Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Thumbless_Bot · May 13

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

You cant imagine or see or admit that two sided bgs are easier for anyone

We play together in 2-sided BGs somewhat frequently, and it certainly looks like you're being challenged from the outside, at least in the matches full of BGs regulars. I've never seen anyone step into a match full of BGs regs and not be challenged, regardless of whether its 2-sided or 3-sided. Almost like MMR resets are a bad idea...

The flip side was high MMR 3-sided being a standoff between 3 ball groups afraid to get third partied. Challenging, but not fun at all for me. Other 3s were zero challenge if you just played like a rat, not fun for me either.

Hard vs harder. Sweaty bgs are the only thing keeping me engaged. I love them. I wish more bgs were like that. In my experience they were in 4v4v4. That's really why I'm here advocating for their return.

Reasonable people obviously disagree on this. They shouldn't remove two teams. That would be a terrible idea.

There are actual humans out there who even enjoy 4v4... imagine that. At least i assume they are human...:)

1000% on mmr reset. That would go a long way...

Thumbless_Bot · May 13

Daoin wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Daoin wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Two teams is easier for better players and harder for less competent players. In other words, they've made bgs far less approachable for newer or less talented players. How this is good for bgs is beyond me. I will leave to the 2 team advocated here who continue to bend reality to their wills to answer this, as they've done above, with apologetics and whataboutisms.

2 team BGs are not easier for anyone.

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

just to understand the topic a bit clearer, in your experience smaller groups were harder for a more skilled player such as yourself while more numbers and less sides made them easier ?

Smaller?

yes in my experience the person that considered him or herself the most qualified pvper would be the first to leave a group after dying a few times, often even if the match could be recoverable finding a way to let the group know this, became the norm to just say here for fun or non pvp build or other things when entering a group which helped also to not hurt the feeling of the expert pvpers enough hopefully they would not need to blame and shame, and expert pvpers only ever seemed to stay the course of matches they were a sure bet to win. again though i am just trying to understand the topic better but as before i mentioned to another could just be a case of different experiences people have had in thier time in BG's

Definitely different strokes. Try them all for a good number of bgs. You may find you like one format over another. But if you give up after a few, say 4v4, you might be missing something. As above, anyone can point to specific examples of good/greatest or bad/terrible bgs in any format.

[edited to remove quote]

Decimus · May 13

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Two teams is easier for better players and harder for less competent players. In other words, they've made bgs far less approachable for newer or less talented players. How this is good for bgs is beyond me. I will leave to the 2 team advocated here who continue to bend reality to their wills to answer this, as they've done above, with apologetics and whataboutisms.

2 team BGs are not easier for anyone.

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

I hope you understand that RNG isn't difficulty.

In 3-way format some matches would be infinitely easier (and more boring) than any 2-way BG and others would be more difficult (and unfair) as you'd have a 4v8 situation.

It seems to be your "frame of reference" that the difficulty only swings one way.

We've gone over this... Maybe 30 times by now... we can all find examples of this or that to defend this or that. This is not helpful.

Difficulty swings two ways. I am really not sure how I can be any clearer on that point.

Well, you seemed pretty adamant that 2-way BGs are "easier" for skilled players and 3-way BGs were "harder" so you could definitely be clearer on that point. RNG isn't difficulty, there's just a lot less of it in team vs team.

Daoin wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Daoin wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Two teams is easier for better players and harder for less competent players. In other words, they've made bgs far less approachable for newer or less talented players. How this is good for bgs is beyond me. I will leave to the 2 team advocated here who continue to bend reality to their wills to answer this, as they've done above, with apologetics and whataboutisms.

2 team BGs are not easier for anyone.

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

just to understand the topic a bit clearer, in your experience smaller groups were harder for a more skilled player such as yourself while more numbers and less sides made them easier ?

