How to Play: Frontlines PVP -- Important Breakdown of Mechanics

http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/q...psbffdb481.png

Disclaimer:

After 50+ Campaigns on the Frontlines, 25+ of which were 1st place victories, I saw several problems emerge from lack of proper information. Without good information your Grand Company will have a harder time making good choices.

Basic Game Mechanics can be found on GameEscape, follow this link to read their guide on the mechanics of Frontlines.

Beginner Tips can be found on my Blog.

How to Play: Frontlines PVP

Edits: Made some calculation Corrections. Points remain solid, just getting the math exact.

The Misconception of Middle

A very common misconception that I've run into is the importance of Middle. For those who haven't read the two links above, Middle is a PVE element which spawns creatures and a boss: killing them nets your teams points; however, how many points is often misunderstood.

I've seen people shouting on Frontlines stating that killing the boss will net you 500 points. I've also seen people say 400, 300, etc. Well actually the boss will only score your Grand Company 200 points -- which can be acquired in roughly 2.5 minutes of holding 3 objectives.

Note that waiting for and killing the boss normally take about 1+ minutes. Killing the small creatures will only net your team 20 points a head, which again isn't worth much at all to a victory score.

It's easy to assume that these bonuses feel like a lot, but actually you're netting 0.93333 points per second while in middle.

Doesn't seem all that much when you compare it to this:

Over a 10 minute duration...

Holding 1 Objective = 200p (0.33 PP/s)

Holding 2 Objectives = 400p (0.66 PP/s)

Holding Mid = 560p (0.93 PP/s) << Bonus Points! Worth +1 Objective

Holding 3 Objectives = 800p (1.33 PP/s) << Bonus Points! Worth +2 Objectives

Holding 4 Objectives = 1200p (2 PP/s) << Bonus Points! Worth +4 Objectives

When is Middle viable?

Middle, despite it's pitiful net worth in points, can still be very valuable toward victory but its value comes a lot later into the match than many people think. The purpose of middle was and always will be designed as a Tie-Breaking Mechanic.

This means that if your team is in 3rd place: killing the boss, maybe at best, inch your team into 2nd place. Never will it ever sling-shot your team from 3rd to 1st. Why? Well often a 1st place team understands the purpose of holding points.

A good Grand Company will keep their teams very strong in certain portions of the map throughout the game holding and defending objectives. If a Grand Company is better at holding & defending than the others, then they are the Grand Company that is winning the match.

Why is Defending Important?

More times than I'd like to count I've seen several players take a strong disinterest in the concept of Defending. Critical points are left abandoned because there is simply "no action" going on, and so they move on to find "action".

Winning Grand Companies understand this concept and know that a defending team will have action come to them -- all they have to do is wait for it. But what is the right way to defend?

Well that is difficult to nail down. The flow of battle changes very often and people need to shift depending on it. But one thing your Grand Company should always be mindful of is their Outpost. A secure Outpost means healthy battle lines. Teams who have to fall back to re-capture an outpost risk scattering troops, which may result in a loss.

Primary Outposts: Flame, Storm, and Serpent -- should always be under a garrison of at least 4 people. Within that group of 4 should be 1 Healer. When the Outpost comes under fire, that team needs to hold it. If things get too overwhelming, they need to call for help and hold it as long as possible until help arrives.

A common tactic is to send a large force toward the winning Grand Company's Outpost to nail it down and form a "barrier" locking the leading team in place by killing unorganized players as they trickle out from the spawn. Grand Companies need to be ready to react to this ASAP.

More on Defending

The point of the game is not to kill enemy players. That is what the Arena is for. Killing enemy players doesn't net your team any points (5 per kill). What net your team points is Hold Objectives. Absolutely nothing else in Frontlines will ever net you more points than holding objectives.

As proven numerous times, a team can quickly acquire hundreds of points in mere seconds; all they have to do is control their territory with numbers. In 180 seconds, a team holding 3 Objects nets 240 points. Every following 180 seconds is another 240, etc. In six minutes they can acquire 480 points.

A single team can spend the entire game in middle, which I've commonly seen, but despite all of their effort they may -- at best -- score no more than 560 points for their team after 10+ minutes of work.

Let me break this down more clearly: 6 Interceptor Drones spawn every 3 minutes. If a crack team kills all 6 that's 120 points. 3 minutes later another set will spawn, which is another 120 points. Finally another set will spawn -- again 120 points. Then the boss. If they kill the boss, that's 200 points + maybe a 1 minute to kill it.

