Please give us a viable large scale 1-Team vs 1-Team map

Keyword: Viable

Rival Wings exists, but it is not in the roulette, making it unviable compared to Frontlines for a pickup and go style of play (this could be fixed it was added to the roulette).

We could use a large scale 1-Team vs 1-Team map (16 vs 16) with a simple yet effective mode like Capture the flag (CTF) or something similar. Something that allows for strategy instead of dealing with scenarios outside your team's control, such as hoping certain nodes don't pop all at once in a corner of the map for one team while another team opts to focus yours down, thus allowing the unbothered team to just farm.

So why add a new mode or add Rival Wings to the roulette?

Strategic Competition: Large-scale 1 on 1 Team PvP modes allow for more strategy and as a result more feelings of control over a win or a loss.

Boosted Player Engagement: A fresh PvP mode would attract both new and veteran players. The new gameplay dynamics would provide a reason for players bored with Frontlines / CC to re-sub. New tournaments and events centered around the new PvP mode could promote the game. Outside the roulette system, entire FCs could participate in a tournament (especially if SE supported a monthly small tournament using an in-game sign up system).

Showcase of Skills: Players who enjoy leading can or forming smaller "strike teams" can utilize their skills in a way that isn't always possible in Frontlines.

Re-grouping & Morale: Re-grouping in Frontlines and making a comeback feels like luck less than strategy half the time because it depends on so many players behaving in a certain way, plus how the third team will behave while you're attempting a strategy on the second team. Those two combine, make it difficult to rally and get morale back up to continue the fight.

Too often do I see people just give up and start doing nothing when we're losing in Frontlines - Because they don't feel like they have any control over the situation. Control is important, if players feel like they can make a difference, then they're more likely to actively participate. If they feel like they cannot, then they're more likely to passively play and give up when things go wrong.

Increased Variety: Adding a new PvP mode diversifies the offerings within the game, giving players more options based on their preferred playstyle. This variety helps prevent burnout.

Even without a new mode, you could add a Rival Wings roulette, and that alone would freshen things up for a bit. Either way, Frontlines and CC by themselves are just not a diverse enough offering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morphiana

Too often do I see people just give up and start doing nothing when we're losing in Frontlines - Because they don't feel like they have any control over the situation. Control is important, if players feel like they can make a difference, then they're more likely to actively participate. If they feel like they cannot, then they're more likely to passively play and give up when things go wrong.

Increased Variety: Adding a new PvP mode diversifies the offerings within the game, giving players more options based on their preferred playstyle. This variety helps prevent burnout.

Even without a new mode, you could add a Rival Wings roulette, and that alone would freshen things up for a bit. Either way, Frontlines and CC by themselves are just not a diverse enough offering.

---

I'm in favor of anything that attracts more players to PvP. However:

Most players will feel they cannot make a difference in any large-scale format. I'd suggest the problem with FL is not that it's 3 teams, it's that the teams are large. 8v8v8 or 8v8 (probably on smaller/shrunk maps) would address the problem more effectively IMO. I understand some dislike the RNG, particularly on Seal Rock, but equally lucky spawns late are a reason to keep trying precisely because they can swing a match.

Increased variety sounds great in practice. The issue is diversifying options also means diluting each mode. SE bends over backwards to produce short queue times (too much IMO). From their perspective, I think they'd worry a new large-scale mode would have this impact. Of course, if it was good enough, that need not be an issue.

Wouldn't a RW roulette require more than one map? I don't like the idea of simply adding RW to the current FL roulette since I already have to skip one day in three due to Shatter, and given SEs refusal to provide PvP tutorials, many of us simply don't understand RW.

I can understand that some people would say that large scale 1 v1 ties itself to more "strategic competition", however I would say that it's true, some people don't like the affect of a third team, however you can still end up withe exact same issue in a 1v1 that you would in Frontlines - as soon as one team meets up wit a superior team, there are people who will give up, and in a 1v1, now I can make the argument that you have less factors/ possibilities to make a comeback. You may not even be able to have a close second place, but basically get beaten to a miserable second place.

I would also say that a RW roulette with a single map, and without a decent tutorial- maybe mandatory quests where players use mechs and learn about the map- would be less than enjoyable.

I would love like a large scale CTF mode -- especially if it's allowed to get goofy like old TF2 2Fort lobbies.

I often mentioned CTF mode in the past. It is one possible idea.

