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 3, 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 way to solve these game-breaking problems seems to be returning to the three-sided format. Can you think of any alternative solutions?

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?

Haki_7 · April 3

Moonspawn wrote: »

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?

I'll provide the necessary materials.

Some of the matches below were impossible to win, but most were impossible to lose.

Deathmatch (1-100):

1-10

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10

11-20

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21-30

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31-40

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41-50

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51-60

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61-70

61.[img][/img]

62.

63.

64.https://us.v-cdn.net/5020507/uploads/editor/u7/at1b0t3m29rf.png
65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71-80

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81-90

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91-100

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

Major_Mangle · April 3

@ZOS_Icy @ZOS_Kevin

Are we really gonna allow this spam from the same 2 users once again??? They're already making a new thread in the same deliberate derailing manner as last time....

Edit: The forum doesn´t even allow to report/flag the comments as spam because it contains too much information/is too long. So now some users are bypassing the forum rules even.

xylena · April 3

@ZOS_GregoryV @ZOS_Erin can we get some moderation help here?

This thread was recently closed due to @Haki_7 and @Moonspawn derailing any meaningful conversation regarding BGs. They're likely the same person using 2 accounts to bump their pet topic and choke out any other BGs discussion in General, as they have done before.

Moonspawn · April 3

Haki_7 wrote: »

Deathmatch (1-100)

Magnificent.

I just wish someone could present a meaningful number of lopsided 3-sided scoreboards, so I could test a theory of mine. I still haven't found a large enough sample retaining the original name files.

Haki_7 · April 4

Moonspawn wrote: »

Magnificent. I just wish someone could present a meaningful number of lopsided 3-sided scoreboards, so I could test a theory of mine. I still haven't found a large enough sample retaining the original name files.

Doesn't surprise me. Compared to the staggering amount of grotesquely lopsided matches in 8v8, unbalanced games in 3-sided were basically flukes. The numbers speak for themselves:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 164: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/PpmwceUZ60M

Relic 1 and 2, no possibility of losing. Promptly giving up after losing one relic (fourth flaw of 2-sided):

Deathmatch 1 and 2, no possibility of losing:

Domination, no possibility of losing. Desperately trying to end the lopsided snoozefest while my team spawncamps (third flaw):

Chaosball 1 and 2, no possibility of losing:

Crazy King, no possibility of winning. We couldn't even reach the flags:

Radiate77 · April 4

Perhaps the new forum meta is to have two accounts and just talk to yourself?

xylena · April 4

Radiate77 wrote: »

Perhaps the new forum meta is to have two accounts and just talk to yourself?

Hey mods, is this legal? If so, can I do it in this thread too?

ruskiii · April 4

Its disappointing, man... I know I personally sent you around 30 4v4v4 screenshots (from only October 2023) which had a lot of one sided 3-team games. I know you miss the 3 team BGs, but the criticism feels a bit disingenuous at this point.

Really we should be focused more on getting ZOS to confirm that the upcoming BG spotlight event (April 22nd) will be 4v4v4 like they promised. Not sure why its been so difficult to get information about this. Also not seen an official response to the u50 BGs still having no level scaling so people are playing their first BGs with 1/3rd of their resources.

That along with getting ZOS to stop resetting MMR, and making the casual option the first selection in the BG menu so new players/random daily enjoyers arent pushed into the competitive queue (two extremely easy fixes) would greatly improve everyone's experience.

Decimus · April 4

I think the saddest part is when "no possibility of winning" people just sit in base afk after dying a few times in a flag game and then their team goes on to lose by just 10-20 points.

Moral of the story? Maybe we all need to take some personal accountability when it comes to winning or losing rather than creating a straw man just to avoid doing so.

CatalinaWineMixer2 · April 4

I prefer the 3 sided simply because there is a better chance of not facing the same teams over and over again. I see more people leaving BG in the beginning or middle of a match than ever before. Im not sure which is worse them staying and just standing around or them just boogieing out. I dont think its something that can ever be prevented but it does say a lot about the state of BG

randconfig · April 4

As a veteran player, the 3-sided battlegrounds were more balanced because you could be strategic and cooperate/not target the other losing team in order to take down the winning team.

It was not one sided. The 2 sided battlegrounds do not allow for that kind of strategy, so they almost always become one-sided match-ups where one team absolutely decimates the other.

While I love the new maps for BG, the old 3-sided BGs were the best and most fair, and the old maps were more fun than the new ones.

NotaDaedraWorshipper · April 4

Used to do BGs when it was 3 teams, no longer do, because every time I've tried it's just insufferable. 9/10 if you solo you get into an incredibly unbalanced match against a premade that ends up spawn camping your base.

