Maintenance for the week of August 31:
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – September 3, 10:00AM EDT (14:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – September 3, 10:00AM EDT (14:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
Battlegrounds
Miracle19
✭✭✭
This Deathmatch 4v4v4 weekend we just had, on PCNA, the Que times were instant. For both solo and group. Is there any way we can have this as permanent.
I’m not aware of what the data looks like, but from a player standpoint, it’s pretty clear that this is what the majority of actual players prefer. This hasn’t been the case for any of the other 4v4v4 events or even 4v4 or 8v8.
Deathmatch 4v4v4 appears to be the overwhelming preference for the majority of actual BG players based off of Que times.
Hopefully we can get more insight on this before the new patch drops.
Edited by Miracle19 on August 26, 2026 4:10PM I’m not aware of what the data looks like, but from a player standpoint, it’s pretty clear that this is what the majority of actual players prefer. This hasn’t been the case for any of the other 4v4v4 events or even 4v4 or 8v8.
Deathmatch 4v4v4 appears to be the overwhelming preference for the majority of actual BG players based off of Que times.
Hopefully we can get more insight on this before the new patch drops.
8
-
ruskiii✭✭✭The queues were fast, there was no MMR but teams were usually kind of balanced, and because it was Deathmatch there was far less friction between new and vet players who want to actually PVP in a PVP game mode. This needs to be a permanent option.Edited by ruskiii on August 26, 2026 4:18PM7
-
gammelscroll✭✭✭This mode need to be fixed. When shield stacking DK groups come inside solo Q and just steamroll the two other teams ,.its not funEdited by gammelscroll on August 26, 2026 4:21PM1
-
ruskiii✭✭✭gammelscroll wrote: »This mode need to be fixed. When shield stacking DK groups come inside solo Q and just steamroll the two other teams ,.its not fun
are the shield stacking DK groups in the room with us now?2 -
Radiate77✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Until the Midyear Mayhem maintenance broke BG queues, 4v4 was an instant queue.
The last time we had permanent 3 team BGs you couldn’t find a game in 10-30 minutes regularly.
With the introduction of two-team, Battlegrounds had a massive resurgence and have been maintaining a steady population despite this update being the worst balance-wise in the entirety of ESO’s history.
All that to say, I would love a 3-team Deathmatch permanent option, but you know what? I’d love a permanent 2-team Deathmatch option more.Edited by Radiate77 on August 26, 2026 4:47PMFounder of New Age Crusade, the #1 Battlegrounds guild on Xbox NA1 -
IncultaWolf✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I really enjoyed the instant queues. It was faster than the actual mayhem pvp event we just recently had where only 2 team was available.4 -
madmufffin✭✭✭✭✭Until the Midyear Mayhem maintenance broke BG queues, 4v4 was an instant queue.
The last time we had permanent 3 team BGs you couldn’t find a game in 10-30 minutes regularly.
With the introduction of two-team, Battlegrounds had a massive resurgence and have been maintaining a steady population despite this update being the worst balance-wise in the entirety of ESO’s history.
All that to say, I would love a 3-team Deathmatch permanent option, but you know what? I’d love a permanent 2-team Deathmatch option more.
Because the non-deathmatch game modes are horrific3 -
ruskiii✭✭✭Until the Midyear Mayhem maintenance broke BG queues, 4v4 was an instant queue.
The last time we had permanent 3 team BGs you couldn’t find a game in 10-30 minutes regularly.
Not sure what server you play on but this has never been the case on PCNA. Before U44 brought in 2 team BGs my queues were rarely more than 5 mins, unless I was trying to run groups. I played 1000 games over the last 2 months, and my average queue time was ~3 minutes (4v4, 8v8 and 4v4v4). This 4v4v4 Deathmatch event has been very fast, <1 minute queues for the most part, day or night. Regular 4v4 and 8v8 queues are usually somewhere between 0-5 minutes, and we didn't have a broken queue over the last midyear.