Smaller?

yes in my experience the person that considered him or herself the most qualified pvper would be the first to leave a group after dying a few times, often even if the match could be recoverable finding a way to let the group know this, became the norm to just say here for fun or non pvp build or other things when entering a group which helped also to not hurt the feeling of the expert pvpers enough hopefully they would not need to blame and shame, and expert pvpers only ever seemed to stay the course of matches they were a sure bet to win. again though i am just trying to understand the topic better but as before i mentioned to another could just be a case of different experiences people have had in thier time in BG's

Is this you by any chance?

[edited to remove quote]

Daoin · May 13

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Two teams is easier for better players and harder for less competent players. In other words, they've made bgs far less approachable for newer or less talented players. How this is good for bgs is beyond me. I will leave to the 2 team advocated here who continue to bend reality to their wills to answer this, as they've done above, with apologetics and whataboutisms.

2 team BGs are not easier for anyone.

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

I hope you understand that RNG isn't difficulty.

In 3-way format some matches would be infinitely easier (and more boring) than any 2-way BG and others would be more difficult (and unfair) as you'd have a 4v8 situation.

It seems to be your "frame of reference" that the difficulty only swings one way.

We've gone over this... Maybe 30 times by now... we can all find examples of this or that to defend this or that. This is not helpful.

Difficulty swings two ways. I am really not sure how I can be any clearer on that point.

Well, you seemed pretty adamant that 2-way BGs are "easier" for skilled players and 3-way BGs were "harder" so you could definitely be clearer on that point. RNG isn't difficulty, there's just a lot less of it in team vs team.

Daoin wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Daoin wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Two teams is easier for better players and harder for less competent players. In other words, they've made bgs far less approachable for newer or less talented players. How this is good for bgs is beyond me. I will leave to the 2 team advocated here who continue to bend reality to their wills to answer this, as they've done above, with apologetics and whataboutisms.

2 team BGs are not easier for anyone.

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

just to understand the topic a bit clearer, in your experience smaller groups were harder for a more skilled player such as yourself while more numbers and less sides made them easier ?

Smaller?

yes in my experience the person that considered him or herself the most qualified pvper would be the first to leave a group after dying a few times, often even if the match could be recoverable finding a way to let the group know this, became the norm to just say here for fun or non pvp build or other things when entering a group which helped also to not hurt the feeling of the expert pvpers enough hopefully they would not need to blame and shame, and expert pvpers only ever seemed to stay the course of matches they were a sure bet to win. again though i am just trying to understand the topic better but as before i mentioned to another could just be a case of different experiences people have had in thier time in BG's

Is this you by any chance?

certainly is and believe it or not i have same in game name so no need to hide anything i say through a different identity on forum

why what exactly are you trying to point out ? yes the ones where everyone evacuated against pvers were very fun. i think i also mentioned the expert pvper retreat to new pvp type (or format) and how i never followed and was a good thing for them to you specifically which is then when we agreed that it must be because we were in parallel universes we were not experiencing the same things due to me saying i have done just as many BG's as you in pve gear. after which there was ageneral agreement nothing could be proves as there was no longer access to the format and classes would neve be available again. in the end you left me with the impression that life on the NA server is just very much different than in EU i did only ever suffer myself through enough matches to get onto the top 10 in the weekly scoreboards once though in all that time in pve gear however it would have been doable every week had i chosen to, i am not really a scorepusher so that probably added to the fun of those particular matches on a day i just in for the daily exp (1 match). in the end for eso though pvp is very similar to pve in that when the experts ego feel threatened all of a sudden the goalposts seem to get moved. also my apologize for grammar never been much of a carer for it on fourms, but i must say in my defence my aim here in the post is not to hurt any NA pride just only too understand current state of BG's better so ptry pulling me out on anyting usually a would just be able to call you out on it ingame which is no longer possible in this case i also mentioned later that in my experience the expert players were always the first to leave groups in my experience such as yourself so again please explain whay your goal is here are you asking me some form of question ? from over there in the twighlight zone

i must stress to mention again i said on a couple of occasions in the post i have never tried the 2 team BG's once (one of your awsomes is also from me to show you there is no bad intent here)

[edited to remove quote]

ZOS_Icy · May 13

Greetings,

We have recently removed some unnecessary back and forth from this thread. This is a reminder to keep the discussion civil and constructive. Please keep our Community Rules in mind moving forward.

