Should 4v4v4 (3 Teams) Battleground mode become permanent again?

AliceIbanez · April 25

I prefere 2 teams

I don't understand the point of the 3 teams at all.
I get the impression that with 3 teams, people play together less; they tend to spread out more.

Thumbless_Bot · April 25

AliceIbanez wrote: »

I prefere 2 teams

I don't understand the point of the 3 teams at all.
I get the impression that with 3 teams, people play together less; they tend to spread out more.

When you say, "the point" what are you referring to?

It's a video game and the point is to have fun, no?

if you mean you don't have fun in 3 teams, you should be able to play 2 teams.

Parasaurolophus · April 26

No, definitely not. I have to admit, at first I was against 8v8. But after actually playing it, I realized this mode has some significant advantages.

8v8 is simply more fun to play. There are more players, less individual responsibility, and more small-scale skirmishes even in objective-based modes. It’s actually hard to explain exactly why — it just feels lighter and more casual. Especially when both teams are well balanced, matches can become genuinely engaging.

Cons:

The team with more healbots usually wins
Ongoing issues with balanced matchmaking
No second place, so losing feels especially punishing

Let’s not build any illusions about the “balance” of 4v4v4. The matchmaking is just as flawed — the only difference is that you at least have a chance to place second, nothing more.

SundarahFr3akinrican · April 26

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

The only real problem is that since there's always an unguarded flag in Domination/late-game Crazy King, it means the best strategy is always to run from every fight.

Exactly this

NikoSquared · April 27

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

No, definitely not. I have to admit, at first I was against 8v8. But after actually playing it, I realized this mode has some significant advantages.

8v8 is simply more fun to play. There are more players, less individual responsibility, and more small-scale skirmishes even in objective-based modes. It’s actually hard to explain exactly why — it just feels lighter and more casual. Especially when both teams are well balanced, matches can become genuinely engaging.

Cons:

The team with more healbots usually wins
Ongoing issues with balanced matchmaking
No second place, so losing feels especially punishing

Let’s not build any illusions about the “balance” of 4v4v4. The matchmaking is just as flawed — the only difference is that you at least have a chance to place second, nothing more.

Consider this.
- How many times have you been spawncamped in 4v4/8v8?
- How many times have you been spawncamped (for more than 30 seconds) in 4v4v4?

ceruulean · April 27

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

8v8 is simply more fun to play. There are more players, less individual responsibility, and more small-scale skirmishes even in objective-based modes. It’s actually hard to explain exactly why — it just feels lighter and more casual. Especially when both teams are well balanced, matches can become genuinely engaging.

Yeah 2 teams is more easygoing. In 4v4v4 there's double the amount of enemies as teammates and you have to keep your head on a swivel constantly or else you'll get pincered. Also, since matches can start with 1 missing player, being on a 3v4 or a 7v8 is not as bad as a 3v4v4 which is basically hopeless.

NikoSquared · April 27

ceruulean wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

8v8 is simply more fun to play. There are more players, less individual responsibility, and more small-scale skirmishes even in objective-based modes. It’s actually hard to explain exactly why — it just feels lighter and more casual. Especially when both teams are well balanced, matches can become genuinely engaging.

Yeah 2 teams is more easygoing. In 4v4v4 there's double the amount of enemies as teammates and you have to keep your head on a swivel constantly or else you'll get pincered. Also, since matches can start with 1 missing player, being on a 3v4 or a 7v8 is not as bad as a 3v4v4 which is basically hopeless.

3v4 is also really tough depending on the gamemode, this is more of an “Underdog should be stronger if the team is smaller” rather than a 3 teams specific issue

Thumbless_Bot · April 28

SundarahFr3akinrican wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

The only real problem is that since there's always an unguarded flag in Domination/late-game Crazy King, it means the best strategy is always to run from every fight.

Exactly this

This doesnt change with the number of teams. However, with three teams there is a larger chance someone else on an opposing team will have the same idea and meet you there with their maul.

NikoSquared wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

No, definitely not. I have to admit, at first I was against 8v8. But after actually playing it, I realized this mode has some significant advantages.

8v8 is simply more fun to play. There are more players, less individual responsibility, and more small-scale skirmishes even in objective-based modes. It’s actually hard to explain exactly why — it just feels lighter and more casual. Especially when both teams are well balanced, matches can become genuinely engaging.

Cons:

The team with more healbots usually wins
Ongoing issues with balanced matchmaking
No second place, so losing feels especially punishing

Let’s not build any illusions about the “balance” of 4v4v4. The matchmaking is just as flawed — the only difference is that you at least have a chance to place second, nothing more.