That being said the second the 4v4v4 queue got taken down today, I went from having instant queues to waiting 25 minutes. If all it takes fo have high population in BGs is to have a good game mode (3 team deathmatch) + mildly interesting reward (veteranccy) + extremely mild AP buff in BGs... why not do that more often? And imagine what could be done if even a slight amount of effort was put into it.1 -
ruskiii✭✭✭I played 1000 games over the last 2 months, and my average queue time was ~3 minutes
btw shout out @Solantris and the Battleboard add-on for making this information available
https://www.esoui.com/downloads/info4672-Battleboard.html
1 -
gariondavey✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭PC NA @gariondavey, BG, IC & Cyrodiil Focused Since October 2017 Stamplar (main), Magplar, Magsorc, Stamsorc, StamDK, MagDK, Stamblade, Magblade, Magden, Stamden0 -
NovelliESO✭✭✭✭As someone who has played every iteration of BGs I'll just give my 2 cents here.
4v4s, for the extent of their being around, objectively had shorter que times than 4v4v4. Towards the end of their life, I could sit solo or grouped in 4v4v4 ques for over an hour, and half hour ques were very normal even during hours in which they shouldn't have been. Since then, the population has gotten smaller but even with that being the fact, 4v4 and 8v8 ques are generally much faster.
4v4v4s for the last week, being DM only had extremely fast ques, for the most part (they would generally pop within a minute but I had one that went over 10 while playing at populated hours.) To be completely fair though, this was the similar case for most of the 4v4v4s that rotated in regardless of mode. With that being the case, I attribute it to crowds just missing 4v4v4 since they aren't as accessible, and a small portion of people also enjoying the bonus AP. This could mean that permanent 4v4v4s will eventually go back to ques just as slow, perhaps even slower since the population is lower, but there is no real way to know.
Ideally, I would love a system where everyone can have their preferred mode, as well as their preferred number of teams, and team sizes, but that would create even more problems than it solves sadly. Right now we have 4v4 solo and group, and 8v8 solo and group. Next patch we are supposed to keep 4v4, as well as add 6v6v6 and 9v9. I'm pretty sure the community has already given their input on wanting 4v4v4 and 6v6 rather than the proposed numbers, but lets just say for argument's sake that for whatever reason they would have the exact same number of people queing for them (they wouldn't.) In this scenario, it is just objectively true that filling for a 6v6v6 would generally be harder than a 4v4v4 just because it requires an extra 6 people, and 6v6 vs 9v9 has the same issue. Every time you que, in either instance, 6 extra people also have to be in the que to make the game work.
If everyone were to get what they want, keeping in mind they keep 6v6v6 and 9v9, we would have both solo and group que for 4v4. Then we would have solo and group que for 6v6v6 and 9v9, which shares a que, and then finally on top of that we would have ques for DM only for perhaps both solo and group 6v6v6/9v9 and perhaps even 4v4. This would obviously add too many different ques, and some people, though I believe a very very small percentage would avoid DM only. This may only be 5% of people, but a loss is a loss and it does eventually make ques slower. Now, me personally, the number one most aggravating thing during 4v4v4s of past, was queing for half an hour, to finally get a game, engage in a fight with one team for all of 30 seconds while team 3 ran around, did the objective, and ended the game. If you want these games to be enjoyable you have to literally hijack the objective or chase the 3rd team around that isn't even interested in fighting.
With that being the case, I would also prefer a DM only mode. I think the vast majority of the population would agree, at least on the forums, but even those who actively que and oppose DM only would still amount to a small percentage. I will always take a 10 minute DM only que to a 2 minute game that ends even faster than the que pops.
The main issue, aside from the devs already wanting to introduce 6v6v6 and 9v9 as the proposed mode for whatever reason, is the issue of ques potentially going to 30+ minutes, to prevent that we should keep the number of different ques lower. To avoid this, and make both modes feel somewhat "Fresh" they can keep the modes rotating. 4v4 one week, 6v6v6/9v9 the next. Now, this isn't what I would prefer, but it may alleviate some of the boredom that may eventually build with allowing the ques for either at all times, but it would mainly just force everyone to que the same mode so people are not lost queing into 2 different modes. You could have 12 people sitting in the 6v6v6 que who don't get a match while 6 people sit in a 4v4 que and don't get a match, that could get one if they both qued the same mode.