The Elder Scrolls Online Team

Moonspawn · May 13

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

It's easier for two main reasons:
No danger of being sandwiched.

PVPers aren't encouraged to stay with the team, so if you isolate a few newcomers from the enemy PVPers (spawncamping them, for example) they'll likely never meet up for the remainder of the match.

No danger of being sandwich immediately applies to both teams so I dont get how that would make it easier for either side specifically.
Also actually experienced PvPers would rather use the 3rd team to their advantage in 4v4v4 than get sandwiched by them, which would make 3 team BGs even easier.

In plenty of modes (Deathmatch especially, but also big parts of Chaosball, CtR and Crazy King) people are still encouraged to stick together. Its just not as big of a requirement as in 4v4v4 BGs.

Are you capable of accepting that 1vXing newcomers is easier if there are no PVPers among them?

Jierdanit · May 13

Moonspawn wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

It's easier for two main reasons:
No danger of being sandwiched.

PVPers aren't encouraged to stay with the team, so if you isolate a few newcomers from the enemy PVPers (spawncamping them, for example) they'll likely never meet up for the remainder of the match.

No danger of being sandwich immediately applies to both teams so I dont get how that would make it easier for either side specifically.
Also actually experienced PvPers would rather use the 3rd team to their advantage in 4v4v4 than get sandwiched by them, which would make 3 team BGs even easier.

In plenty of modes (Deathmatch especially, but also big parts of Chaosball, CtR and Crazy King) people are still encouraged to stick together. Its just not as big of a requirement as in 4v4v4 BGs.

Are you capable of accepting that 1vXing newcomers is easier if there are no PVPers among them?

Sure it is.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with 2-way or 3-way BGs.

ZOS_GregoryV · May 14

Greetings all,

After removing a few posts, we would like to remind everyone that all members of the community please be sure to keep the Community Rules in mind when posting.

Regards,
-Greg-

MorallyBipolar · May 14

Two team BG's was a huge mistake and horribly implemented. The "fixed" a game mode that wasn't broken in the first place.

supabicboi · May 14

the core issue to whether 2 sided or 3 sided comes down to a getting an update with more accurate, clearly defined MMR system, imo. The current way MMR resets does not do good to the ecosystem of BGs, it creates many underlying issues that are being expressed here.

Whenever MMR resets, players of all rank get put back into the same pool. Those that are lower ranked get eliminated, so does their will to continue BGing whenever they get nuked and dont know what is happening, then u see people coming here saying theres exploits and cheats lol.

Those that are higher ranked get stuck with boring gameplay when MMR resets, resulting in potential spawncamps, and becoming the reason why lopsided games exist. With the current MMR reset system, I have been the exact reason why the matches are lopsided, I have the potential to kill the fun, especially when teams are not well balanced; not fun stepping into a 'bronze' lobby every time MMR resets.

For players of any rank, the objective is to have fun pvping in BGs, therefore the gameplay has to be challenging, without being lopsided. Those are the kind of BGs that keeps players wanting round 2.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

The flip side was high MMR 3-sided being a standoff between 3 ball groups afraid to get third partied. Challenging, but not fun at all for me. Other 3s were zero challenge if you just played like a rat, not fun for me either.

If, and its a huge IF, when MMR does not reset,or just does a better job at ranking players to their places, BGs will be at a much better place. And for the quoted reason above, 2 sided would be much more fun than 3 sided.

