U51 Feedback Thread for 3-Team Battlegrounds

ZOS_Kevin · August 3

This is the official feedback thread for the return of 3-Team Battlegrounds. Specific feedback that the team is looking for includes the following:

How do you feel about 3-Team Battlegrounds returning?
How does 6v6v6 feel?
Do you have any additional feedback?

HatchetHaro · August 3

While I haven't tried it yet, on first blush, I'm iffy on the new implementation. I'm not sure if 6v6v6 is going to give a similar experience to 4v4v4, but that's effectively ball-group size.

Speaking of ball-groups, increasing the group size of 3-team BGs also forces the new group-size detriments of Battle Spirit onto players.

I think a lot of this has been weirdly overthought. From what I can tell, the playerbase overwhelmingly dislikes the 4v4 mode, and 4v4v4 is what loads of players have been pining for (and enjoying a lot when they come up some weeks). So why not just replace 4v4 with 4v4v4?

Radiate77 · August 3

HatchetHaro wrote: »

While I haven't tried it yet, on first blush, I'm iffy on the new implementation. I'm not sure if 6v6v6 is going to give a similar experience to 4v4v4, but that's effectively ball-group size.

Speaking of ball-groups, increasing the group size of 3-team BGs also forces the new group-size detriments of Battle Spirit onto players.

I think a lot of this has been weirdly overthought. From what I can tell, the playerbase overwhelmingly dislikes the 4v4 mode, and 4v4v4 is what loads of players have been pining for (and enjoying a lot when they come up some weeks). So why not just replace 4v4 with 4v4v4?

Yet 4v4 has cultivated a much larger playerbase than 4v4v4, as seen by the shift from 30 minute queues to -5 minute ones.

Battlegrounds were dead before the rework.

Radiate77 · August 3

-It’s great that we are getting more options.

-Skipping out on PTS this cycle as my PC broke, conceptually 6v6v6 sounds great.

-My additional feedback is that these should be Deathmatch Only.

Objective gameplay does not work in a three team setting, there will always be two teams fighting and the 3rd just running away with the free win.

HatchetHaro · August 3

Radiate77 wrote: »

Yet 4v4 has cultivated a much larger playerbase than 4v4v4, as seen by the shift from 30 minute queues to -5 minute ones.

Battlegrounds were dead before the rework.

Not my experience. Queue times were about the same between the two. Queue times are even lower for the 3-team modes when they returned in their limited-time formats.

You're also forgetting vendor rewards, leaderboard rewards, and the new Veterancy system that gave players more incentives to play since they introduced 2-team BGs.

madmufffin · August 3

6v6v6 is going to cause issues for the people who have static 4 man groups that they queue with. Don't see why not just keep it at a 4 person team size when that's what's been the norm for the competitive sign of BGs for ages. As mentioned above, it also has negative implications for groups with the shielding changes (which may be the intention)

tsaescishoeshiner · August 3

Could 4v4v4 and 6v6 be tested for 12 players total instead of 18? Just wondering if that would help with queue times. I know the 8v8 maps were built well for larger player numbers.

IncultaWolf · August 4

Sat in queue for several hours with some friends in solo but couldn't get into a match on pts. Will try again later.

GlandePas · August 4

Re Objective Gameplay "not working" in 3-teams as some get distracted by brawling – that’s the whole point of having 3 teams. Now you can play objectives and stay in the game even if you’re not the strongest fighter, which you can’t in 2-teams format.

Also agree that 12-sized BG queues (6v6 on large maps) should be experimented with at least, I feel -25% crowding on larger maps would be less jarring than +50% on smaller maps. And it should help queue times, underfilled groups…

xAlucardx92 · August 4

Change team sizes of Battlegrounds to 4v4v4 and 6v6.

Above300pinginKorea · August 4

Since I’m satisfied with the current 8v8 battles, I’m also looking forward to the new 9v9 and 6v6v6 formats.

Personally, I prefer 2-team battle because that allows me to focus more on my opponents, so I’m grateful that you’ve kept large-scale 2-team battles as an option.

i11ionward · August 4

8v8 has a big problem with team imbalance, and 9v9 will only make it worse.

