Seal Rock (Seize) 24-Man Only Queue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormrider

I have heard some people abused the language settings to get 24 man instead of 72. But you need to have 3 teams one from each Grand Company doing it together sort of like what people do for wolves den challenge log xp. I personally prefer 72 over 24 because no matter how good a premade of 8 is they can't completely control a 72 man match. Also I feel the map is way to huge for small matches.

---

Part of the greatness of Secure in Carteneau Flats was the travel time though. To make plays, you had to pretty much commit to it. Small maps aren't always good.

I thoroughly enjoy the size of Seal Rock for 24-man games.

EDIT: The objectives of Seize draw in the players and combat. It's nice having the rest of the map to fade out to and disappear to launch another play. Catching people in transit is also fair game.

I've heard so many mixed opinions about 24 man Seize...

Some say it's too big of a map, and that it sucks. Some say it just changes the gameplay, and that it's fine. Some say random node spawns don't always encourage enough combat, so it sucks... back and forth back and forth. It's making me very curious about it, since I've never seen less than 72 people, even in the mornings.

On primal the 24 man's seem to start popping up at around 4 am eastern sometimes slightly earlier. I primarily queue between 8 pm and to 1 am (or later if weekends) and never see 24 man's during that time range which I am thankful for. The concept behind 24 man is nice in that your actions contribute more heavily to the outcome of a match but yes I feel the map is too big for a 24 man and leads to stagnant boring matches more often than in 72. I've only done 24 man like twice so correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed like only 3 nodes would activate during the first 10 minutes as opposed to the normal 4. That fourth node is important in that it provokes skirmishes as opposed to each GC relaxing at a node so why take it out?

I would love to have a 24-man only option. I really hate 72-mans as it's just a huge mess and it's really hit or miss. People just spread and feed. I feel like my contributions matter more in a 24-man match.

Plus I bet the queues would be faster.

In 24 your effort affect 1/8 but in 72 your effort is 1/24 so in 72 is more casual friendly because your team probably do not lose even if few player fail there. In 72 man you can not get blamed so easily than in 24man. In 24man some new players may can get bad exprience and never do pvp again. They rather focus large scale pvp because it is lower the threshold to start pvp for new players. If ppl would only start que for 24mans, it would probably kill 72 man ques and in that way kill new players pvp exprience. Sad but true. More often once somebody tried vote kick players it is happen in 24man than 72man.

But yeah, i would like to do 24man rather too but if they wanna increase in game pvp playerbase they have to do what they do.

24 man matches are fun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB7jPoXnYCw

Am I only one who prefeers 72 on top of 24? ( Must be my low confidence in the team overall. )

I finally played a 24 man Seize ... but only one. Still, it was great.

From what I can tell from the match I played, it is WAY easier to direct a small team over the 24 man cluster F***'s that happen in seize, and there was a stronger team dynamic. If 24-man groups are like herding sheep, 8-mans were more like having comrades. Everyone contributed. There was a consensus on team decisions instead of arguments. There was also a lot more tension in the smaller groups. You were unsure of when or where you'd get attacked (as the map is less revealing since there's less people fighting), so you were more psyched out during the match. It was a very good environment, especially if you like a highly competitive setting.

There were a few disadvantages, though. The maps size is a bit big. Thankfully, most of the node spawns (after first set) stayed more or less in the same areas of the map (mostly close to mid), which limited travel time between the three GC's, but the match still stagnated a little. There was less fighting overall. Also, I thought that the match was too short. We seemed to reach point cap fairly quickly, and I felt a little unsatisfied by the end of it. That could have been because my team dominated the match though. I was lucky to have a team that was strong. A weaker team of players that don't know their burst rotations, or are unaccustomed to PvP environments, would get steamrolled by more experienced groups. You don't have the army to hide behind, so I can picture some pretty unbalanced matches happening in 24-man ques. Which is good for "hardcore" pvp'ers, but not so good for the casual crowd.

In short, I'd love to play more 24 man matches, but I don't know how we could achieve it without splitting the player base and harming que times between casual players and hardcore players...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by l---------------l

Am I only one who prefeers 72 on top of 24? ( Must be my low confidence in the team overall. )

---

It's funny, but that's the same reason I don't like 72 man ques. I don't trust 24 people to work as a team as much as I trust 8 people. There's too much dissension in the ranks. Too many people fly off the handle and either don't listen to the people giving good directions, or just run off and do their own thing. Throw a pre-made into the group and get 8-man units that have their own agendas. Suddenly everyone's scattered all over the place...I've only done the 1 match of 8-man, but it seemed a lot more controlled and directed than the 24 man nightmares that can happen in Seize...

As a healer 24-man is a LOT easier, because everyone is in your group. I just isn't possible to keep group cohesion in 72-man.