Competitive rounds of BGs has been and still is defined by pure instincts/feeling and sometimes recognizing ID, knowing the players on my team and the opponents aren't bad. ESO does not have any mechanic where we could clearly distinct whether this is a "Silver" "Platinum" "Diamond" lobby. And it really needs one. One round youre having a great time cuz its REAL competetive PvP, the next round youre matched with players that shouldn't be in your lobby.

The competitive 3 sided matches back then, with balanced teams according to player skill(ranking), did subject to standoff problem. It wasnt a huge issue, but I agree those were the exhaustive matches that would stop me from re-queuing. This means, when it comes to a balanced 3 sided matches, it turns into a mexican standoff = there is something intrinisically inferior about the 3 sided format, compared to 2 sided.

when it is 2 sided, evenly matched, both teams fight all out knowing its Us V. Them. In a 3 sided BG, it creates a Us V. Them V. Another team that will look to third party exploit.

2 sided matches creates fewer underlying issues than 3 sided matches = 2 sided have less variables to considered, making it a more direct gameplay, this favors short burst rounds of gameplay like BGs.

But, 8v8 is too much. the issue with 8v8, imo, lies on the match dynamic. IF and when 8v8 teams are balanced in terms of skill level, the team that sticks together more often in the full duration of the game, a faux ball group, is much more favorable to win. Being left out single or duo in a 8v8 match usually means getting ganged on, and only a certain build and players can handle that. However, this undelying mechanic relies on the game sense and cooperative levels of each players, and more importantly, the desire to want to stick with others. This means, 8v8 is reliant on too many variables as well as individual playstyle, resulting in heavily fluctuating gameplay, usually ending in lopsided gameplay.

2 sided 4v4, is a better model imo. But in order for it to work, it needs a better MMR system. It will fix a lot of underlying problems and it will surely reduce a lot of player induced problems such as spawncamping, not leaving spawn areas, and creating lopsided gameplay due to uneven skill(ranking) level. 4v4 is only fun when everyone on the team and the opponents can, at the very least, hold onto their own weight.

I must emphasize, 2 sided is only going to be a better format compared to 3 sided, IF MMR is Clear and Distinct. Theres a reason why some would still consider 3 sided better, all of it stems from the worst MMR system ever.

Considering a holistic view however, BGs worked alright 3 sided, and I believe its because BGs WITHOUT a good MMR system works better with more players in a match, generally speaking.

The reason many of you like 3 sided more is because, the MMR system is trash, and therefore 3 sided is somewhat more "stable" in its inconsistency and randomness in team composition. And when all 3 teams are mixed up inconsistently and randomly, the chaos deducts/balances each other out, a lot better than 2 sided lopfests.

Thats a strong reason why 3 sided is still favored by some, because the current MMR system DOES NOT CREATE a balanced 2 sided match consistently. But keep in mind, the old 3 sided format ALSO DID NOT CREATE balanced matches consistently. Its just that with 3 sided, the difference wasn't as clear as it is now with 2 sided, making the inconsistent ranking system more forgiving.

Conclusion: The change to 2 sided is the right direction in terms of how the game mode should be. But as a result of the change, the underlying issue that a poor MMR system creates has been exacerbated. Making some players feel like 3 sided is a better option because the problem is not as obvious as 2 sided lopfests.

REAL Conclusion: WITHOUT a REAL MMR SYSTEM, the game mode will continue to be a dissatifying experience. The current dayview we see in BGs; the long queues, lopsided matches, all around complaints has resulted in an UNSUSTAINABLE ecosystem. Deterring more and more players to join because of a lack of CLEAR Ranking. No players = Dead game mode = long ahh queue times

Solution: A REAL MMR SYSTEM, just make a ladder/climb system....

TLDR; Doesnt matter how many how many sides there are, if MMR is not proper, games will not be competitive. The Competitiveness of a round of BGs is dictated by the skill levels(rankings) of all the players in lobby.

