Maintenance for the week of November 17:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – November 17
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – November 17, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 4:00PM EST (21:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 19, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – November 17
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – November 17, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 4:00PM EST (21:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 19, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
(battlegrounds) implement 4 vs 4 only instead of 3 teams
Noctus
✭✭✭✭✭
i think 4 vs 4 vs 4 giving the game a hard time to measure how good someone is. also matches would be less chaotic and more skillfull. also there wouldnt be any stalemates in the middle of the map with no team going in for a fight. less time to wait for a match
(can someone move this poll to battleground forum section?)
Edited by Noctus on March 6, 2020 9:13PM (can someone move this poll to battleground forum section?)
(battlegrounds) implement 4 vs 4 only instead of 3 teams 67 votes
yes change to 4 vs 4 only
32%
22 votes
dont do it
67%
45 votes
0
-
xWarbrain✭✭✭✭✭dont do itI'd like to see more options, but not in place of 4v4v4, just in addition to.Edited by xWarbrain on March 6, 2020 9:12PMXB1 NA
Your nerf suggestion is dumb. Learn to counter other players instead of having the game rebuilt to your ability level.3 -
xWarbrain✭✭✭✭✭dont do it
Edit: Deleting because I misread your reply.Edited by xWarbrain on March 6, 2020 9:15PMXB1 NA
Your nerf suggestion is dumb. Learn to counter other players instead of having the game rebuilt to your ability level.0 -
wheem_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭yes change to 4 vs 4 onlyThis has been requested before, but ZOS hasn't publicly shown any interest in changing things. The 3-team system can work out fine in low MMR games, where things are going to be fairly chaotic and random anyway, but at higher MMR ranges I think it really stinks. Especially in Death Match games where I'm on a class with no execute, and third-team Mag Sorcs are a dime a dozen.
'Course, having it limited to two teams would probably highlight some imbalance issues that ZOS might rather not deal with.3 -
ketsparrowhawk✭✭✭✭✭dont do itNo way. If it's just 2 teams and one is dominant, it will just be a spawn camp the whole match. With three teams, spawn camps usually break up eventually because the dominant team gets third-partied and the team getting camped has a chance to jump off their spawn and do something. 3 teams needs to stay.6 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭4v4 or even 8v8 would be a good format and offer smoother matches than the current design allows. It should also help with matchmaking over the current format but this is just an opinion.
Did not answer the poll because a well thought out suggestion probably goes much further than a poll. It would not be wise for Zos to make changes because a very small portion of the player base responded to a poll.0 -
Thogard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭dont do itHaving only two teams would reward stalemate builds. In a two team game, If your team has no deaths it means the other team has no kills.
Three teams means that the stalematers aren’t rewarded. If your team stalemates, there is always a third team to focus on instead, and the stalemate team loses.
As long as stalemating is as easy as it currently is, 4v4 is a very bad idea.PC NA - @dazkt - Dazk Ardoonkt / Sir Thogalot / Dask Dragoh’t / Dazk Dragoh’t / El Thogardo
Stream: twitch.tv/THOGARDvsThePeasants
YouTube: http://youtube.com/c/thogardpvp9 -
daemonor✭✭✭✭dont do itNo because then battlegrounds would suck like in World of Warcraft...This is the only game where battlegrounds are enjoyable no matter if you win or lose, have positive or negative KDA and like the posters above me stated, happens probably just because of the 4v4v4 mode. This is the only game where i feel like playing battlegrounds is a reward in itself...you don't need meaningful currency, item or any other type of rewards.0
-
exeeter702✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭i think 4 vs 4 vs 4 giving the game a hard time to measure how good someone is. also matches would be less chaotic and more skillfull. also there wouldnt be any stalemates in the middle of the map with no team going in for a fight. less time to wait for a match
(can someone move this poll to battleground forum section?)
Honestly even in no cp, I still believe combined player power in a 4v4 setting make lead to u interesting stalemates. A method or form of healing and defensive value dampening would need to be in place. But the besides that, 4v4 is not the solution to the problem. Well made 8v8 objective based bgs was the appropriate course that should have been taken with eso bgs. 3 team affairs are nonsense and demonstrate very little in terms of a players burden of performance and influence of match outcomes.0 -
MashmalloMan✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭dont do itI'd much rather see them reintroduce a Group queue along with Solo options. There is a solid argument that they don't want to seperate the queue by offering solo AND group, but letting groups queue and wait for a game if they want to group should be an option. Let solo players choose to toggle a group queue option with a tooltip that says "May reduce queue time, but possibility to fight against premade groups."
