3 teams is a lot better. 2-sided was nice at first but people just give up now after the first wipe.

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

And as far as 3 team BGs go, I will say this Chaosball event is dog water! The maps are awful for this. The existing 3 team maps are fine for Relic or Domination / Crazy King but not CB! .. having someone grab the ball on Quarry and then duck into a map crevice, using it to avoid damage because the attacks won’t register through the gap in the wood is nobody’s idea of good combat. ..

@NxJoeyD I'm sure ZOS could use help locating these map crevices and all the other places players use to cheese chaosballs.

That's a good idea. I'll see what I can do.

Sooner or later, someone will have to do it.

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

And as far as 3 team BGs go, I will say this Chaosball event is dog water! The maps are awful for this. The existing 3 team maps are fine for Relic or Domination / Crazy King but not CB! .. having someone grab the ball on Quarry and then duck into a map crevice, using it to avoid damage because the attacks won’t register through the gap in the wood is nobody’s idea of good combat. ..

@NxJoeyD I'm sure ZOS could use help locating these map crevices and all the other places players use to cheese chaosballs.

That's a good idea. I'll see what I can do.

Sooner or later, someone will have to do it.

Is it just me, or are people not cheesing chaosballs like they used to?

Not cheesing like they used to?

Haki_7 wrote: »

@NxJoeyD wrote:

And as far as 3 team BGs go, I will say this Chaosball event is dog water!

Nearly 100% of my 8v8 cb matches are spent staring at ball carriers close to spawn. In 3-sided, I usually get unpredictable non-stop fighting concentrated on the ball.

It's how every chaosball match would be if the easily solvable critical flaws of 3-sided were ever adressed.

Haki_7 wrote: »

@Darkmage1337 wrote:

I currently believe the best solution for BGs would be this:

3-sided (solo or grouped), unranked, and top-menu option.
2-sided (solo or grouped), ranked, and bottom-menu option.

I enjoy both variations and all maps/modes in each of them.
BUT, I believe the best/most-fun was with the 3-sided format.

Both formats can coexist with the ESO BG PvP community.
It is simple. Competitive-play? 2-sided. Casual-play? 3-sided.
So, remove the current casual 2-sided and bring back 3-sided.

Which one is the current casual 2-sided? 8v8?

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

@Avran_Sylt wrote:

@Moonspawn
Regarding the 4 flaws of 2-sided:`
1. What has changed about positioning and target selection? You still want to try and focus down on those that seem like they take more damage than the rest, CC healers, layer burst, rushdown squishies or backline archers while being sure to be mindful of where you're at so as to not get swarmed and focused (unless built for it).

I've been thinking for a while now that the first flaw should be rewritten.

''1. 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.''

Rewritten how?

And why?

The description of the first flaw makes it seem like the possibility of being sandwiched is the only factor that facilitates fights between BG regulars. The part about the target order going from 1-4, instead of 1-8, is just as important, but it's hidden at the bottom of the spoiler tab.

The first flaw (rigidity of target order) is also influenced by the third, which encourages BG regulars to spawncamp and pushes them to ''fight'' on opposite ends of the map.

I'm not sure how to write all that in the description. Any suggestions?

Haki_7 wrote: »

@Darkmage1337 wrote:

I currently believe the best solution for BGs would be this:

3-sided (solo or grouped), unranked, and top-menu option.
2-sided (solo or grouped), ranked, and bottom-menu option.

I enjoy both variations and all maps/modes in each of them.
BUT, I believe the best/most-fun was with the 3-sided format.

Both formats can coexist with the ESO BG PvP community.
It is simple. Competitive-play? 2-sided. Casual-play? 3-sided.
So, remove the current casual 2-sided and bring back 3-sided.

Which one is the current casual 2-sided? 8v8?

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

@Avran_Sylt wrote:

@Moonspawn
Regarding the 4 flaws of 2-sided:`
1. What has changed about positioning and target selection? You still want to try and focus down on those that seem like they take more damage than the rest, CC healers, layer burst, rushdown squishies or backline archers while being sure to be mindful of where you're at so as to not get swarmed and focused (unless built for it).

I've been thinking for a while now that the first flaw should be rewritten.

''1. 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.''

Rewritten how?

And why?

The description of the first flaw makes it seem like the possibility of being sandwiched is the only factor that facilitates fights between BG regulars. The part about the target order going from 1-4, instead of 1-8, is just as important, but it's hidden at the bottom of the spoiler tab.