Congrats, in 10 minutes you've earned no more than 560 points. Give your team a pat on the back for doing what could have been done in 7 minutes elsewhere.

But Videos and Reddit say....

If you watch this video, you may think they're doing a job well done. You may neglect to notice a few things. You can tell via the point income at the right side of the screen. From here on out I will break down the flow of the game for you so you know why Middle team got lucky and did little to help their Grand Company's victory.

People have argued that, citing this video, that you can hold 2 objectives while holding middle. Take notice that when this team claims middle they had a massive 40 point lead over the other two Grand Companies. Being in 1st place is crucial to such a tactic being successful in the first place.

Most players who cite this video misinform others. They demand their Grand Company go into middle when they do not hold 1st place, which is a huge misstep.

The players in the video take a huge risk camping middle so soon: at 1:30 mark their Grand Companies is about to lose their 1st place lead. At 2:40 this risk pays off as they managed to get get mid points without a challenge.

But also note in the video that they get several enemies moving in on them in middle. Their allies, though not shown fighting or on the map, have claimed objectives from those enemies who went middle.

Note: A lot of Grand Companies don't make this mistake anymore, they will secure their lines and use their forces to steal back objectives from a team controlling middle.

According to the income rate in the video, the other teams within the Flames Grand Company are firmly holding at 4 objectives.

The income rate generating the lead is no longer fueled by middle, but instead a steadfast and proactive alliance taking advantage of ignorant enemies not knowing where to go or what to do. This is rare.

According to the video, Flames Teams held 4 Objectives between: 2:08-2:12 -- netting them a whopping 6 points in 4.5 seconds. Furthermore, the enemy Grand Companies only held 1 objective between them for the mast majority of early game -- giving the illusion that the middle is actually helping, when in fact the other 2 Teams are doing he bulk of the work denying the enemy Grand Companies.

As time progresses Flames holds 3 Objectives for 95 seconds following that. Within that time, enemy Grand Companies only hold 1 Objective -- giving Flames a huge 127 point lead. This was not because of the efforts in middle as middle does not count as an obtainable objective.

At 4:07, when the map is shown for a second time in the video -- Flames had just been beaten back down to 1 Objective. Anyone in middle not paying attention to what happened in the previous 2 minutes may have come to the wrong conclusion. This is because they only saw 2 points capped before, but then only 1 later.

They missed the fact that 4 Objectives were under their Grand Company's control at one point. They may walk away thinking that they did all work, when in fact they did very little to help the overall score -- they were being carried by the other teams.

Post the 4 minute mark, Flames now has a huge lead to burn. The team in middle nets another 120 points to curve this downturn, but all it does it help to keep the lead stable.

Take notice that at 5:18 -- Order of the Adder nets 4 Objectives. Watch closely how quickly they narrow the game between 2nd and 1st place. But regardless of the effort, the enemy Grand Companies were too poor and unorganized. They neglected to hold points early game.

Now the boss has spawned in middle at roughly 5:40. With Flames holding a stupidly strong lead -- Middle team is largely an afterthought to victory. All they have to do is kill the boss to end the game sooner, which you think would be the case.

But income of points stalls entirely at 6:30. Middle team didn't help very much, once again they helped to ensure a lead that their allies already worked very to give them. Once more they may feel that they are doing all the work, but in reality they've only netted 560 points total.

With the score at 1399 at 6:31 -- the other two teams scored a huge 839 points doing an amazing job holding 3 objectives between them for as long as they did.

Post the death of the boss, the middle teams makes the huge mistake of remaining in middle. Taking advantage of the lack of defense Flame now has, Order of the Adder nets 4 Objectives and quickly catches up in an effort to steal the lead.

In a matter of mere seconds they skyrocket to 1150 points (difficult to tell because of the view of the video). The game could have been over sooner if the team in the middle took points away from Adder. Instead they remained in middle and made the end-game slog along very sluggishly.

Doing their best to win the game, the other two teams held 2 Objectives without the help of middle team. Making the team in the video very lucky that they got carried.

Please, treat this video as what NOT to do while in Frontlines. So many people cite this video, and those like it, as what teams should do in middle. This is only hurting players -- not helping.

Ambushing

Growing in popularity in Frontlines is the concept of Ambushing.

Strong defending teams now will use Ambush tactics to get the better of very aggressive kill-eager players. These tactics are used two promote two kinds of outcomes but will always be found in the same places again and again.