OPTIONS.
We should not be taking away options from players because we come up with rules that may sound right on a spreadsheet.
I guarantee you ZOS lost more players to this buggy patch and solo queues vs the amount of players that would of had to wait a little longer to find a match with a group queue. Losing players because of poor decision making completely nulifies the argument that the queues would take too long with a group queue option.
On topic: Pretty much what others have said. 3 teams helps cancel out stalemates and keeps people on their toes.1 -
MurderMostFoul✭✭✭✭✭
✭dont do it4v4 = Tanks and healers meta = boring“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”0 -
MurderMostFoul✭✭✭✭✭
✭dont do itHaving only two teams would reward stalemate builds. In a two team game, If your team has no deaths it means the other team has no kills.
Three teams means that the stalematers aren’t rewarded. If your team stalemates, there is always a third team to focus on instead, and the stalemate team loses.
As long as stalemating is as easy as it currently is, 4v4 is a very bad idea.
^This guy gets it.“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”0 -
JSlayer211✭✭✭dont do itI agree with 6v6 or maybe a 4v4v4v4. What you need to get rid of is the 3rd man out problem. The problem with an odd number is that you will always have someone flanking another team by force. This isn't game play it's just the flow of the maps/match. Every game ends up with a fight at once place between 2 and then the 3rd mops up everyone that's busy with each other. Even if you are battling a team and kill everyone on that team, you IMMEDIATELY have a 3rd team on top of you will full buffs and resources right away. Not good.
4v4 would just be too slow I think for the scale and size of BG's.
6v6 has the potential to get a bit long winded but I think team cooperation and targeting would resolve any chance of someone trying to stalemate.
4v4v4v4 would be nonstop action, however there's enough action to keep everyone busy in places without overwhelming any one particular spot. Capture the relic is super easy in 4v4v4, stand in the middle of the map see which relic gets the most people going to it, go to the opposite one. It's just that easy due to the uneven nature of the layout.0 -
mav1234✭✭✭✭✭yes change to 4 vs 4 only1) Two team death match is fun but not well-supported by the current meta. But IMO it would be a good idea to add it. Yes, the current stalemate builds are a problem but it could actually cause the meta to change. If you aren't killing anyone, you aren't winning in a 4v4, and you can't rely on the other team dropping people low to ult dump/squish a team like you can now. 4v4v4 does a good job at rewarding people that turtle up and wait for an opportunity to hit when the other two groups are fighting. 4v4 doesn't enable that. But the problems with the healing meta would be way more obvious in a 4v4 deathmatch IMO.
2) Two teams are fine for the other modes and would actually make a number of them more enjoyable (with obvious reductions to some things e.g. number of capture points).
Moving to 4v4 could also help develop a more competitive community in the game, but I'm not sure that would be something ZOS would want anyway.0 -
Deathlord92✭✭✭✭✭
✭Nope I like the current system and now pre mades have be dealt with bgs is actually a lot of fun to0 -
I just want my f’ing group queue back.
I miss playing with my friends 😢
Just have 2 queues. Group queues and solo queues. Come on.0 -
iCaliban✭✭✭✭✭
✭dont do itTwo team bgs would need a significant overhaul of both the maps and gametypes.
Without adjusting both BGs would become infested with stall builds and healers to an even greater extent. It would not work.
Zos will not put that kind of effort in0 -
JusticeSouldier✭✭✭✭dont do iti think 4 vs 4 vs 4 giving the game a hard time to measure how good someone is. also matches would be less chaotic and more skillfull. also there wouldnt be any stalemates in the middle of the map with no team going in for a fight. less time to wait for a match
(can someone move this poll to battleground forum section?)
3 teams makes combat less predictable. enouch frustrating is deathmatches pandemia already.
And 3 teams match fits eso concept.
Just watch at game logo...nothing interesting?all classes. pc platform, dissapointed.0 -
dont do itLeave Battlegrounds how they are, but adding a completely new game mode would be nice. 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, or 5v5 Arenas would be a very welcome addition for us PvPers I think.
Daggerfall Covenant
Asheron Realaidain | Altmer Magsorc
Wayward Bob | Orsimer Stamplar
Aerbax Virindi | Dunmer Magblade
Numuhdira | Redguard Stamsorc
Borelean Strathelar | Khajiit Stamblade
Isin Dule | Dunmer MagDK
Illservian Palacost | Argonian Magplar
Lord Rytheran | Nord Stamcro
Antius Blackmoor | Orsimer StamDK
Xbox One X, NA0