If the number of sides(2 or 3) DO matter; The results are split into two

First scenario: balanced player composition/balanced MMR/ competitive = 2 sided is superior, better format for short burst rounds of PvP like BGs.
Second scenario(reality): improper MMR/ mix basket of random assortments of players/ free for all = 3 sided is better because it favors inconsistency and randomness, chaos deducts each other out better than 2 sided lops.

THE UNDERLYING ISSUE IS MMR. (maybe just dont reset it zos. Id rather face the same player 20 times cuz we on the same rank, instead of getting matched with a noob that I have to club).

and a msg to ZOS - BGs Queue is NOT THE SAME as dungeons Queue. BGs is competitive, its the format, its the mode, its Team v. Team, one wins one lose.........PLEASE make a REAL MMR system. learn from ANY game that has a ranking system. Marvel Rivals, League of Legends, there are so many models to just COPY.

Until a reall MMR System is implemented, BGs will forever be an incomplete game mode. So ZOS, how much longer will you delay/hold up? The Game, not just the game mode, is already Dying.

- 6v6 would be a sweet balance, too bad it doesnt exist.

Moonspawn · May 14

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

It's easier for two main reasons:
No danger of being sandwiched.

PVPers aren't encouraged to stay with the team, so if you isolate a few newcomers from the enemy PVPers (spawncamping them, for example) they'll likely never meet up for the remainder of the match.

No danger of being sandwich immediately applies to both teams so I dont get how that would make it easier for either side specifically.
Also actually experienced PvPers would rather use the 3rd team to their advantage in 4v4v4 than get sandwiched by them, which would make 3 team BGs even easier.

In plenty of modes (Deathmatch especially, but also big parts of Chaosball, CtR and Crazy King) people are still encouraged to stick together. Its just not as big of a requirement as in 4v4v4 BGs.

Are you capable of accepting that 1vXing newcomers is easier if there are no PVPers among them?

Sure it is.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with 2-way or 3-way BGs.

Decimus already wrote several texts explaining why 3-sided BGs encouraged players not to stray from the team. Here:

Decimus wrote: »

Now, team mates do split in team vs team BGs as well and outnumbered fights happen... but the difference is that while you're being outnumbered in team vs team, your team is outnumbering the rest of the opponents. That is balance: you can buy your team kills and objectives by just being a good player and surviving outnumbered.
If you do this in 3-way BGs, not only are you outnumbered, but so is your team - splitting into two groups just turns your fight into two 2v4s instead of one 2v4 and team being able to 6v4 meanwhile for example. This forces a ball group style gameplay on people, which is the last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.

There's also my own interpretation of what Decimus was trying to say:

Instead of being punished, I want to be rewarded for ditching my team to go 1vX newcomers who don't even have the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the challenges of the 3-sided format. This is balance. People learning not to chase me, staying together and focusing me when I'm vulnerable? Ball group style gameplay, last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.

supabicboi · May 14

Moonspawn wrote: »

Instead of being punished, I want to be rewarded for ditching my team to go 1vX newcomers who don't even have the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the challenges of the 3-sided format. This is balance. People learning not to chase me, staying together and focusing me when I'm vulnerable? Ball group style gameplay, last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.

Although I agree with you, the real fundamental problem I see is 1vXers and newcomers being grouped up in the same lobby. These two kinds of players should not exist in the same lobby, I agree with you solely because 1vXers and newcomers ARE being grouped up together in the same lobby in game.

all of the problems that any of us face in a BGs is due to a turd tier MMR system. all of it, when u boil it down to the real fundamentals. The discussion on which is better, 2 sided or 3 sided, is meaningless cuz both can be dogwater when the player composition of the matches are not well balanced. And I've had way too many lopsided 2 sided matches that I understand where the inclination for 3 sided is coming from. Ive had to literally sit out of the match and let my team 3v4 because its so uneven.