Ambushing is a DEFENSIVE tactic and a very effective one too. This is how an Ambush plays out:

1 full team defends a critical point.

Critical = Neighboring enemy territory or an over-extended objective.

Normally 2 or 3 DPS will remain on the flag. Bards, Dragoons, BLM -- generally "Squishy" targets.

Tanks and Healers will hide behind debris in the local area, out of range and sight.

Enemy players will see the 2 or 3 squishy targets and attack the point, often without support -- thinking they can claim it easily. Low and behold the moment they attack the tanks and healers pop out of the woodwork to reveal a FULL team of defenders. This is an ambush.

What are the benefits?

1. Kill off enemies easier and pick them off when they charge without support.

2. If more enemies attack than planned, the WHM and TANKs can retreat and fall back to a prior point to defend and wait for the DPS to respawn.

Be wary of ambushes and use them wisely, they are now ALL the rage on Frontlines.

Fantastic guide!

SE should make everyone who intends to play Frontlines study this and write an exam before letting them play because I am so fed up with derps coming in and telling everyone "to stay as one group and move around to kill everyone!" while losing every single objective.

Finished up some minor edits on my previous math. My points remain the same, but you need to read carefully to see why seconds/captures matter. I try very hard to illustration why 0.933 points per minute is not good for middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mecan

Finished up some minor edits on my previous math. My points remain the same, but you need to read carefully to see why seconds/captures matter. I try very hard to illustration why 0.933 points per minute is not good for middle.

---

Well, you did a good job, because you convinced me. I was a strong proponent for middle-focus strategies until just today, after having actually taken a look at the point gains per base - I didn't know that each consecutive base literally multiplied current point gains from bases by 2, I thought it was a much smoother climb in point gain. I began to question if mid was the right way to go once I realized this. I was going to do my own math on the matter sometime soon, so it's ironic that you posted this guide, which has the math all spelled out for everyone, when you did.

I do find it odd, though, that every single victory I've experienced so far involved heavy focus on middle by my GC. I mean, I'm not at all doubting your results, but I have trouble fully convincing myself that each and every time was mere coincidence. I almost wonder if there's a less obvious effect that going middle had, such as forcing the enemy teams to put more toward middle or lose it. Not that that would be a very consistent strategy, given that it relies on how unorganized the enemies might be. Anyway, now I'm just ranting.

In short: Good Job. Nice guide!

Oh. And how do you feel about the "Middle and OPs" strategies? I've been in some groups where A and C will take and hold their respective bases, while B will take outposts until it is time for a middle spawn, which they then head to middle to handle, then immediately go back to zerging outposts in order. The trick is that we not only got middle most of the time, but we also had an average of 3-4 nodes (2-3 when we're in middle and the outposts are taken back, 4-5 when we're zerging outposts). Since OP defense teams are also generally fairly small, B also gets an average of 4 kills per OP rush between mid spawns, all the while rarely losing one of out own, giving us a net gain in points of about 15 from kills (if we assume one person on B dies every OP zerg attempt). In addition to all of that, the 20-30 we get per between-spawn OP zergs from capturing said OPs is a gain as well, because while those bases are soon taken back by their respective GCs, the points from recapture are split between our two enemies, while the points for the initial capture all go to us.

What are your thoughts on that? Viable, if not a little risky?

Hmmm only played twice on frontlines but both times it was a mass confusion. Do like this as a general guide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vandril

I do find it odd, though, that every single victory I've experienced so far involved heavy focus on middle by my GC.

---

I find that this is true in my own case, but I mostly chalk it up to the fact that once an established strategy comes out too many people are unwilling to abandon it. Mid-focused games are easier to organize in pugs because every Alliance has a single set goal that doesn't require inter-Alliance teamwork: lock down your post (or lock down OP and mid if you're B). In order to make a strategy like Mecan's work, it would require a lot of communication, adaptability, coordination and commitment to the plan that frankly doesn't exist in your average Frontline. Until Alliances are allowed to queue together I see don't abandoning mid to be a feasible alternative to the current strategy. Mecan proved that the math works in his/her favor, but that pesky human element is what always foils even the best mathematical models! :P

Awesome guide, thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vandril

I do find it odd, though, that every single victory I've experienced so far involved heavy focus on middle by my GC. I mean, I'm not at all doubting your results, but I have trouble fully convincing myself that each and every time was mere coincidence.