6v6v6 doesn't seem like a great idea either. I feel like the maps will be too crowded because they were originally designed for 4v4v4.

If the goal is to keep the total player count the same across modes, making it 4v4v4 and 6v6 makes a lot of sense.

Also, launching 6v6v6 and 9v9 requires a larger total number of players, so I think this could negatively impact queue times.

ceruulean · August 4

6-man games are an improvement. Theoretically speaking, 6-man, which is a multiple of 2 and 3, is better for forming teams. This allows 3-man parties to combine with other 3-man parties to form a 6 man. Duos and quads can be combined, or 3 duos.

In the current/old system (U50 and prior), 3-man parties have impossible queue times because there's no way to fit them in a 4-man unless you have a solo player queuing in group queue, which is an unlikely and tough ask, especially because PC keyboard UI doesn't allow multi-queue select.

My big concern is having 2 separate queues for Big Team Battles (BTB). I don't think the BG population is large enough to have pre-made + solo queue. It's safe to assume that we have less than 1000 players actively queuing at any given hour (PC NA). In practice, most people will exclusively select solo queue, and group queue will be dead.

9v9 is odd, which is why filling out a 9-man is contingent on having a single queue. 4-man groups have to combine with duos and solos.

If groups want to coordinate a GvG, it would be better to implement a custom lobby feature in the future. Otherwise, when it comes to "quick play," "just hop on and play," we cannot have 2 different queues. Not even AAA competitive games split their player queues, but I'm sure they receive a ton of complaints about solos vs pre-mades. Skill-based matchmaking (SBMM) should theoretically weed out pre-mades and solos after X amount of games. Also, not all pre-made groups are automatically more skilled.

Romilly · August 6

Does noone listen to player feedback? All we wanted was 4v4v4 back, and you're determined to make it 6v6v6...

tomofhyrule · August 7

I don't understand the desire to move to 18-player matches instead of 12-player.

Pretty well every group in ESO operates in multiples of 4. The idea of a 4v4v4 BG match seems sound enough, so the desire to make it 6v6v6 is odd. But the change of the 8v8 to the 9v9 is just bizarre. Even in the fact that you have a group queue, you can't fill that with groups unless you happen to get 3 3-man groups on?

If the desire is to make the 2-team and 3-team have the same number, I do think that 12 players is probably a better choice than 18, so a 4v4v4 or 6v6. But honestly, I don't see why it can't have 4v4v4 and 8v8.

Fischblut · August 7

I played 4v4v4 battlegrounds few years ago and eventually it got too unbearable so I stopped.
During past year I did some 8v8 matches, and I hated it even more than 3 teams

So I stopped that too, until this double AP event.
My comfortable PvP builds are outdated from few years ago and while I use some of newer PvP sets, I don't follow the meta, so I didn't want to risk 4v4 mode. But yesterday I was so fed up by 8v8 matches, that I decided to try 4v4 as I was about to stop battlegrounds again

...4v4 is amazing mode, and I wish I tried it much earlier I am very happy that this mode is available, and I hope you don't take it away ever It still has problems just the same as 8v8 (people sitting in spawn to drag the match and waste everyone's time, matches starting 3v4), but it's more rare and there are some enjoyable fights! And there is no Chaosball and Capture the Relic, thanks so much for that also!

I don't think I'll be doing any other mode except for 4v4 (solo), so they are no longer relevant to me. But it's good that they will be option for people who like those matches.

I agree that there needs to be just a queue - not separated by "group vs group" and "solo vs solo". I don't care if I end up as one of 4 solo heroes versus premade group of 4. I already see some matches where 4 solo players are better geared/have better team work/have better healer or dds, so other team of 4 solo players just gets farmed. But I would rather have super fast queues, especially with fancy war torte/alliance scroll buffs!

For premade matches there should be custom lobby. In other game where I used to play lot of 5v5 matches, there is custom lobby for matches where people could select map and objectives (they even had their rules if it was just to farm - which team dies first or what objectives are ignored, for example XD ) - and to make such custom farm not too lucrative, there is a limit on how many rewards you can get from such mode. It resets after some time.