Consider this.
- How many times have you been spawncamped in 4v4/8v8?
- How many times have you been spawncamped (for more than 30 seconds) in 4v4v4?

The scourge of spawncamping didnt emerge until zos brought forth 2 team bgs. It happened it three teams from time to time but it is a significant problem introduced by the 2 team format.

ceruulean wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

8v8 is simply more fun to play. There are more players, less individual responsibility, and more small-scale skirmishes even in objective-based modes. It’s actually hard to explain exactly why — it just feels lighter and more casual. Especially when both teams are well balanced, matches can become genuinely engaging.

Yeah 2 teams is more easygoing. In 4v4v4 there's double the amount of enemies as teammates and you have to keep your head on a swivel constantly or else you'll get pincered. Also, since matches can start with 1 missing player, being on a 3v4 or a 7v8 is not as bad as a 3v4v4 which is basically hopeless.

This is what makes them so engaging, FUN, repeatable, exciting and UNIQUE. Two teams are too predictable and vanilla.

NikoSquared wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

8v8 is simply more fun to play. There are more players, less individual responsibility, and more small-scale skirmishes even in objective-based modes. It’s actually hard to explain exactly why — it just feels lighter and more casual. Especially when both teams are well balanced, matches can become genuinely engaging.

Yeah 2 teams is more easygoing. In 4v4v4 there's double the amount of enemies as teammates and you have to keep your head on a swivel constantly or else you'll get pincered. Also, since matches can start with 1 missing player, being on a 3v4 or a 7v8 is not as bad as a 3v4v4 which is basically hopeless.

3v4 is also really tough depending on the gamemode, this is more of an “Underdog should be stronger if the team is smaller” rather than a 3 teams specific issue

They introduced a whopping 5% damage buff if you were down a player in two teams. Another thumb in the 2 team dam. There are just too many leaks. However, three teams does lend itself more towards balance when one team has a missing player.

MincMincMinc · April 28

Have we heard any word from zos on this recently? I know there are like 10 threads for bgs recently with seemingly everyone in agreement that we would like 4v4v4 bgs to return as an everyday feature.

ShutUpitsRed · April 28

I knew I missed 3 teams but I didn't realize how much so until I started playing them again this week. This is SO much more fun and interesting, and no longer feels like zerg v zerg where you're pretty much just out of luck if nobody else wants to play objectives or if your team is mid.

Thumbless_Bot · April 28

MincMincMinc wrote: »

I know there are like 10 threads for bgs recently with seemingly everyone in agreement that we would like 4v4v4 bgs to return as an everyday feature.

CrimsonXReaper · April 28

The 3 team format is what made ESO Battlegrounds unique compared to other games. The positioning and strategy are completely different from 2 team modes, less linear and less prone to lopsided matches. I've never seen q pop being this quick lol I think people were missing 4v4v4 a lot.

ShutUpitsRed · April 28

Interesting that people are calling 8v8 more chill. Yeah, that's zerg surfing. You're gonna love EP Vengeance. Battlegrounds are for PvP though.

heimdall14_9 · April 28

ceruulean wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

8v8 is simply more fun to play. There are more players, less individual responsibility, and more small-scale skirmishes even in objective-based modes. It’s actually hard to explain exactly why — it just feels lighter and more casual. Especially when both teams are well balanced, matches can become genuinely engaging.

Yeah 2 teams is more easygoing. In 4v4v4 there's double the amount of enemies as teammates and you have to keep your head on a swivel constantly or else you'll get pincered. Also, since matches can start with 1 missing player, being on a 3v4 or a 7v8 is not as bad as a 3v4v4 which is basically hopeless.

ive been put in a lot of 3v4v4 matches where i was on the 3 team and won so its not hopeless

Decimus · April 28

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Interesting that people are calling 8v8 more chill. Yeah, that's zerg surfing. You're gonna love EP Vengeance. Battlegrounds are for PvP though.

Are they? Tell that to the teams with 0 kills just running to empty flags, had a lot of those.

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Have we heard any word from zos on this recently? I know there are like 10 threads for bgs recently with seemingly everyone in agreement that we would like 4v4v4 bgs to return as an everyday feature.

Still not the case - there's not enough population to have two separate BG queues for 4v4v4s & 8v8s. Maybe after crossplay?

ceruulean · April 29

Man you guys can't do math or whatever. 3v8 is way worse than 3v4 or 7v8. I would rather do a 3v4 than a 3v8, and it is, in fact, possible to win in 3v4 if the 4th enemy is a potato.