Jierdanit · May 14

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus already wrote several texts explaining why 3-sided BGs encouraged players not to stray from the team. Here:

Decimus wrote: »

Now, team mates do split in team vs team BGs as well and outnumbered fights happen... but the difference is that while you're being outnumbered in team vs team, your team is outnumbering the rest of the opponents. That is balance: you can buy your team kills and objectives by just being a good player and surviving outnumbered.
If you do this in 3-way BGs, not only are you outnumbered, but so is your team - splitting into two groups just turns your fight into two 2v4s instead of one 2v4 and team being able to 6v4 meanwhile for example. This forces a ball group style gameplay on people, which is the last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.

There's also my own interpretation of what Decimus was trying to say:

Instead of being punished, I want to be rewarded for ditching my team to go 1vX newcomers who don't even have the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the challenges of the 3-sided format. This is balance. People learning not to chase me, staying together and focusing me when I'm vulnerable? Ball group style gameplay, last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.

Just because players are encouraged to split up as a team doesn't mean its less likely to fight other experienced PvPers.
Actually more experienced players are even more encouraged to split up from their team because they are more capable of fighting by themselves.
Nobody is ever encouraged to get into a position that they cant handle. So less experienced players will usually still want to stay with a few others while more experienced players can try to go solo.

Also you can keep twisting something someone else said to fit your narrative all you want. That doesnt mean that is what they meant or that theyre wrong.

cuddles_with_wroble · May 14

Glad most people here seem to agree the MMR and the game modes are the issue.

Just thought I’d add that 3v3 or 5v5 might honestly be more fun just based on how group comps normally play out in eso, but I agree that 8v8 is way to many people and even 6v6 might be to much

Moonspawn · May 14

ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

The biggest complaint most people had about 4v4v4 was that the objective game modes sucked and didn’t promote pvp and that the mmr system is awful and makes for super unbalanced matches.

Now we have 2 teams and neither of those things got addressed in any meaningful way, the only real difference in my exp is that there’s a lot less interesting builds and play styles that work in a 2 team environment for rat players but for brawler or team fight enjoyers 2 team feels a lot better

[snip]

1vX'ing newcomers is both easier and more useful in 2-sided BGs. The players that disliked the challenges of the 3-sided format think this is a good thing, whereas the PVPers who actually want to fight one another (instead of farming newcomers) know that it's not.

How many PvPers do you think want a real challenge every fight instead of a farm?

Like, percentagewise. Just wondering if this is such a small group it genuinely may not be worth catering to.

[edited to remove quote]

I assure you that most PVPers, at least on the NA server, do prefer to fight one another.

The players that think Battlegrounds should be the place PVPers avoid one another and 1vX newcomers are very satisfied with the update, though. Very satisfied indeed. Stay tuned to this thread so you can watch them cartoonishly fighting until their dying breath to deny people the freedom to choose between the formats.

Haki_7 · May 14

Three-teams BGs: Endless possibilities

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

Haki_7 · May 15

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 80: Waiting 22 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/8QM5XaLpJ-4

Xarc · May 15

I started playing BG after 11years of cyrodiil
Cyrodiil is not fun anymore with ballgroups, bombers, always the same things to do, no more fun for me.

BG are quite better now with 4vs4 & 8vs8

Here are some remarks:

a) maps are redundant (not enough maps) after a while
b) we should have jump damage immunity when jumping from the spawn base to go fight in the arena
c) I dont know how works MMR, would be interesting to know more about it, and know exactly what is our rank & maybe other players rank
d) sometimes it's very unbalanced, and the score is approximately X vs 0
And so sometimes players leave or AFK at the base
e) Some players dont care the flag system, and play any game as if it were a deathmatch.

Jierdanit · May 15

Haki_7 wrote: »

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 80: Waiting 22 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/8QM5XaLpJ-4

17 minutes*

cuddles_with_wroble · May 15

Xarc wrote: »

I started playing BG after 11years of cyrodiil
Cyrodiil is not fun anymore with ballgroups, bombers, always the same things to do, no more fun for me.