---

That's because you never leave out PvE, the guide is horribly wrong and extremely misleading. Making numbers work to prove false points. The biggest mistake losing teams make is to try and win/hold 3 locations instead of 2 with PvE. the 3OP strat worked the first few days but is easily destroyed now with much better strats. The only strat that is full proof is reacting to the other teams. If you find ones like the OP then hit the weak points right before pve and rake in the win, while the OP is scrambling to win back precious OPs that do nothing when you keep losing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zagam

That's because you never leave out PvE, the guide is horribly wrong and extremely misleading.

---

I never said to leave out the PVE. I even stated that: "Middle, despite it's pitiful net worth in points, can still be very valuable toward victory but its value comes a lot later into the match than many people think." I said that right at the beginning of the guide. Did you just read the first section and throw up your hands and say "Misleading!". If you read the Beginners Tips section too on my blog, you'll clearly read that I insist people rush in at one point an kill the boss -- that will always help assure victory! All this guide is trying to suggesting is that it's a bad idea to keep a team in middle for the entire game. Camping middle doesn't benefit anyone. Please try and read. I know I have a lot to say, but I am really trying to cover basics and not give exact battle plans. I don't list any strategies at all, just facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shake0615

Mecan proved that the math works in his/her favor, but that pesky human element is what always foils even the best mathematical models! :P

---

Yeah the human element is far worse than you may think. It's not that the people are just unwilling, is that they are aggressively unwilling. They will fight tooth and nail, whine, moan, and call you a balled-faced liar just by even remotely suggesting other ways to approach a match. Even the mere mention of trying something new will often get bad reactions. But here is the catch --- I know it's possible. I've seen many Grand Companies on the opposing sides do some nifty and very effective defensive tactics. So I know it's possible to achieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mecan

I never said to leave out the PVE. I even stated that: [I]"Middle, despite it's pitiful net worth in points, can still be very valuable toward victory but its value comes a lot later into the match than many people think.

---

Lets just stop there because its clear you cant handle any negative feedback and are trying way to hard to force your ideals on everyone.
If you really think the pve at the start is pitiful then I don't know what else to say.

The guy in the other thread hit the nail on the head,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atreus

Actually, you spam the chat nonstop with "order macros" that are obnoxious and foolish. You cause an annoyance to veteran players and confusion to newer players. You should spend less time talking and spamming these macros and more time not being outdamaged by tanks.

THAT'S why you get hated on.

---

Your idea of a perfect match is far from the best, every group there's always someone thinking they are the boss saying the same thing, whenever its followed is not only a loss, but a loss by a massive amount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zagam

Your idea of a perfect match is far from the best, every group there's always someone thinking they are the boss saying the same thing, whenever its followed is not only a loss, but a loss but massive amount.

---

That's not my experience. Generally when people actually pay attention to the macros, macros which I spent several hours planning and creating, the team wins in a huge, massive landslide victory -- and I don't mean the type that's are cake walks. When people move where I tell them to and do what I tell them to do, we win -- easily. The problem is that there are players who back-talk, which confuses players. Unproductive people shout back "Don't listen!" -- they confuse new players. Every time I play a game with absolutely no back talk it's a beautiful game with no problem. The people who get angry at macros are very unprofessional and get offended by someone trying to organize. They take it the wrong way.

I spend most of my time observing and watching the flow of battle, everyone's HP bars, marking locations, and defending points. My team hates to defend points. I get out DPSed often when I have to be the solo-guy holding a point, fighting off 2+ people while trying to organize an effort. Each time I ask for support to defend something as simple as the main OP -- I get people lashing back saying "Don't Listen!".

People like me who put effort into PVP, have lots of experience leading and doing mass-PVP --- just came back into this game to enjoy the mass-PVP. Yes, I'm going to keep trying to command via macros. This is what I've done for years and years and years in many mass-PVP games and enjoyed wonderful victories. The people who say "Don't listen!" are the true problem.

PS:

I've seen people just SIT at spawn and never play just to spite me. Just to try and make me look like some ass because we lose. They throw the match on purpose to give me a bad name. That is toxic, cruel behavior my friend.

You need to lose the god complex and start nuking something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zagam

The guy in the other thread hit the nail on the head

---

<3

The team that wins is the team that has superior players. It's as simple as that. And usually, the more organized premades the better. Furthermore, strong "B" teams usually bring pretty substantial victories, and they never neglect the middle. This thread could (and should) have been shortened to just the point values for everything (which have been posted before http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...g-of-Frontline) and/or that GamerEscape link. Everything else is opinion. "A" for effort though.