Deathmatch 1 and 2, inevitable victories:

Chaosball 1 and 2, inevitable victories:

Crazy King, inevitable victory. Opponents collected 75 deaths:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 213: Waiting 25 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/o2lyZgaXiOQ

Relic, inevitable victory. Promptly throwing the towel after losing one relic. Fourth critical flaw of 2-sided:

Domination, inevitable defeat. We could barely reach the flags, let alone capture them:

Ranked battlegrounds should only be 4v4.
Ranked 4v4v4 has awful validity due to being 3-sided.
4v4v4 should be unranked-only, and always should be.
4v4v4 and 8v8 should be casual, with both unranked.
If 4v4v4 and 8v8 are too much, then they can alternate weeks.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

@L_Nici wrote:

Its pretty easy to see what kind is better by the number of players taking part.

We had two 3 sided BG Events this year and both times you instantly got into one, never waited more than one minute on a BG that did not consist of the same 16 people just mixed differently. To be fair the Domination one was better as people did not exploit Shattered Path yet, still I had more fun with the 3 sided relic hunt too than I ever did with any 2 sided BG. 2 sided BGs get decided by which team wipes first, because then it just gets camped at spawn.

One thing I noticed about the relic event was how often every team ended up holding each other's relics without being able to deliver. Didn't that used to be extremely rare?

Are you referring to the situation below?

That's the one. I remember taking a bunch of pictures the first few times it happened. I'll see if I can find them.

How is that coming along? If possible, I'd like to update the relic suggestion with those pictures. Replacing the image I drew in Paint with something familiar should make it much easier for people to understand.

In my opinion, 3-sided Capture the Relic only works when this happens:



Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 215: Waiting 18 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)
Deathmatch 1 & 2, unavoidable victories:
Relic, unavoidable victory. Despite our best efforts, we were unable to put an end to the lopsided snoozefest, so the ''fun'' went on for the entire 15 minutes and the enemy team died over 100 times. I'd like to thank ZOS for using increased rewards as bait to lure players to the meat grinder:
Crazy King, unavoidable defeat. All of our points came from backcapping empty flags:
Domination, unavoidable victory. They couldn't even reach the flags:
Chaosball 1 & 2, unavoidable victories.

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

@Darkmage1337 wrote:

I currently believe the best solution for BGs would be this:

3-sided (solo or grouped), unranked, and top-menu option.
2-sided (solo or grouped), ranked, and bottom-menu option.

I enjoy both variations and all maps/modes in each of them.
BUT, I believe the best/most-fun was with the 3-sided format.

Both formats can coexist with the ESO BG PvP community.
It is simple. Competitive-play? 2-sided. Casual-play? 3-sided.
So, remove the current casual 2-sided and bring back 3-sided.

Which one is the current casual 2-sided? 8v8?

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

@Avran_Sylt wrote:

@Moonspawn
Regarding the 4 flaws of 2-sided:`
1. What has changed about positioning and target selection? You still want to try and focus down on those that seem like they take more damage than the rest, CC healers, layer burst, rushdown squishies or backline archers while being sure to be mindful of where you're at so as to not get swarmed and focused (unless built for it).

I've been thinking for a while now that the first flaw should be rewritten.

''1. 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.''

Rewritten how?

And why?

The description of the first flaw makes it seem like the possibility of being sandwiched is the only factor that facilitates fights between BG regulars. The part about the target order going from 1-4, instead of 1-8, is just as important, but it's hidden at the bottom of the spoiler tab.

Deathmatch 1 and 2, inevitable victories:

Chaosball 1 and 2, inevitable victories:

Crazy King, inevitable victory. Opponents collected 75 deaths:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 213: Waiting 25 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/o2lyZgaXiOQ

Relic, inevitable victory. Promptly throwing the towel after losing one relic. Fourth critical flaw of 2-sided:

Domination, inevitable defeat. We could barely reach the flags, let alone capture them:

Ranked battlegrounds should only be 4v4.
Ranked 4v4v4 has awful validity due to being 3-sided.
4v4v4 should be unranked-only, and always should be.
4v4v4 and 8v8 should be casual, with both unranked.
If 4v4v4 and 8v8 are too much, then they can alternate weeks.

I don't remember ever playing a competitive 4v4. I don't even know what they look like. Have you ever played one that was anywhere near as competitive as this?
Crazy King, 0% chance of losing:
Chaosball 1 and 2, 0% chance of losing. Riveting soul gazing session with ball carriers:
Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 216: Waiting 41 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)
Relic, 0% chance of losing. Promptly giving up after losing one relic. Fourth critical flaw of 2-sided:
Deathmatch 1 and 2, 0% chance of losing:
Domination, 0% chance of winning. We could barely reach the flags:

@Weesacs wrote:

Just give us the option for 4x4 and 4x4x4 full time. I sign up to both. They just need to fix the MMR.