And please, do something to those who see that their team is losing so they stay at the balcony to drag the match out

I saw Crazy King match where I was the only one trying to go and fight (and I was geared as healer, so I needed group around me) - two "team mates" were staying and emoting at spawn, and 3rd "team mate" was staying in stealth in bushes on the edge of the fight area, never helping or doing anything. There needs to be 30-40 seconds timer which teleports players from the spawn to the fight area if they don't come down. Please, implement this!

gariondavey · August 7

Deathmatch only

thesarahandcompany · August 7

The questions you're asking us to answer are actually pretty difficult to answer meaningfully. We're supposed to tell you how 6v6v6 feels after only a handful of PTS matches, when realistically very few of us will play enough games to draw reliable conclusions. More importantly, we don't actually know what your design goals are.

Are you trying to:

increase tactical depth?
reduce snowballing?
make Battlegrounds feel larger?
improve group play?
standardize player counts across modes?

Those lead to very different evaluations.There's also a huge interaction between team size, map, and game mode. Three-team gameplay feels better on some maps than others. Objective modes behave differently than Deathmatch. I could easily imagine 6v6v6 improving certain combinations while making others significantly worse. So instead of asking "How does 6v6v6 feel?", I think it's more useful to ask what each Battleground format is trying to accomplish.

What does 4v4 do best?

Small-scale tactical combat. Individual skill has a large impact. Positioning, target selection, and coordinated plays matter because every player represents 25% of the team's power. It rewards tight coordination without becoming overwhelming.

What does 8v8 do best?

Larger team fights. Dedicated roles become more viable, fights are sustained longer, and the mode feels closer to small-scale Cyrodiil while still remaining structured.

What could 9v9 theoretically improve?

If your goal is larger coordinated battles, 9v9 gives a little more room for specialization and role diversity. Whether that benefit outweighs the additional queue requirements and balance challenges is another question.

What does 4v4v4 do best?

It creates dynamic three-way decision making. You're constantly deciding whether to engage, rotate, pressure another team, defend an objective, or let two teams fight each other. It creates strategic situations that simply don't exist in 2-team modes.

What could 6v6v6 theoretically improve?

Potentially:

more coordinated team play
more defined group compositions
greater strategic depth
more sustained fights

But it also introduces important tradeoffs:

Maps designed around 12 players may become overcrowded.
Third-party fights may become more chaotic.
Individual agency decreases because each player contributes a smaller share of the team's strength.
Queue requirements become substantially larger.

Those are hypotheses, not conclusions. That's why I think it would help if the developers first explained what they hope 6v6v6 accomplishes that 4v4v4 cannot. Once we understand the intended design objective, player feedback can evaluate whether those goals are actually being met instead of everyone arguing from different assumptions.

Wolfchild07 · August 7

I’m only interested in 4v4v4, on the original maps, and objective modes only.

Deathmatch and chaosball needs it’s own queue, it’s the same thing. Actual objective based modes need their own queue also.

Calminayon · August 7

Same. I just want 4v4v4 back. Ideally with a deathmatch queue, but one can't have it all.

BG's always been my main focus in the game but I simply do not enjoy the new setup. In most cases it's already clear who's going to win within the first thirty seconds or so, esp. in 8v8, and you end up wasting time camping or being camped.

I'm happy 3 team BG is back, although I'm not too sure about the increase in players, but am I reading correctly that they share a queue and there's still a (I guess) 50% chance I'm stuck with a two team BG?

NovelliESO · August 7

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

This is the official feedback thread for the return of 3-Team Battlegrounds. Specific feedback that the team is looking for includes the following:
How do you feel about 3-Team Battlegrounds returning?

How does 6v6v6 feel?

Do you have any additional feedback?

I said the 6v6v6 and 9v9 group size options were interesting , I would prefer 4v4v4 and 6v6, but if it isn't being changed, I would love to be able to que into 6v6v6 with a full team of 6, feels weird queing with a 4 and getting 2 random people, it also makes it easy to setup pre planned matches against people.

NovelliESO · August 7

Radiate77 wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

While I haven't tried it yet, on first blush, I'm iffy on the new implementation. I'm not sure if 6v6v6 is going to give a similar experience to 4v4v4, but that's effectively ball-group size.