While you're "watching everything" and spamming those macros, your team is carrying you. You enjoy that. Also, I've seen you standing around in the middle of an attack chatting. As the good man stated:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zagam

You need to lose the god complex and start nuking something.

---

Nice guide on the importance of the middle area, but you left out one important detail.

Frontlines is a 3-way fight. Completely ignoring middle is setting yourselves up for 2nd place, here's why:

Over a 10-minute duration, you get 800 points for taking 3 posts.

The stronger among the two other GCs will take 2 posts and the middle, giving them 960 points. While the weaker one will eat dirt and take 3rd place.

In every definitive/ landslide victory I was in, the whole alliance had a set schedule:
30:00-28:00 Attempt to secure 3 bases
28:00-26:00 One team moves to middle (usually team B) and (also usually) takes out 2/6 drones
26:00-25:00 Attempt to secure 3 bases
25:00-23:00 One team moves to middle (usually team B) and (also usually) takes out 2/6 drones
23:00-21:00 2+ teams (usually B + half of the others or more) goes to the center to wrestle the tower +/- drones
21:00-19:00 Attempt to secure 3 bases
19:00-17:00 One team moves to middle (usually team B) and (also usually) takes out 2/6 drones
17:00-15:00 Attempt to secure 3 bases
15:00-? Secure the middle with 2+ teams (usually B + half of the others or more), unless other plans are made
...
Usually A and C will creep into another region's main camp, if situations permit.

You don't need one team camped at the center to take that 560 points (with other teams involved, this usually becomes 320 points). Your faction may lose bases for a while but who cares, you're only gone for a minute or two and netted 200+ points. You can spend the rest of the time securing your 3 bases. Considering team B will periodically double the number of people of an area, this will effectively put a stop to alliances trying to consistently hold 3 bases (OP's strategy).

Lastly, the center is usually a hotbed to score points from kills. Not an easy place to successfully retreat.

Additional strategy: Focusing against one faction

More often than not, alliances are dead set on 1st place, even though we're already in for 10 minutes and behind by 500 odd points. Some calls should be made to completely ignore the 1st place faction and attempt to shut down and overtake current 2nd place to end not last. The same can be said for 1st place vs 2nd place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atreus

<3

The team that wins is the team that has superior players. It's as simple as that. And usually, the more organized premades the better. Furthermore, strong "B" teams usually bring pretty substantial victories, and they never neglect the middle.

---

TBH I've had a couple of B teams that neglect middle but held other GC's OP's that tend to be unguarded ("middle is your god" mentality probably). Lost the boss add to them, but the accumulation of points from having 4 flags the whole match far outweighed handing the middle to them.

So from an unbiased viewpoint (I don't know this Mecan fellow, so I'm assuming it's biased opinion due to his actions in-game), his point has some merit to it. And like he stated, the middle is designed as a tie breaker. Meaning if no GC has had overwhelming captures, it's probably a good idea to abandon all you have near the end to control the middle for a 'burst' later in the game (preferably on boss, then add spawn).

Mmm no, not biased at all. Speaking from experience. I don't necessarily disagree with you either. Holding four flags is wonderful and assumes that all three groups are vastly superior to the opposition, as I said, which is ideal. I've also seen victories from having just these flag captures but there comes a point that A and C are doing so well pushing back opposition that they have plenty of time to guerrilla their nearby outposts. This leaves B to (again, not suggesting remaining at the top 24/7) be free to secure a blowout victory when the times are appropriate. Maybe I should rephrase: when there's a party in the alliance that isn't pulling its weight, a strong B group has the best influence in bringing a victory. And the overwhelming majority of the time, it does not involve neglecting middle.

The first sentence you quoted from me still applies. The team that wins has the superior players. You kind of supported that in your example of holding four flags. That's only possible if your GC at a given time has the players to do it. No amount of shouting, barking orders, complaining, or even strategy etc. is going to change the skill of your players. Winning encounters is everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poringing

Lastly, the center is usually a hotbed to score points from kills. Not an easy place to successfully retreat.

---

Thaaaank yooouuuu. Those killssss. None of the lovely math here accounts for decimating your opponents. I mean... not like it's... Player vs. Player or anything...

Forgive me as I gave way too much credit to my fellow PVPers. For a moment I thought they may see what I’ve put together and come to the same conclusions. But as it would seem I was wrong. What makes me say that? Well these golden little post say it all:

Quote:

---

“There are some people saying in Vanadrom's Thread that over 10 minutes a GC with 2 flags+Nodes will overcome a GC with 3 Flags. Well the guy who posted that made a huge Math mistake there, he said it is 800 points ( 3 flags ) against 960 ( 2 flags+nodes ).”