Oh! But in 3 teams you can win with 0 kills by running around the map... That's winning by score and playing objective and has nothing to do with pvp skill! I love winning this way it's exhilarating! I don't totally do this so I can get my transmutes as a concession prize for queing into a losing match and getting stomped on!

heimdall14_9 · April 29

ceruulean wrote: »

Man you guys can't do math or whatever. 3v8 is way worse than 3v4 or 7v8. I would rather do a 3v4 than a 3v8, and it is, in fact, possible to win in 3v4 if the 4th enemy is a potato.

Oh! But in 3 teams you can win with 0 kills by running around the map... That's winning by score and playing objective and has nothing to do with pvp skill! I love winning this way it's exhilarating! I don't totally do this so I can get my transmutes as a concession prize for queing into a losing match and getting stomped on!

if you and the other two players put your head in the sand because your out numbered thats on you guys but ive been in many good 3 way fight down a man and had other two standing strong with me to pull out the upset thats a real good match give a really good feeling to be the underdog in a fight and still come out ontop

ceruulean · April 29

heimdall14_9 wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

Man you guys can't do math or whatever. 3v8 is way worse than 3v4 or 7v8. I would rather do a 3v4 than a 3v8, and it is, in fact, possible to win in 3v4 if the 4th enemy is a potato.

Oh! But in 3 teams you can win with 0 kills by running around the map... That's winning by score and playing objective and has nothing to do with pvp skill! I love winning this way it's exhilarating! I don't totally do this so I can get my transmutes as a concession prize for queing into a losing match and getting stomped on!

if you and the other two players put your head in the sand because your out numbered thats on you guys but ive been in many good 3 way fight down a man and had other two standing strong with me to pull out the upset thats a real good match give a really good feeling to be the underdog in a fight and still come out ontop

I don't really care to join unbalanced matches, nor am I going to keep queuing for the hope of some kinda recovery. I give up when it's clear the other 2 are not strong enough to outplay outnumbered. It's not a sin to give up and it's not fun when your team is too weak to participate.

Like I said, I've had some 3v4 where we won, whether our comp and builds just synergized better or what I don't know, it's exciting. Especially knowing that the opposite team had compotent pvp player and it's not just a noob seal clubbing lobby.

jle30303 · April 29

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

Yes but if you do please have a deathmatch only queue that is completely disconnected from the other modes

4v4v4 deathmatch = best bg mode in eso
4v4v4 chaosball = an ok mode, needs a snare to ball holder
4v4v4 relic = possibly redeemable mode, needs relics moved to central location and cap point near your base
4v4v4 flags = awful mode, please delete

4v4, 8v8 deathmatch = good in theory but usually very lopsided
4v4, 8v8 objectives = ok in theory but facing same issues

4v4v4 flags would be fine if there were just fewer flags. It's why Crazy King actually works early on in the match. The only real problem is that since there's always an unguarded flag in Domination/late-game Crazy King, it means the best strategy is always to run from every fight.

Now, if there were 8v8v8 Crazy King or Domination...

Schlaflos · April 29

It’s really simple: 4v4 needs a proper ranking system like Solo Shuffle in WoW, with rating based on wins and losses. I completely agree with Decimus on that. I used to play WoW myself and checked it out again a few years ago, and Solo Shuffle is just perfect — it really doesn’t get any better than that.

For 8v8, three things just need to happen and nobody would complain anymore.
The first is: add a queue option for healers and give them rewards, since most people just play DPS — that’s just how MMOs work.

8v8 doesn’t need an MMR system like 4v4. It’s enough if the system simply distributes players evenly based on MMR. That means if you have 4 very good players, 2 average ones, and 2 very weak ones in the queue, they get split fairly into two teams — simple as that.

This would probably eliminate camping, and if it still happens, you could just add a zone where players who camp get teleported to the center of the battlefield after 5 seconds.

Look at battlegrounds in WoW — it works there too. In random BGs, players are just random, some good, some bad. You can get completely stomped there as well, but in WoW the focus in a zerg fight is always on killing the healers first. Even if a team is worse overall, if they have better healer focus and manage to kill them, the stronger team suddenly has a huge problem — because WoW isn’t like ESO, where one player can wipe out five people alone.

And for ESO to achieve a similar balance, it needs the points I mentioned above.

CameraBeardThePirate · April 29

ceruulean wrote: »

Man you guys can't do math or whatever. 3v8 is way worse than 3v4 or 7v8. I would rather do a 3v4 than a 3v8, and it is, in fact, possible to win in 3v4 if the 4th enemy is a potato.

Oh! But in 3 teams you can win with 0 kills by running around the map... That's winning by score and playing objective and has nothing to do with pvp skill! I love winning this way it's exhilarating! I don't totally do this so I can get my transmutes as a concession prize for queing into a losing match and getting stomped on!