Speaking of ball-groups, increasing the group size of 3-team BGs also forces the new group-size detriments of Battle Spirit onto players.

I think a lot of this has been weirdly overthought. From what I can tell, the playerbase overwhelmingly dislikes the 4v4 mode, and 4v4v4 is what loads of players have been pining for (and enjoying a lot when they come up some weeks). So why not just replace 4v4 with 4v4v4?

Yet 4v4 has cultivated a much larger playerbase than 4v4v4, as seen by the shift from 30 minute queues to -5 minute ones.

Battlegrounds were dead before the rework.

I agree, my que times into 4v4 were generally not as long as they used to be for 4v4v4, the only reason the 4v4v4s were popular was because they were events that gave more rewards and people missed them since they haven't been around for a while. I fear the same thing will slowly happen again, but at least we have the option now for 4v4 and 4v4v4 being two different ques.

Firstmep · August 8

The increased team sizes worry me for both queue times and matchmaking.
The system is already not able to estimate player skill based on performance as is, and now even larger teams will have to be filled.

master_vanargand · August 10

Stop with the 6v6v6!
4v4v4 is the most fun.
Are the game creators devotees of "ball groups"?
It's foolish.
Why not bring back the format that actually worked?
6v6v6 is bound to fail.
For starters, the larger player count means it takes longer just to get a match going.
And while you can cover for weak teammates in 4v4v4, it’s absolutely impossible in 6v6v6.

Seriously, stop the 6v6v6!
Why do game creators insist on making up their own "ultimate original rules" (which turn out to be trash)?

What players want is 4v4v4.
6v6v6 is garbage. This isn't a prediction—it's the truth.

IncultaWolf · August 10

Got around a dozen players in our guild to queue on pts earlier on a Sunday night but we still couldn't get into a match. Not sure how we're supposed to test this and give feedback.

Zallion · August 10

If you can find a way to remove spawn camping and 3 lives mechanics in 4v4 DM it will be a much better and popular mode. It has the potential to be the high octane competitive mode it seems to be designed to be. But the minute one team gains momentum, it’s just over. Offsets the respawns of an uncoordinated PUG and the other team picks them off the second their feet hit the ground 1v4. Victories are typically decided in the first 30 seconds. That is how 90% of matches play out, it’s a steamroll. Not cause one team is leaps and bounds better than the other as much as the design isnt the best. It may take 1-2 wipes for a team to coordinate with what they’re up against, by which time it’s more or less over and that team is so behind. No catch up mechanic (simply remove the 3 lives), no ebb and flow, very one sided. Kick players off the spawn platform in 20-30 seconds to keep matches from dragging.

ceruulean · August 10

IncultaWolf wrote: »

Got around a dozen players in our guild to queue on pts earlier on a Sunday night but we still couldn't get into a match. Not sure how we're supposed to test this and give feedback.

Honestly for the future, ZOS should implement the ability to create a custom private match. Not that it would help with testing the 6v6v6 this cycle, but at least players could test new maps if we could create our own lobbies with any number of people and 2 party leaders.

WOW has this feature: https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/War_Game

madmufffin · August 10

NovelliESO wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

While I haven't tried it yet, on first blush, I'm iffy on the new implementation. I'm not sure if 6v6v6 is going to give a similar experience to 4v4v4, but that's effectively ball-group size.

Speaking of ball-groups, increasing the group size of 3-team BGs also forces the new group-size detriments of Battle Spirit onto players.

I think a lot of this has been weirdly overthought. From what I can tell, the playerbase overwhelmingly dislikes the 4v4 mode, and 4v4v4 is what loads of players have been pining for (and enjoying a lot when they come up some weeks). So why not just replace 4v4 with 4v4v4?

Yet 4v4 has cultivated a much larger playerbase than 4v4v4, as seen by the shift from 30 minute queues to -5 minute ones.

Battlegrounds were dead before the rework.

I agree, my que times into 4v4 were generally not as long as they used to be for 4v4v4, the only reason the 4v4v4s were popular was because they were events that gave more rewards and people missed them since they haven't been around for a while. I fear the same thing will slowly happen again, but at least we have the option now for 4v4 and 4v4v4 being two different ques.