---

And

Quote:

---

“The thing is, you need 1500 points, neither 800 or 960. 18.25 Minutes is what you need with 3 flags. Same amount of time 2 flags+all possible nodes until then, will yield you 1450. So he is kind of wrong, which i cant post there.. perma ban. Anyways, 3 flags > 2 flags + Nodes, since you will hit 1500 earlier than you can with 2 flags+nodes. xD”

---

This sums up the mindset of what I’m dealing with here. Perhaps I’m at fault for not being clear enough, so let me now introduce something I know you all just love: more math.

Breaking it Down

Can anyone point out the fault in these players logistics? Well I can and I’ll do my best to illustrate just was that is: The Human Element.

Yes that is an enigmatic thing, but actually it’s very predictable in certain circumstances. I was under the impression that those who may read my threads would be intelligent and recall that only six objectives that can be captured and held. Now with this in mind we will also state that many Grand Companies have evolved their tactics. The game changes every day and so our conclusions on what wins must change with them. That’s said, now let’s begin.

800 vs 960 – “Simple right? Numbers are right there. He said it himself, middle and two points nets you more points!”

The secret resides in the PP/s, Points Per Second. Also to correct the post above, a team actually needs 1600 points to obtain victory.

If you say, add 2 objectives – which is 400 + the 560 you net from remaining in middle you get 960 points. Which is a generous 1.6 PP/s — correct? Perhaps, but – and here’s the huge but of this equation.

What does it matter if you have 960 points if the enemy Grand Company has 1600 within that same 15 minute range — because that’s exactly what will happen if you hold just 2 objectives and hold middle. I was under the assumption that my readers would be keenly aware of this, but I was clearly very wrong.
So why does the enemy team have 1600 points? Well as I’ve so clearly proven in-game before by timing the income flow of the enemy: 100 points are generated by an enemy Grand Company holding 3 Objectives (on average) on a minute by minute basis.

But wait, didn’t you say before that only 79.8 points are generated per minute by holding 3 points? Yes, but that’s just the points you see. There is so much more going on beyond that.

By holding middle and 2 points there is a certain element of potential Point Stagnation; a period of time where the income your Grand Company is generating in far lower than that of rival Grand Companies.

Important:

A team which purely remains in middle and doesn’t move from it once the entire game is only what we’re questioning here; I’m all for the fluid movements of a team moving in and out of middle quickly throughout the flow of the game to capitalize on capturing points, killing nodes, and killing the boss — especially killing the boss. What I do not condone is a team that refuses to do anything but camp one spot the whole match and never budge from it — this is what we’re discussing and nothing else.

Point Stagnation emerges from a team who does not openly support their allies. A team which camps middle remains in middle — they aren’t generating large amounts of Kill Income; however, many Grand Companies now choose to openly avoid middle for most of the match. They capitalize on greater numbers to score more kills and push the tug of war between 3 and 4 points.

More often than I can count, I’ve experienced games where enemies Grand Companies will identify which teams has a large sum of people in middle — then push hard on that Grand Company. This is because they recognize the lack of man power and react to it quickly.

A team in middle is a team down, meaning that you’ll get alliances pushed off points by double-alliance pushes. I’ve taken note these pushes tend to come shortly after the 27 minute mark. Said pushes also strike hard at the heart of Grand Company — their OP, which is seldom well guarded at this point in the game. When the OP is lost, no one from middle spares time to help out.

Then the team in middle often turns around and claims their Grand Company isn’t doing hard enough to defend — but let’s be realistic here, no one team can fight against two.

Let’s look at it this way: 1 team in middle means that the 2 remaining teams of a Grand Company must fight back against 4 enemy teams.

What I’ve seen lately is a popular trend that appears to be growing. Two Grand Companies ignore middle but check out which GC is holding it — then they purposely pick on that GC with two teams while splitting the 3rd team into two squads of 4. Those two squads of 4 will defend their backline and their OP, leaving the bulk to apply force on the weaker Grand Company in an effort to Spawn Camp them.

Yes Spawn Camp, a tactic I’ve seen growing and growing since last week. I’ve seen this tactic a lot as of late. I announce it on chat but the team in middle remains in middle and sacrifices the rest of their Grand Company to the god of middle.

So this popular scenario plays out, what’s happened math wise?