I mean it literally isn't 3v8 though. It's 3v4v4, and if you're smart about positioning and engaging, you can absolutely fight against those odds by third partying.

huskandhunger · April 29

ZOS please make 3-Team BGs permanent alongside the existing BGs, the diversity of modes and maps will delight players

Thumbless_Bot · April 29

Schlaflos wrote: »

It’s really simple: 4v4 needs a proper ranking system like Solo Shuffle in WoW, with rating based on wins and losses. I completely agree with Decimus on that. I used to play WoW myself and checked it out again a few years ago, and Solo Shuffle is just perfect — it really doesn’t get any better than that.

For 8v8, three things just need to happen and nobody would complain anymore.
The first is: add a queue option for healers and give them rewards, since most people just play DPS — that’s just how MMOs work.

8v8 doesn’t need an MMR system like 4v4. It’s enough if the system simply distributes players evenly based on MMR. That means if you have 4 very good players, 2 average ones, and 2 very weak ones in the queue, they get split fairly into two teams — simple as that.

This would probably eliminate camping, and if it still happens, you could just add a zone where players who camp get teleported to the center of the battlefield after 5 seconds.

Look at battlegrounds in WoW — it works there too. In random BGs, players are just random, some good, some bad. You can get completely stomped there as well, but in WoW the focus in a zerg fight is always on killing the healers first. Even if a team is worse overall, if they have better healer focus and manage to kill them, the stronger team suddenly has a huge problem — because WoW isn’t like ESO, where one player can wipe out five people alone.

And for ESO to achieve a similar balance, it needs the points I mentioned above.

This logic would apply to any format including but not limited to:

4v4
8v8
4v4v4
17v17v17v17
37v37
3v3v3v3v3v3v3

I dont know how or why we want to limit competitve to 4v4. Each game mode can also be competitive in and of themselves as well.

NikoSquared · May 5

Schlaflos wrote: »

It’s really simple: 4v4 needs a proper ranking system like Solo Shuffle in WoW, with rating based on wins and losses. I completely agree with Decimus on that. I used to play WoW myself and checked it out again a few years ago, and Solo Shuffle is just perfect — it really doesn’t get any better than that.

For 8v8, three things just need to happen and nobody would complain anymore.
The first is: add a queue option for healers and give them rewards, since most people just play DPS — that’s just how MMOs work.

8v8 doesn’t need an MMR system like 4v4. It’s enough if the system simply distributes players evenly based on MMR. That means if you have 4 very good players, 2 average ones, and 2 very weak ones in the queue, they get split fairly into two teams — simple as that.

This would probably eliminate camping, and if it still happens, you could just add a zone where players who camp get teleported to the center of the battlefield after 5 seconds.

Look at battlegrounds in WoW — it works there too. In random BGs, players are just random, some good, some bad. You can get completely stomped there as well, but in WoW the focus in a zerg fight is always on killing the healers first. Even if a team is worse overall, if they have better healer focus and manage to kill them, the stronger team suddenly has a huge problem — because WoW isn’t like ESO, where one player can wipe out five people alone.

And for ESO to achieve a similar balance, it needs the points I mentioned above.

Yeah the “competitive” aspect of 4v4 is very confusing right now, even today it still boils down to “play more than everyone else to win” or “farm healing medals”, neither of which are competitive at all.

Yet it is still treated as “competitive” with the 30 minute deserter penalty and limited gamemode selection. It is very strange for the mode to be treated as a casual mode on the reward side and treated like a competitive mode on the punishment side.

Al_Ex_Andre · May 6

4v4v4 is a signature of ZOS pvp (ie : the 3 alliance...), so I think this should come back. Just keep the 2 teams as well and we are set.

Gabriel_H · May 6

The issue with BGs is the match-making system. It needs a complete overhaul and until it is it doesn't matter whether it is 4v4 or 4v4v4.

The one thing that stands out for me the most is the knee-jerk reaction of moving to 4v4, with what seems little thought put into it, as evidenced by this still being in game:

moo_2021 · May 6

AliceIbanez wrote: »

I don't understand the point of the 3 teams at all.
I get the impression that with 3 teams, people play together less; they tend to spread out more.

It's because of the maps. Some of 3 teams maps were huge. When the maps were small, people didn't spread.

Highwayman · May 6

I agree it's mmr and match making that's the issue. I have played and enjoyed all formats. Run 'em up or fill 'em in, it makes no difference to me.

What I'd like to see is objective marker furnishings and the ability to run all modes in housing. I'll organize it myself. I would be happy to buy housing and furnishings just for the purpose of having a new map to play.

Please also consider designing a game mode that could be played in old public dungeon maps. I can't help but think a lot of them would be great pvp areas. Or sell them as housing with the above idea.

Come on, it seems like an easy win for all of us.