Moonspawn · April 4

Haki_7 wrote: »

Doesn't surprise me. Compared to the staggering amount of grotesquely lopsided matches in 8v8, unbalanced games in 3-sided were basically flukes. The numbers speak for themselves:

All I know is no one on any console seems to have them, which leaves PC NA as the only viable option.

ruskiii wrote: »

Its disappointing, man... I know I personally sent you around 30 4v4v4 screenshots (from only October 2023) which had a lot of one sided 3-team games

What's this about 30 screenshots of ultra rare one sided 3-team games? @Haki_7 u holding out on me?

xylena · April 4

In the absence of forum moderation, let's instead discuss this new forum meta of replying to yourself with multiple accounts. Moderately effective as a crude trolling technique, but is it politically viable? If anything their obfuscation may be delaying the return of 3s. Terrible signal to noise ratio. I could engage on even numbers in advance, but is it worth the risk?

ruskiii · April 5

Moonspawn wrote: »

ruskiii wrote: »

Its disappointing, man... I know I personally sent you around 30 4v4v4 screenshots (from only October 2023) which had a lot of one sided 3-team games

What's this about 30 screenshots of ultra rare one sided 3-team games? @Haki_7 u holding out on me?

Funny I went to my screenshot folder, clicked a random one in May 2024 and found this:

Haki_7 · April 5

ruskiii wrote: »

That along with getting ZOS to stop resetting MMR, and making the casual option the first selection in the BG menu so new players/random daily enjoyers arent pushed into the competitive queue (two extremely easy fixes) would greatly improve everyone's experience.

Sounds suspiciously like minc's plan to improve Battlegrounds. Thanks for reminding me, it was part of the discussion about matchmaking.

@MincMincMinc were you able to find the source of that nonsense about leaderboards?

Crazy King 1, inevitable defeat:

Crazy King 2, inevitable victory:

Relic 1 & 2, inevitable victory. I understand why they left, but wouldn't have been better to stay until the end to avoid the 5 minutes penalty?

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 165: Waiting 18 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/Ix1Hd4_GBqo

Domination, inevitable victory. Running around between flags trying to end the nightmare while my team spawncamps some newcomers. Third flaw:

Deathmatch, inevitable victory:

Chaosball, inevitable victory. We usually get 2 balls and pointlessly stare at each other until the end of the match, as opponents are unable to reach us. This time we got all 3:

xylena · April 5

I have a list too. Here's some lopsided BGs scores. Definitive proof. Totally real.

510-45-15

510-375-60

510-135-120

510-60-0

510-330-240

525-195-90

510-300-75

510-135-15

510-210-195

510-0-0

Decimus · April 5

Just some random BGs from 2017-2024

...which one of these "perfectly balanced and fine" 3-way BGs should I click on next? Sadly can't fit most of them on the screen there.

Reality check.

If ZOS really wants to make BGs a more fun and rewarding gameplay loop for players, this is what needs to be done:

1. Revamp solo queue 4v4 into a 3v3 or 4v4 shuffle mode where everyone plays with/against each other across multiple rounds.
2. Remove flag games from 4v4 (preferably 3v3).
3. Introduce a simple win/loss MMR system, gaining or losing points based on opponents' average MMR. System tries to match you against people of similar MMR/rank.
4. Make this MMR visible and rank people based on it - they can even use same ranks as in ToT to keep it Elder Scrolls themed.
5. Introduce seasonal rewards unlocked at each rank and for people at the top MMR of the highest rank, similar to ToT.
6. Add the same matchmaking system to 8v8, minus ranks and rewards. Keep the number invisible - this is the casual mode.
7. Kick people down from spawn after 15 seconds to prevent spawn camping and toxic afk'ing to prolong matches out of spite.
8. Add a prompt to pick up chaosball, reduce the number of chaosballs to one.
9. In CtR move relics further away from spawn location, or move spawn locations close to middle to prevent the infinite respawn loop of interrupters while providing people the chance to intercept a relic runner instead. Would require substantial map redesign.
10. Reduce the amount of flags in certain Domination maps or significantly increase the amount of time it takes to flip one.
11. Add more maps.

Moonspawn · April 5

Haki_7 wrote: »

@MincMincMinc were you able to find the source of that nonsense about leaderboards?

I remember someone, probably Minc, saying that @ruskiii should be able to find it. Not sure why.

Haki_7 · 10:29AM

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

@MincMincMinc were you able to find the source of that nonsense about leaderboards?

I remember someone, probably Minc, saying that @ruskiii should be able to find it. Not sure why.

I just googled ''eso forum pvp ruskiii leaderboard'' and found this: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/674000/battlegrounds-misc-pvp-questions-community-q-a/p1
Seems to be what Minc was talking about.

Relic, 100% guaranteed to win. Throwing the towel after losing a single relic. Fourth flaw at work:

Crazy King 1 & 2, 100% guaranteed to win.

Chaosball, 100% guaranteed to win. The usual soul gazing session with ball carriers. Opponents were unable to reach us:

Deathmatch 1, 100% guaranteed to lose:

Deathmatch 2, 100% guaranteed to win:

Domination, 100% guaranteed to win. They couldn't even reach the flags:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 166: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/5uXiJMi7oI4