BG are quite better now with 4vs4 & 8vs8

Here are some remarks:
a) maps are redundant (not enough maps) after a while

b) we should have jump damage immunity when jumping from the spawn base to go fight in the arena

c) I dont know how works MMR, would be interesting to know more about it, and know exactly what is our rank & maybe other players rank

d) sometimes it's very unbalanced, and the score is approximately X vs 0
And so sometimes players leave or AFK at the base

e) Some players dont care the flag system, and play any game as if it were a deathmatch.

the mmr system is based off of your overall medal score in each match rather than your actual k/d or obj performance, the other important thing to know about mmr is that it never goes down so your always gaining mmr. this awful mmr system is the main reason so many matches are lopsided, the highest mmr players are split between obj players who just spam bgs and the sweaty deathmatchers so basically every match is guaranteed to be lopsided unless it pulls all the players from 1 group

Xarc · May 15

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Xarc wrote: »

I started playing BG after 11years of cyrodiil
Cyrodiil is not fun anymore with ballgroups, bombers, always the same things to do, no more fun for me.

BG are quite better now with 4vs4 & 8vs8

Here are some remarks:
a) maps are redundant (not enough maps) after a while

b) we should have jump damage immunity when jumping from the spawn base to go fight in the arena

c) I dont know how works MMR, would be interesting to know more about it, and know exactly what is our rank & maybe other players rank

d) sometimes it's very unbalanced, and the score is approximately X vs 0
And so sometimes players leave or AFK at the base

e) Some players dont care the flag system, and play any game as if it were a deathmatch.

Xarc wrote: »

I started playing BG after 11years of cyrodiil
Cyrodiil is not fun anymore with ballgroups, bombers, always the same things to do, no more fun for me.

BG are quite better now with 4vs4 & 8vs8

Here are some remarks:
a) maps are redundant (not enough maps) after a while

b) we should have jump damage immunity when jumping from the spawn base to go fight in the arena

c) I dont know how works MMR, would be interesting to know more about it, and know exactly what is our rank & maybe other players rank

d) sometimes it's very unbalanced, and the score is approximately X vs 0
And so sometimes players leave or AFK at the base

e) Some players dont care the flag system, and play any game as if it were a deathmatch.

the mmr system is based off of your overall medal score in each match rather than your actual k/d or obj performance, the other important thing to know about mmr is that it never goes down so your always gaining mmr. this awful mmr system is the main reason so many matches are lopsided, the highest mmr players are split between obj players who just spam bgs and the sweaty deathmatchers so basically every match is guaranteed to be lopsided unless it pulls all the players from 1 group

if mmr never goes down, then there's bound to be a time when everyone will be mixed up, the good and the bad? It has to reset at some point, right? And if so, when?

Moonspawn · May 15

Jierdanit wrote: »

Just because players are encouraged to split up as a team doesn't mean its less likely to fight other experienced PvPers.

Yes, it does. 2-sided encourages PVPers to isolate and 1vX newcomers. The PvPers on the other team are encouraged to do the exact same thing.

Jierdanit wrote: »

Actually more experienced players are even more encouraged to split up from their team because they are more capable of fighting by themselves.

Yes. Split up, isolate newcomers from the PVPers on the other team and 1vX them (spawncamp them).

Jierdanit wrote: »

Nobody is ever encouraged to get into a position that they cant handle. So less experienced players will usually still want to stay with a few others while more experienced players can try to go solo.

Isolating and 1vX'ing newcomers is easier in 2-sided BGs precisely because it is more useful. If the PVPers on both sides are doing it, as they are encouraged to do, they'll likely never fight one another. The players that disliked the challenges of the 3-sided format think this is a good thing, whereas the PVPers who actually want to fight one another (instead of farming newcomers) know that it's not.

xylena_lazarow · May 15

Moonspawn wrote: »

Yes, it does. 2-sided encourages PVPers to isolate and 1vX newcomers.

