Three-Sided Deathmatch

Moonspawn · April 2

Two-sided Battlegrounds are too difficult to balance. Three-sided Deathmatch is not. Please add it as a permanent option for solo players.

Moonspawn · April 2

Ongoing discussions (April 2, 2026):
1- Battlegrounds matchmaking.
2- Critical flaws of the 2-sided format.
3- Critical flaws of the 3-sided format.
4- How to fix the 3-sided objective modes.
5- Balance changes, such as capping critical damage and healing.

Moonspawn · April 2

Three-sided BGs could be balanced by placing one or two BG regulars per team and filling the rest of the slots with newcomers. You could easily create matches with extremely high probability of being fun for everyone, regardless of skill level. Doing the exact same thing in two-sided just doesn't have the same result. Here's why:

Since you can't use one team against another anymore, it's difficult for BG regulars to engage each other without discarding everything they know about positioning and target selection.
1) Here's a typical 8v8 Deathmatch. Very unbalanced, yes?

2) Use Magic Matchmaking to make both teams identical:

3) Identify the target order. Although there are exceptions, it will generally be determined by squishiness. Tanks and pure healers at the back, gankers and bombers at the front.

4) Do you notice how the BG regular is number 6 out of 8? It means that numbers 1,2 and 3 will just keep coming back before it's time to engage number 6. And if not, 4 and 5 are right there.
The format being 4v4v4 would decrease number 6 position all the way to 3 or 4. If their team was inside a sandwich, it would drop even lower.
Do you see how it was much easier for BG regulars to engage each other in 4v4v4?
The most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now.
Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.
- Spawncamping in a 3-sided match meant leaving your teammates outnumbered against the third team. Doing the same thing in 2-sided gives your own team the numerical advantage.
- If PvPers on both sides perceive the newfound usefulness of spawncamping, there's a decent chance they'll spend the entire match on opposite ends of the map. Not having to fight each other only makes the practice easier.
- It's no longer possible to use one team against another to escape the sandwich.
People give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place.

The only solution I see to these game-breaking problems is going back to the three-sided format. Is there another way?

Moonspawn · April 2

Regarding the three-sided objective modes:

Chaosball

PROBLEMS

Ball carrier could move around the map fast enough to be almost impossible to catch.
Players could take the ball to cheesy places where they couldn't be damaged.

SOLUTIONS

Reduce ball carrier speed by 30%
Fix cheesy places.

_______
Crazy King and Domination

PROBLEM

Two teams fight while the third flips all remaining flags uncontested.

SOLUTIONS

Reduce the amount of points each flag gives per tick. Domination from 8 to 4, Crazy King from 8 to 6.
Modify flags to require a minimum of two players to be fully captured. Solo players would still be able to hinder the opponents' progress by discoloring their flags, but to get any points they would need the help of at least one teammate. Running around without even drawing weapons backcapping empty flags would no longer be the ultimate strategy.

Even in the worst case scenario, it would be impossible to end any match in less than 10 minutes. Most would last 15.

_______
Capture the Relic

PROBLEMS

Standing around guarding a relic is boring.
Pointlessly parsing a tank who is guarding a relic is boring.
Having your relic stolen through the wall, or because the grabbing animation didn't play correctly, is boring.

SOLUTION
The following solution was inspired by the most fun situation the mode was capable of producing. This one:

A player from each team would be randomly selected as the ''relic holder'', and the goal of the match would be to kill the other teams' holders while protecting your own. When this player died the relic would choose a new vessel and transfer to them after 30 seconds. This player would obviously need to be ejected from spawn after a period of time.
The game mode would function like an extremely high level Deathmatch from the olden days, but with training wheels. Imagine a 3-sided DM in which the squishiest target of every team is indicated by the relic. In the worst case scenario, the two ''stronger'' teams would be compelled to fight in the spawn of the third team, but the relic's debuff would ensure this fight would never stalemate to the point of not being worth it. They would fight, relic holders would die, transfer to other players, and the new holders would die too. It would be impossible to trap the ''weaker'' team.

Haki_7 · April 2

Moonspawn wrote: »

Two-sided Battlegrounds are too difficult to balance

I don't understand why some people cling to the lie that 3-sided Battlegrounds were just as unbalanced as 2-sided. Does anyone know?

karthrag_inak · April 2

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Two-sided Battlegrounds are too difficult to balance

I don't understand why some people cling to the lie that 3-sided Battlegrounds were just as unbalanced as 2-sided. Does anyone know?

Khajiit thinks this is simple, really - it is because those folks know it to not be true. 2 sided BGs can be reliably dominated by a skilled set of players with appropriate gear and experience (henceforth referred to as 'try-hards' for brevity) with no recourse for their less skilled, experienced, or equipped opponents, match after match after match.

3 teams simply could not mirror this guarantee - no matter how good someone was, you could not execute a complete lockdown against 2x as many people, should they organize against you, even if they were not nearly as 'try-hard'y as you were.

The 'try-hards' know this, and they don't wish to suffer occasional losses (or more than occasional losses) due to being outnumbered by n00bs, and so they have script to which they adhere which elucidates all the arguments.

Khajiit is not sure how he feels about this, really. 'Try-hard'iness should be rewarded, it is known.

On the other hand, khajiit enjoyed more than occasional trips to BGs during the 3 team phase, and was perhaps on the cusp of legitimately 'try-hard'iness. But 2 teams? Khajiit did exactly 2 2-team bgs, and they were without a doubt the most awful experiences this one has had in ESO, in ~25k hours worth of playing.

Moonspawn · April 2

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Two-sided Battlegrounds are too difficult to balance

I don't understand why some people cling to the lie that 3-sided Battlegrounds were just as unbalanced as 2-sided. Does anyone know?

Maybe they haven't studied enough scoreboards to understand the truth?

AScarlato · April 2

3 teams were better. Even if our teams gear is bad we could win via tactics. 2 sided games have all been clearly dominated to the point one team just goes afk or runs in circles.

Radiate77 · April 2

The only people still talking about this are the ones that agree, look how few they are.

We have thousands of games providing examples of two-team formats being successful in gaming. It is the standard for competitive play, look at every E-Sport… there is nothing competitive about getting third partied.

Leveraging 3-team at a point of balancing, fails at the root, as two-vs-one is never balanced, and anyone with a history of playing ESO will tell you one-vs-one-vs-one never happened.

It’s always the same story: one group attacking another group, getting third partied by another one.

That said, I’m not opposed to a permanent 3-team Deathmatch casual matchmaking option, but be honest about it.

The “need” for this has nothing to do with balance.

Radiate77 · April 2

“I would love a permanent 3-team Deathmatch playlist because it is the most fun I’ve had in Battlegrounds.

Not all of us enjoy sweating 24/7, and three team Deathmatch allowed me to have more diverse encounters, and helped me grow as a player pushing me out of my comfort zone to fight outnumbered.”

xylena · April 2

Haki_7 wrote: »

I don't understand why some people cling to the lie that 3-sided Battlegrounds were just as unbalanced as 2-sided. Does anyone know?

Moonspawn wrote: »

Maybe they haven't studied enough scoreboards to understand the truth?

Are you having a conversation with yourself again? Didn't we have a thread closed for this?