But the more I think about it with current skills and the lack of strategical play and different gapcloser/movespeeds limitations etc. - it would be difficult to balance without changing the whole PvP skill set.

If I would recommend one mode now, it would be a siege mode ala Strands of the Ancients in old WoW. One attacking alliance and one defending alliance 40 players each. They could go wild with map buffs, consumables, siege weapons similar to Rival Wings mechas vs. tower/core. But more like a European Medieval or Feudal Japan style theme. Castles and gates and an enemy powerful lord to kill while keeping other PvP players away etc.

I don't get why people want 1v1. In 1v1, if the other team is clearly stronger, the best you can do is feeding in hope it ends faster. The whole point of 1v1v1 is to be able to make a circumstancial alliance with third team if one is clearly better the others. But the way Frontlines maps and objective are done, it rarely become 2v1. No, the third team will go farm nodes while the 2 others fight, or even worst, hitting the team that fight the one they should fight, because of the how the map is layed and it takes too long to get a pincer on the team they should actually focus on, which end helping the already winning team.

As much as I can understand the wish to have pvp mode without pve element, where only pvp matters, it should be 1v1v1 and not 1v1.

Sieges are fun, and one benefit of sieges is that it can benefit from and attract both PvP and PvE players if done right, so that both can contribute, whether it's by destroying fortress gates (pvE), defending those that are destroying gates (PvP), scouting , etc.

CTF is also a mode that I would enjoy, I think it could be done with the current skill set, it's more the current player mindset with some players that would be the issue- you can't win without some coordination/support/effort in that mode. So you could in theory support whomever is best suited to get the flag due to movement skills/mitigation, it' still necessary to be able to switch at times to another player and then support them and that takes teamwork- or switch at the beginning of the match to a specific job, if needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDontPetLalas

CTF is also a mode that I would enjoy, I think it could be done with the current skill set, it's more the current player mindset with some players that would be the issue- you can't win without some coordination/support/effort in that mode. So you could in theory support whomever is best suited to get the flag due to movement skills/mitigation, it' still necessary to be able to switch at times to another player and then support them and that takes teamwork- or switch at the beginning of the match to a specific job, if needed.

---

They could lean into how stalematey CTF can be, and treat it like a PVP sandbox mode. Like treat is super casually going so far as to instantly reward players small amounts of series EXP, wolf marks, for kills, and just doing objectives on top of match outcomes.

Well that sounds good until you start thinking- well not every job has necessarily a good chance at getting kills. So then what happens- people end up picking just a couple of jobs to play?

Just wondering, I haven't ever seen that done in a mode where we had CTF, or I didn't realize it , since the points for capturing objectives (i.e. flag) so far outweighed the points for a kill, our attention was really on getting the flag in the most efficient way, and not running out of our way to get kills. We also typically had relatively short matches with a timer. Mind you - I always had this in games where PvP was a core component.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDontPetLalas

Sieges are fun, and one benefit of sieges is that it can benefit from and attract both PvP and PvE players if done right, so that both can contribute, whether it's by destroying fortress gates (pvE), defending those that are destroying gates (PvP), scouting , etc.

CTF is also a mode that I would enjoy, I think it could be done with the current skill set, it's more the current player mindset with some players that would be the issue- you can't win without some coordination/support/effort in that mode. So you could in theory support whomever is best suited to get the flag due to movement skills/mitigation, it' still necessary to be able to switch at times to another player and then support them and that takes teamwork- or switch at the beginning of the match to a specific job, if needed.

---

Once again we run into the question of "How will this work when a significant fraction of the team isn't trying/doesn't understand basic strategy?"

On Onsal yesterday we were 2nd and well across the map, having got the leading team into a perfect pinch. A node popped directly in front of our spawn point. Literally half the team scuttled back to it like moths to the wotsit and the leading team broke the pinch by the simple expedient of going through those of us who had remained. (As some of you may have noticed, I can get a bit mouthy, and started f-bombing my monitor in frustration. This had no impact on the battle.)

Many players don't understand the most basic elements of map control, and if they don't really want to be there anyway, they are never going to learn.

I think it likely that SE likes large-scale PvP because it's less intimidating for new players. You can just ride around getting the hang of it and few will notice. The issue is a significant subset of players never evolve beyond this stage.

At least if we went to 8v8v8, whether it be current maps, CTF, or other, it would be easier to vote kick and/or report non-combatants.

Oh and something something MMR obviously.