How would you fix the MMR?

Why are catastrophic scoreboards like the ones I'm posting so rare in 3-sided?

Crazy King, no chance of losing. Please make sure you're sitting down when opening these tabs. They are particularly gruesome today:
Relic, no chance of winning. In accordance with the first aspect of the third critical flaw of 2-sided, Orange-4 ditched us to go around looking for newcomers:
Deathmatch 1 and 2, no chance of losing. The first and fourth critical flaws of 2-sided always weigh heavily on 8v8 DM:
Chaosball 1 and 2, no chance of losing:
Domination, no chance of losing:
Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 217: Waiting 17 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

Haki_7 wrote: »

@Weesacs wrote:

Just give us the option for 4x4 and 4x4x4 full time. I sign up to both. They just need to fix the MMR.

How would you fix the MMR?

Im sure it isn't that difficult to implement an algorithm that makes the game fairer and more competitive.

Honest question, before a match starts and you look at the teams, can you pretty much predict who is going to win? I can.

Now this isn't based on some magic formula, I'm just looking at the names of the players who I previously went up against, looked at the classes they are playing and then make an assumption. And as I said, that assumption is pretty much on the money most of the time. This is solely based on experience.

We can easily have a system that can save statistics like damage done, damage taken, healing done, games won, games lost, kills for, kills against, class sign up etc and taking all that information, balance the teams appropriately.

Too many times we see things like:

• 2 or more healers on the one team and the other team have none.
• 3 or 4 very good experienced players against noobs and one experienced player; the experienced good player seems to inflate the noob teams overall MMR which is ridiculous.
• 3 v 4. Absolute silly addition. The extra buff doesnt even nearly cover the lack of a player.
• Lack of balancing of the two meta crutch classes between the teams i.e. DKs and Werewolfs. In one of my recent games, myself (who plays a subclassing Templar) went up against 3 werewolves and a DK. Our team didnt have either. How the hell is that fair?
• Good experienced players jumping on an alt they never use and getting treated like a low MMR player. That isnt right. A good experienced player on a main will always make an alt work so should be the same across all their classes.
• There shouldnt be an MMR reset. Why should there be? I see it multiple times were a good experienced player who has been away for the game on months on end coming back and destroying again. Why? Because their skill and knowledge doesnt really disappear so their MMR should stick with them.

Thats just a few examples of where MMR is lacking and where it can be improved. If this was the case then the games would be much better, regardless whether its 4v4 or 4v4v4.

Oh and one other thing, to make solo queue TDM work better, as Ive mentioned numerous times, the players within each team should be rotated after each round to make each round more balanced and fairer. They do this in WoW arena and it works. There is no need to get scores of 500-0 and 500-0 across two rounds. Play three rounds, switch the teams about after each round, and I can guarantee that the results would look better at the end of the game.

Haki_7 wrote: »

Before we discuss the MMR, any word from ZOS regarding the questions that have come up so far?

Questions plural? There's more than one?

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Before we discuss the MMR, any word from ZOS regarding the questions that have come up so far?

Questions plural? There's more than one?

The first question was about the MMR resetting in 3-sided, and how it changed in update 44

The second was about queue times

No answer yet. I'll add these questions to the first page to make sure they are not forgotten.

@moo_2021 wrote:

@Udrath wrote:

3 teams is a lot better. 2-sided was nice at first but people just give up now after the first wipe.

Not if you just ask them.


Had this a while ago - less than a minute into the game, I found myself standing alone, struggling to stay alive, barely able to hurt any opponent. An apparently skilled teammate died next to me and didn't come back, then I realized they all ran out of lives.

It was 1 vs 4, zero chance of winning. So I gave up my lives, went back to base and told my team we just need tactics - stay close to base, identify the healer and end him as fast as we can.

Then everyone followed. Found the healer, couldn't really kill him, but he panicked and ran because his teammates didn't come to his rescue, except they were the ones who needed him, not the other way around. As soon as he was separated, we turned back, wiped his team, won that round, then the third round. One of my best games in 5 years.

There was nothing special about the tactic. Everyone knew it. All it needed was someone to say it loud, letting them know we're still a team, and we are not giving up.

Unfortunately, I don't think a pep talk would be enough in any of these scenarios😢

Crazy King, impossible to win. One player left and another ditched us to go after easy kills. Third and fourth flaws of 2-sided:
Domination, impossible to lose. All their points came from going around backcapping empty flags:
Chaosball 1 and 2, impossible to lose. Soul gazing sessions with ball carriers:
Relic, impossible to lose:
Deathmatch 1 and 2, impossible to lose:
Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 220: Waiting 19 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)