My ideal want (aside from some fantastical, unreal scenario, where there are 10 different ques with group sizes people want, both solo and group, both dm or non dm, both competitive and non, that magically manage to fill) is making some small sacrifice to finally just add a DM only mode. There has to be some point, some point in which the devs realize they can go out on a limb and just try it. There should be data for DM only mode this last week, compare that to the other modes that were available, show us the data, prove that DM is not popular or just add it as a mode we can chose to play. The VAST majority of people who are queing BGs regularly would want this, the very small minority that doesn't, while they would be upset, is a better alternative than upsetting the much larger majority who sit in a que to watch team 3 run the flag back and forth while 2 teams actually decide to fight.0 -
ruskiii✭✭✭NovelliESO wrote: »Ideally, I would love a system where everyone can have their preferred mode, as well as their preferred number of teams, and team sizes, but that would create even more problems than it solves sadly.
I mean I wouldn't see the harm in them adding an option under the group finder to create a custom lobby where you can pick your team size/map/game mode.
Edited by ruskiii on August 26, 2026 5:31PM1 -
NovelliESO✭✭✭✭NovelliESO wrote: »Ideally, I would love a system where everyone can have their preferred mode, as well as their preferred number of teams, and team sizes, but that would create even more problems than it solves sadly.
I mean I wouldn't see the harm in them adding an option under the group finder to create a custom lobby where you can pick your team size/map/game mode.
Sure, if you could have a mode that didn't even require a que, but we've been asking for this since before BGs were even out and have gotten nothing.1 -
ruskiii✭✭✭NovelliESO wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »Ideally, I would love a system where everyone can have their preferred mode, as well as their preferred number of teams, and team sizes, but that would create even more problems than it solves sadly.
I mean I wouldn't see the harm in them adding an option under the group finder to create a custom lobby where you can pick your team size/map/game mode.
Sure, if you could have a mode that didn't even require a que, but we've been asking for this since before BGs were even out and have gotten nothing.
It would be easier than joining the actual group queue when you are trying to organise specific lobbies. Sometimes even having 8 or 16 people in the group queue for 4v4 or 8v8 respectively, you can't guarantee games to pop for some reason.0 -
NovelliESO✭✭✭✭NovelliESO wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »Ideally, I would love a system where everyone can have their preferred mode, as well as their preferred number of teams, and team sizes, but that would create even more problems than it solves sadly.
I mean I wouldn't see the harm in them adding an option under the group finder to create a custom lobby where you can pick your team size/map/game mode.
Sure, if you could have a mode that didn't even require a que, but we've been asking for this since before BGs were even out and have gotten nothing.
It would be easier than joining the actual group queue when you are trying to organise specific lobbies. Sometimes even having 8 or 16 people in the group queue for 4v4 or 8v8 respectively, you can't guarantee games to pop for some reason.
Yeah, but for whatever reason they are never going to do it.2 -
Bushido2513✭✭✭✭✭NovelliESO wrote: »Ideally, I would love a system where everyone can have their preferred mode, as well as their preferred number of teams, and team sizes, but that would create even more problems than it solves sadly.
I mean I wouldn't see the harm in them adding an option under the group finder to create a custom lobby where you can pick your team size/map/game mode.
It's both good and bad potentially. Mostly seems good but population can be low so if people start doing their own bgs sessions it could starve the regular queue.
0 -
ruskiii✭✭✭Bushido2513 wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »Ideally, I would love a system where everyone can have their preferred mode, as well as their preferred number of teams, and team sizes, but that would create even more problems than it solves sadly.
I mean I wouldn't see the harm in them adding an option under the group finder to create a custom lobby where you can pick your team size/map/game mode.
It's both good and bad potentially. Mostly seems good but population can be low so if people start doing their own bgs sessions it could starve the regular queue.
If you're on a server where a few groups could drain your regular solo queue, you might be playing XBOX EU0 -
Miracle19✭✭✭Bushido2513 wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »Ideally, I would love a system where everyone can have their preferred mode, as well as their preferred number of teams, and team sizes, but that would create even more problems than it solves sadly.
I mean I wouldn't see the harm in them adding an option under the group finder to create a custom lobby where you can pick your team size/map/game mode.
It's both good and bad potentially. Mostly seems good but population can be low so if people start doing their own bgs sessions it could starve the regular queue.
It would 100% starve the que. But that’s because most BG players do not want to play objectives.
