow scope of the “meta” and be rewarded for low skill gameplay actions because their builds provide them with little to no consequence.

What this means is that, data wise, you can’t as easily separate your vet players from some of your spammers where you could easily do that in the past; because, on paper, both look similar in terms of metrics.

This creates a question, if janky players can now better run leaderboards how do we separate them from experienced players? .. the answer: we don’t.

Resetting MMR would instead see matchmaking grouping players based on consistent match outcomes, rather than trying to identify skill. It simply wouldn’t matter whether a player was really experienced or simply mashing buttons, if they’re hitting metrics they’re going to get grouped together.

Ask anyone and they’ll tell you that spawn camping OR one sided BGs increased in frequency post subclassing … does that mean that overnight lots more players “got good”? No, it means mechanics changed, which many of us predicted.

Resetting MMR would let the game attempt to sort out players based on how their matches have outcome so that like-outcome players are more frequently paired together. This would take a big chunk out of spawn camping and one sided matches.

As for the crit adjustments, the reason for those is that when you trace the most imbalanced mechanics in the current state of PvP to their source you arrive at Crit. I mention Crit damage and Crit healing separately because although they are related there are differences in scaling but both are affected by players putting resources into Crit scaling.

Basically the current state of Crit is indirectly telling every player “play a Crit build or just don’t be competitive”; and that’s not good for gameplay. There are some exceptions to this but as a general statement to PvP it applies. That really needs to be curbed. Combat in an MMO can certainly have an element of critical focus but the extent ZoS has allowed is excessive, especially given the lack of counterplay resources.

Remember, PvP combat isn’t just about the number of players on a team or how many teams are on the field or how many points a ball or flag awards .. it’s fundamental core combat mechanics and there’s very real questions with combat mechanics and their logics in PvP, but those can be addressed later.

What I’m currently focused on now is having PvP be playable for the broadest sense of the player base in a way that enables the game to maintain until at least the class refresh is complete. The best way to do that is to address the sources of the main issues and then test: MMR & Crit are our two culprits. Not only that but they’re easy to apply which wouldn’t be asking the Devs to undertake some major effort whilst they’re already in the middle of a major effort. That makes those two things a reasonable ask. Coming at the Devs for 3 team BGs or scoring overhauls or any of the like isn’t realistic because we all know they have their hands full and we’d never get it for at a minimum a year.

If we hard cap crit at its current max rather than leaving it a soft cap then the existing counterplay becomes more viable again, and if that happens then players no longer get to use crit as a “get out of jail free card” in PvP combat and instead have to actually play as a team or learn & execute combat tactics properly to win a match. And if all that happens then the instances of spawn camping & one sided matches reduce.

After all this time I still can't tell if you're talking about capping critical chance or critical damage and healing.

Domination, no chance of losing:

Crazy King, no chance of losing. Instead of being forced to come after me, the way it would have been in 3-sided, Orange-5 ditched his team to go around killing newcomers:

Relic 1, no chance of losing:

Relic 2, no chance of winning. We did because opponents were more interested in farming us was than doing the objective:

Relic 3, no chance of losing. Their 2 points was people glitching our relic:

Deathmatch, no chance of losing:

Chaosball, no chance of losing:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 156: Waiting 15 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/3NOLNu4NLbU

Haki_7 wrote: »

What misinformation?

@MincMincMinc wrote:

Its nothing secret, but zos prioritized giving out a participation trophy over an actual functional MMR. They wanted everyone to be able to see themselves on the leaderboard for a chance, instead of making a functional system to properly rank people.

https://youtu.be/eidqTe1nLEE

Haki_7 wrote: »

@MincMincMinc wrote:

Its nothing secret, but zos prioritized giving out a participation trophy over an actual functional MMR. They wanted everyone to be able to see themselves on the leaderboard for a chance, instead of making a functional system to properly rank people.

What's this about leaderboard? Did they ever say that?

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

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.

Haki_7 wrote: »

@NxJoeyD wrote:

@Haki_7 I’m not sure, but, are you even reading the match recaps that you’re posting here?

Let me explain. I’ll use your own Chaosball 1 & 2 match screenshots from your post this morning as an example:

In your comment you claim that the matches were “unavoidable victories” because it was “a staring contest between the ball carriers”

The data you posted doesn’t say that.

In the Chaosball 1 recap it’s very clear that your team had excessively more outward healing than your opponents did. Your team was able to mitigate much more incoming damage than your opponents were. This also contributes toward keeping the ball carriers healed through holding the objective. … the numbers are clear on WHY your team won. It wasn’t a staring contest it was that during that match your opponents just didn’t have the heals.

In the Chaosball 2 recap we see a different trend. Although your opponents had more outward healing than you did, your team had considerably higher damage output than they did. This is telling us that your opponents weren’t able to out heal both your teams damage and the Chaosball ticks and as such your team was easily able to maintain kills and keep them from holding the ball.

Neither of those matches were staring contests. The match outcomes make perfect sense with the data shown. I don’t know what you’re citing that as a reference here.

Two-sided chaosball almost always turns into a staring contest between the ball carriers and myself. We stay close to spawn admiring each other, healing and having inappropriate thoughts. Enemy team is usually unable to reach us. Are the following matches the ones you were referring to?

Haki_7 wrote:

Chaosball 1 & 2, unavoidable victories. Staring contest with ball carriers:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 160: Waiting 15 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/-zhqHrkscEg

Deathmatch, no way of losing. Spawncamping from start to finish and people promptly giving up after a single death. Fourth critical flaw of 2-sided:

Relic, no way of losing:

Crazy King, no way of losing. Running around trying to end the lopsided snoozefest while my team spawncamps. Would not have happened in 3-sided:

Chaosball 1 & 2, no way of losing. We didn't need their one ball, and we kept our two out of their reach. Pointless staring contest with ball carriers:

Domination 1, no way of losing:

Domination 2, no way of winning. We could barely reach the flags:

Haki_7 wrote: »

Where is the source of this information?

@thesarahandcompany wrote:

Moonspawn wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

[*] For example, objective modes like payload/escort could create a more strategic and team-focused competitive environment.
[/list]

@thesarahandcompany I've spent a great deal of time thinking about a payload/escort game mode. Wouldn't it be a little too similar to 3-sided Chaosball? Considering, of course, a crazy timeline in which Zenimax spends the miniscule amount of resources needed to make it impossible for people to cheese the ball.

Chaosball incentivizes running away and surviving with the ball. Payload incentivizes coordinated team fights. That’s basically the opposite of “the same mode.”

There's also no way to fix "cheesing" the chaos ball because there's nothing to fix. The issue is not that it is broken. It's a valid game design. I am suggesting another game design that I believe is better and healthier for the longevity of the game.

We've got to move past this "everything is broken, fix it now" and just state the core design-based issues.

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

If that's the case, why not close these other threads