Well on average one enemy Grand Company is now claiming 3 to 4 objectives while the other is claiming 1 to 3. The Grand Company getting picked on is barely managing to hold 1 because they are getting swarmed by double alliances on all sides and enemy groups constantly crisscrossing their territory trying to pick up on those trickling out from the spawn point.

(Note: I'm using the results of a real game as base for this example.)

Grand Company Flames: Sends 2 Teams to Temple and 1 to Market with a fallback plan of defending Outpost if one assault fails.

Grand Company Twin Adder: Breaks up a team to check mid and respectively try to capture both enemy outposts as 1 Team goes to Manor and another Team goes to Market.

Grand Company Storm: Sends 2 teams to Manor and sends 1 team to Temple, grabbing their OP along the way.

Let’s say all goes well and Flames has 3 points, Adder has 1, and Storm has 2. For 2 minutes, then Adders picks up 2 Ops for the final minute.

Score by minute 3:

Flames: 1 Obj for 1 min + 9 Kills + 2 Obj for 2 Min = 145p
Adder: 1 Obj for 1 minute + 2 Kills + 1 Obj for 1 min + 3 Obj for 1 Min = 130p
Storm: 1 Obj for 1 min + 10 Kills + 2 Obj for 1 min + 1 Obj for 1 Min = 130p

The Flames team goes middle and clears out all the Nodes but gets little resistance, Meanwhile, their two other teams are now dealing four enemies teams overwhelming them. They only manage to hold 1 objective.

Score by minute 5:

Flames: 1 Obj for 2 min + 6 Nodes + 3 Kills =155 + 145p = 300p
Adders: 3 Obj for 2 min + 10 Kills = 130 + 130 = 260p
Storm: 2 Obj for 2 min + 7 Kills = 75 + 130 = 205p

While Flames may hold a lead, the two enemies Grand Companies are not showing any mercy. Manor sees a lot of activity between Storm & Adder – the point where Adder now sends extra support now 8 Players at Manor w/ 4 at Serpent Outpost w/ 12 Pushing Market.

Storm, desperate for some points – ignores Manor and thrusts a large force entirely at Flames seeing them as they have a team in middle and Markets keeps changing hands. With this in mind they send a light squad of 6 players to keep Manor busy and keep Storm Outpost under a light garrison of 2 players. They now push with 16 players against Flames and ignore middle entirely.

Storm quickly gathers up Temple and Flame OP respectively.

Meanwhile, more nodes spawn in middle.

By minute 8.

Flames: 1 Obj for 1 Min, 0 Obj for 2 min, 6 Nodes, 5 Kills, = 165p + 300 = 465p
Adder: 2 Obj for 1 Min, 3 Obj for 2 Min, 9 Kills = 245p + 260 = 505p
Storm: 3 Obj for 3 min, 6 Kills = 270p + 205 = 475p

In the past 3 minutes, Flames quickly dropped into 3rd place because both teams focused on them to take down their 1st place lead and exploit their lack of defensive strength.

Adder now becomes much more aggressive. They overwhelm Flame Outpost and break up a skirmish between Storm and Flame. They secure the point and push Storm back to Temple. Meanwhile they turn their focus at Flame’s spawn and begin picking up stragglers. Temple also picks off Flame stragglers. During this period Flame is absolutely devastated and are unable to regroup anywhere.

Meanwhile, Flame’s middle team kills the boss without any resistance at all and stay in middle to clean up remaining nodes. Adders, for a while, holds 4 points until Storm re-directs and takes Serpent OP instead of hitting Adders’ superior defense at Manor.

By minute 10:

Flames: 0 Obj for 2 Min, 3 Kills, 1 Boss = 215p + 465p = 680p
Adder: 4 Obj for 1 Min, 3 Obj for 1 min, 10 Kills = 250p + 505 = 755p
Storm: 2 Obj for 1 min, 3 Obj for 1 min, 8 Kills = 160p + 475 = 635p

Despite the boss being destroyed, the team in middle remains in middle and prepares for the nodes coming in the next minute. Meanwhile, the enemy teams start dying and also begin falling back to defend their own territory from crisscrossing pushes. Flames now is capable of holding 2 points of their own, but only just.