If given the option, it would be exclusively deathmatch. This opinion hasn’t really changed since the beginning of battlegrounds. It is unfortunate however that the choice of game mode and 4v4v4 were removed. That was perfection.0 -
Bushido2513✭✭✭✭✭Bushido2513 wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »Ideally, I would love a system where everyone can have their preferred mode, as well as their preferred number of teams, and team sizes, but that would create even more problems than it solves sadly.
I mean I wouldn't see the harm in them adding an option under the group finder to create a custom lobby where you can pick your team size/map/game mode.
It's both good and bad potentially. Mostly seems good but population can be low so if people start doing their own bgs sessions it could starve the regular queue.
If you're on a server where a few groups could drain your regular solo queue, you might be playing XBOX EU
Population varies with time and if there is an event or not. During deathmatch currently it's back to back but on other days you can wait 10 minutes.
I think the initial popularity would hit pretty hard actually. Lots of people out there that always wanted to do these custom matches.
I'm not predicting anything, just saying population can be up and down and not in predictable ways. So the more options, the more potential for splits.0 -
Bushido2513✭✭✭✭✭Bushido2513 wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »Ideally, I would love a system where everyone can have their preferred mode, as well as their preferred number of teams, and team sizes, but that would create even more problems than it solves sadly.
I mean I wouldn't see the harm in them adding an option under the group finder to create a custom lobby where you can pick your team size/map/game mode.
It's both good and bad potentially. Mostly seems good but population can be low so if people start doing their own bgs sessions it could starve the regular queue.
It would 100% starve the que. But that’s because most BG players do not want to play objectives.
If given the option, it would be exclusively deathmatch. This opinion hasn’t really changed since the beginning of battlegrounds. It is unfortunate however that the choice of game mode and 4v4v4 were removed. That was perfection.
Curious to see how it goes in the next patch with big battles. Hopefully it will inspire more towards giving players what they actually asked for.0 -
brtomkin✭✭✭It takes less time to fill an 8 player BG (4v4), a little longer to fill a 12 player BG (4v4v4), and even longer to fill a 16 player BG (8v8). I expect 18 player BGs (6v6v6 and 9v9) will be the longest wait we've ever seen.
PS5 NA: Pickmans__Model, CP 2600+0 -
NovelliESO✭✭✭✭It takes less time to fill an 8 player BG (4v4), a little longer to fill a 12 player BG (4v4v4), and even longer to fill a 16 player BG (8v8). I expect 18 player BGs (6v6v6 and 9v9) will be the longest wait we've ever seen.
Yeah, pretty silly, and no response to people asking for a change.0 -
ceruulean✭✭✭✭✭Bushido2513 wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »Ideally, I would love a system where everyone can have their preferred mode, as well as their preferred number of teams, and team sizes, but that would create even more problems than it solves sadly.
I mean I wouldn't see the harm in them adding an option under the group finder to create a custom lobby where you can pick your team size/map/game mode.
It's both good and bad potentially. Mostly seems good but population can be low so if people start doing their own bgs sessions it could starve the regular queue.
If custom lobbies give no rewards nor contribute to leaderboards, it would not starve the queue. It would give guilds an extra activity to do, and guilds generally don't organize BG games because they're random, but if organizer can control the participants it's a lot better. Non-sweaty social guilds can enjoy drunken rounds of capture the flag and chaosball.
Basically the audience for custom BG and queued BG would be very different and they would not starve each other. People who don't enjoy random queue might join an organized BG. People who need their BG fix but don't want to organize a custom lobby will have to queue.Edited by ceruulean on August 26, 2026 11:23PM1 -
Bushido2513✭✭✭✭✭Bushido2513 wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »Ideally, I would love a system where everyone can have their preferred mode, as well as their preferred number of teams, and team sizes, but that would create even more problems than it solves sadly.
I mean I wouldn't see the harm in them adding an option under the group finder to create a custom lobby where you can pick your team size/map/game mode.
It's both good and bad potentially. Mostly seems good but population can be low so if people start doing their own bgs sessions it could starve the regular queue.
If custom lobbies give no rewards nor contribute to leaderboards, it would not starve the queue. It would give guilds an extra activity to do, and guilds generally don't organize BG games because they're random, but if organizer can control the participants it's a lot better.
Basically the audience for custom BG and queued BG would be very different and they would not starve each other.
Yeah if there are no rewards that's a bit better but at the same time why can't we get a free for all!!1
