There should only be 2 teams in Frontline, not 3.
Having 3 on 3 isn't 3 on 3 anymore. It's 2 on 1. The most common things I've seen are the top 2 teams colluding with each other to stomp the last place team and not fight each other, the last place team end up giving up and feed the first place team to get it over with, and premade "field commanders" on different teams deliberately feeding their own team so their premade friends in the other teams can win.
This is just plain stupid.
We need 1 team vs 1 team. That way there is no collusion, or unfair treatment of the last place team.
Frontline Should Be 1v1 not 2v1
Printable View
-
11-17-2025, 07:14 AMGaiinahatFrontline Should Be 1v1 not 2v1
-
11-17-2025, 07:34 PMTofuLove
I love these.
When one team is weak they just get farmed for BH - it happens pretty naturally without any collusion. Think of it yourself - if you kill someone on enemy team and then can kill another player - why would you stop pushing them if they are just giving up points? It's difficult for new players to stop the greed and refocus. Mogtomes & season end are upon us yet again, so the game quality is dropping, and expect a lot more tunnel visioning in games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaiinahat
Just for the record I've not seen any conspiracy in frontline at any point - bad manners, spite pushing, stupidity - yes. But active collusion - nope. More often than not premades hate each other actually...
1v1v1 is fun to me -
11-17-2025, 08:48 PMValence
Hard disagree. 3 teams is the only guarantee that the winning team doesn't snowball to victory instantly as soon as they've won their first engagement.
If your teams are constantly piling on the 3rd one on NA, I don't know what to tell you, your players are doing it wrong probably. I'm not gonna pretend it never happens on EU - and most of the time it would probably be due to unfortunate node spawns - but in my experience in the vast majority of cases the winning team can expect a visit from both losing teams relatively soon if they're leading comfortably. -
11-17-2025, 11:06 PMEsmoire
People should stop trying to make the distinct PvP mode more like the other PvP modes. RW should be given better support by the developer if they want a 1v1 mode. I like FL as it is. I didn't play 3k matches of it just because it had a roulette. It's fun.
There are definitely games where teams misplay, but on the whole, second and third favour taking on first. It's a natural comeback mechanic system that mitigates against-- but doesn't completely negate-- being able to tell who is going to win at the start. I have definitely been on teams that stomp. A lot. Quitters or people who just tune out exist in all PvP modes in all games, but as a whole, people are more likely to fighter harder for longer in FL than 1v1 modes where, if it's obvious there is a huge skill disparity, people are more likely to give up sooner. -
11-18-2025, 12:00 AMNanne
What happens now in a 1v1 where other team is clearly stronger? You wait 10 mins for match to end on score cause the other team just AFK's in the base not even trying?
-
11-18-2025, 02:16 AMCNitsah
Nope. the whole 3way fight always has been a way to avoid one side being clearly stronger, leaving the possibility to for the 2 other to ally. It's been like this since the dawn of MMO until WoW.
But here in FFXIV, most player cannot read the situation depending of the current points and action. Some can, but most of the time, if you don't have someone that tries to direct the whole thing (and even then, it sometimes take too long for players to react to what's said), people just zerg rush the closest team.
The problem is not the mode, the problem is the players. -
11-18-2025, 11:57 AMMoonliteQuote:
Originally Posted by TofuLove
Way back in the day. When we knew premades were queing and they could get 8 to 24 all on the same team. We would actively target that team and ignore the other team. Was funny SE locked chats to prevent this back in the day. As if the few hundred pvpers at the time weren't in chat groups anyways. -
11-18-2025, 04:53 PMBurmeciaThats so true it stings...Quote:
Originally Posted by CNitsah
I talk smack about my NA dc days, but pvp is one thing I acyually miss (never did feast in na server, talking FL only). At least back then and there it was just natural that 2nd and 3rd place observed, without alliance caller having to scream it with smoke coming out their ears, who had the highest points.
Which lead the 2nd/3rd then usually arriving to the logical conclusion too that maybe we shouldnt fight each other, but go for the points winners points. -
11-19-2025, 08:28 PMKaurhz
I think 3 teams is OK, and it's one of the few things that actually stops 1 team from being rofl stomped for 10 minutes.
Also, there's no real active collusion, these things will just happen from time to time where two teams have the same thought process. They aren't really colluding and nor is there some grand conspiracy. Some teams will also have no real coordination nor self awareness into what's going on, which inadvertently leads to feeding a team or group of players.
What you're experiencing is simply a team that isn't coordinating. -
11-20-2025, 11:29 PMNightHour
Why not just make it so the losing team grants less battle high points when killed by a team ahead of them in points.
Will dis-incentivize "farming" the losing team for BH.Quote:
Battle high gains reduced by 80% for knockouts against the lowest points team in Frontline.
Assists on kills against members of the lowest points team no longer grant battle high progress
So a knockout against the losing team grants 2 points towards BH, instead of 10.
Assists will no longer grant battle high if against a member of the team with the lowest points.