Which mode, and how exactly are you pulling this off mechanically? You can't stay hidden like in 3s and the arenas are much smaller. If there's a good player in the X you're cooked, and if you take too long you get zerged by the rest of their team. At least the noobs can come at me in a group instead of being picked off alone like in 3s.

Meanwhile, nothing ever stopped me from seal clubbing my way to wins in 3s. The good players were always too distracted, and the oversized arenas were perfect for playing like a rat (hiding, running, ganking, third partying, cheesing sets).

Moonspawn · May 15

Also actually experienced PvPers would rather use the 3rd team to their advantage in 4v4v4 than get sandwiched by them, which would make 3 team BGs even easier.

The fear of being sandwiched kept people from fully commiting to fights. It was one of the factors that prevented the ''going through the motions'' effect two-sided DM often devolves into.

xylena_lazarow · May 15

Moonspawn wrote: »

The fear of being sandwiched kept people from fully commiting to fights.

Okay now this is interesting, because this is one of the specific reasons why a lot of players disliked 3s. You must understand that you are in the minority of players to enjoy this style PvP, seeing as how ZOS removed it. Most players simply want to fight, not weigh the risks of whether rat players (like me) will suddenly pop out and steal all their kills.

Moonspawn · May 15

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

The fear of being sandwiched kept people from fully commiting to fights.

Okay now this is interesting, because this is one of the specific reasons why a lot of players disliked 3s. You must understand that you are in the minority of players to enjoy this style PvP, seeing as how ZOS removed it. Most players simply want to fight, not weigh the risks of whether rat players (like me) will suddenly pop out and steal all their kills.

Yes... only a small minority preferred Battlegrounds with the challenges of 3-sided. There's absolutely no need to fear its return.

Moonspawn · May 15

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Which mode, and how exactly are you pulling this off mechanically?

Every mode. Since straying from the team isn't discouraged anymore, what's to stop PVPers from ignoring one another and spawncamping newcomers?

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

At least the noobs can come at me in a group

In 3-sided they could do too, with PVPers to help them, since they were all encouraged to stay together.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

instead of being picked off alone like in 3s.

Which would have taught them to not stray from their team.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Meanwhile, nothing ever stopped me from seal clubbing my way to wins in 3s.

Not observing the challenges of 3s stopped you. PVPers stopped you too, since straying from the team was discouraged.

xylena_lazarow · May 15

Moonspawn wrote: »

PVPers stopped you too, since straying from the team was discouraged.

You must not have seen all the X-0 results I posted. No, they did not stop me. I'd kill those PvPers, usually with hit-and-run rat tactics, but I'll also force and win the 1v1 if I have the chance. I'll disengage to avoid being zerged or third partied, and I'll patiently hide or run around waiting to third party any ball groups to steal their kills.

Moonspawn · May 15

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

PVPers stopped you too, since straying from the team was discouraged.

You must not have seen all the X-0 results I posted. No, they did not stop me. I'd kill those PvPers, usually with hit-and-run rat tactics, but I'll also force and win the 1v1 if I have the chance. I'll disengage to avoid being zerged or third partied, and I'll patiently hide or run around waiting to third party any ball groups to steal their kills.

PvPers can't stop you, then. What about Super PvPers?

xylena_lazarow · May 15

Moonspawn wrote: »

PvPers can't stop you, then. What about Super PvPers?

If I really don't want to fight, nobody in 3s is gonna stop me from disengaging to go play like a rat somewhere else. Not very hard to turn around and press the Streak button twice. In 2s, the arenas are smaller and everyone is focused on you, there's no room to do that without losing the objective or falling behind on kills, so I'll work with my team to win. There are far fewer random variables in 2s that render your strat efforts a waste of time. It's playing probabilities like poker.