They did a ton to incentivize playing BGs with the switch to 4v4. Leaderboards, new rewards system, and eventually veterancy. Can't really treat them as a 1:1 comp since a lot changed at the same time. General consensus I've seen from forums and my pvp discords is people prefer 3 team.

ceruulean · August 10

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

While I haven't tried it yet, on first blush, I'm iffy on the new implementation. I'm not sure if 6v6v6 is going to give a similar experience to 4v4v4, but that's effectively ball-group size.

Speaking of ball-groups, increasing the group size of 3-team BGs also forces the new group-size detriments of Battle Spirit onto players.

I think a lot of this has been weirdly overthought. From what I can tell, the playerbase overwhelmingly dislikes the 4v4 mode, and 4v4v4 is what loads of players have been pining for (and enjoying a lot when they come up some weeks). So why not just replace 4v4 with 4v4v4?

Yet 4v4 has cultivated a much larger playerbase than 4v4v4, as seen by the shift from 30 minute queues to -5 minute ones.

Battlegrounds were dead before the rework.

I agree, my que times into 4v4 were generally not as long as they used to be for 4v4v4, the only reason the 4v4v4s were popular was because they were events that gave more rewards and people missed them since they haven't been around for a while. I fear the same thing will slowly happen again, but at least we have the option now for 4v4 and 4v4v4 being two different ques.

They did a ton to incentivize playing BGs with the switch to 4v4. Leaderboards, new rewards system, and eventually veterancy. Can't really treat them as a 1:1 comp since a lot changed at the same time. General consensus I've seen from forums and my pvp discords is people prefer 3 team.

3-teams is fun for casuals but it's uncompetitive and not fun to be the person burning the most tri-pots only to lose to some 3rd party team that ran around flags or camped the Chaosball in some crevice and arc beamed anyone who tried to enter.

Major_Mangle · August 10

Two team was good for objective modes while 3 team had some interesting moments for deathmatch. But 3 team and objective modes is some of the most awful PvP I´ve played (aside from maybe chaos ball which kinda works). Another problem that once again will occur is the problem of solo vs group queue where group queue suffers tremendously splitting the queue as much as it currently is and will become. I´m not talking about a full comped 4 man premade, but just queuing casually with a friend an evening is borderline impossible without waiting 20-30 min for a game. I´d honestly prefer how BG´s were at release when we could at least pick the mode we wanted to play. With that I can at least avoid the dreadful modes that are objectives.

madmufffin · August 10

ceruulean wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

While I haven't tried it yet, on first blush, I'm iffy on the new implementation. I'm not sure if 6v6v6 is going to give a similar experience to 4v4v4, but that's effectively ball-group size.

Speaking of ball-groups, increasing the group size of 3-team BGs also forces the new group-size detriments of Battle Spirit onto players.

I think a lot of this has been weirdly overthought. From what I can tell, the playerbase overwhelmingly dislikes the 4v4 mode, and 4v4v4 is what loads of players have been pining for (and enjoying a lot when they come up some weeks). So why not just replace 4v4 with 4v4v4?

Yet 4v4 has cultivated a much larger playerbase than 4v4v4, as seen by the shift from 30 minute queues to -5 minute ones.

Battlegrounds were dead before the rework.

I agree, my que times into 4v4 were generally not as long as they used to be for 4v4v4, the only reason the 4v4v4s were popular was because they were events that gave more rewards and people missed them since they haven't been around for a while. I fear the same thing will slowly happen again, but at least we have the option now for 4v4 and 4v4v4 being two different ques.

They did a ton to incentivize playing BGs with the switch to 4v4. Leaderboards, new rewards system, and eventually veterancy. Can't really treat them as a 1:1 comp since a lot changed at the same time. General consensus I've seen from forums and my pvp discords is people prefer 3 team.

3-teams is fun for casuals but it's uncompetitive and not fun to be the person burning the most tri-pots only to lose to some 3rd party team that ran around flags or camped the Chaosball in some crevice and arc beamed anyone who tried to enter.

I think there should be a deathmatch only queue as well, but that's a different conversation. Objective game modes are unfun to me regardless of how many teams or people there are.