By minutes 13:

Flames: 0 Obj for 1min, 1 Obj for 1min, 2 Obj for 1min, 6 Nodes, 6 Kills = 210 + 680 = 890p
Adder: 3 Obj for 3min, 7 Kills = 275 + 755 = 1030p
Storm: 3 Obj for 1min, 2 Obj for 1 min, 1 Obj fr 1min, 3 Kills = 155 + 635 = 790p

In this scenario all middle accomplished was just barely keeping their team in a stable lead. I simplified a lot of the math by sticking to wholes (no fractions) — so this was an over-idealized situation. No points are held for exactly 60 seconds either way, it’s a constant, flexing tug of war. But in all outcomes Flames doesn’t have the significant lead. No matter how many fractions and decimal points you throw at it!

The current mind-set of many people is that they assume their team can actually hold 2 points & middle for the duration of the match. In theory it can work and likely has in some occasions depending on the skill or the tactics of enemy Grand Companies. But the Grand Companies I face tend to be very abusive against Grand Companies who send people middle. They turn the tide of war against them in an effort to counter any bonus points they may earn in middle.

This can be easily countered of course if the team in middle actually falls back to help defend the two points. If the team in middle actively moves between defense and middle, then the plan can and has indeed worked! But like I said, not every game is the same! Playing the same battle strategy over and over again doesn’t always win the game.

In Mana data center, the only strategy people use is the one I listed a couple posts back (It is superior? I guess); literally 0 variation, just raw power will determine 90% of the fight, the only variable is at the 15:00 mark which the OP has stressed on. It is indeed interesting to know that other data centers still have variable/ developing strategies. Every single frontline I'm in has 3 all factions using it as a template, adjusting minor stuff as things goes like how many people here and there, giving up certain objectives, etc.

The data center actually had a phase where people decided the center was not important and everybody stayed at the bottom taking bases. Eventually, we found out that that was a shitty strategy since if 2 GCs with all 3 alliances are at the bottom, a GCs had 2 guys on top while the rest at the bottom; you probably can guess who is going to win.

Also, spawn camping definitely guarantees you 2nd place. Up to you whether you want to do it. Ignoring the top almost guarantees you 2nd place (the only time you get first is that they forgot you exist; not happening in my data center, they attempt to slam GCs with 4 captured points). Camping the top is only viable if your alliance's other groups and win 2v3 consistently (right...).

Finally:
(As OP stated) Bases are more important. But! You need to keep the top in check, not camp it.

Nothing in life is ever perfect. Throwing 24 random people into a room and demanding perfect cooperation in the next 2 minutes is absurd. Assuming you did have 23 people on the same page as you that agreed with you, nothing ever goes according to plan. God help you when an 8 WHM party strolls up to you and slaps your flag out of your hands.

My advice, to anyone who's in this thread? Take the lead, and I don't mean take the 'bosses britches' and play armchair commander.

No. I'm talking about initiative.

Remind players about whats going on with the alliance, the party, and the duties that group is generally agreed to be responsible for. Do so POLITELY and PATIENTLY. Do not SPAM. Do NOT argue or accuse people of being incompetent or ignorant. If people start to get annoyed drop it and enjoy the round as best you can.

I've done everything wrong, and then I started to do some things right. Heck, I still do plenty wrong and I'll admit it and get back to it. Once you act like a polite human being, a pleasant stranger - people may start to listen to you.

Ask for help with an objective. Remind people when mid is going to spawn if they aren't close by. Not on B? So what, call it anyways. Thank B for stopping by to help yours out.

You're likely to run into these people again in the next few hours of PVP. If they remember you as the nice guy who was pleasant in chat, they're more willing to listen to you when you drop that critical bit of tactical info like 'We have a big enough lead to ignore mid, let's get another flag guys!' or whatever.

So that's how you can contribute to your team winning over another else playing the same job as you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poringing

Bases are more important. But! You need to keep the top in check, not camp it.

---

Pretty much accurate. The schedule's pretty spot-on too. You really had me when you said 2/6 drones. Sometimes all you need is to deprive other teams of all of the drones. People just get greedy.

I'm very happy to see that this thread remains a very healthy discussion! I appreciate everyone for providing their view points and advice because so far I've seen a tremendous amount of valid points to join my own.

Also I apologize if anyone found my previous approach a little heavy handed. I've been experimenting with a number of different macro setups to try and see what helps the most in these kind of games.

From here on out I'm going to do my best to make the macros far less order-like and more reminder-like. Such as: Informing people that Nodes are spawning, which team owns what -- etc. I won't slip in orders or requests, just make a string of "Updates" for those too busy fighting to check the maps.

If anyone have any requests on what sort of updates/reminders they'd truly like to see pinged during a battle, please let me know and I'll add it to the interface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mecan

Generally when people actually pay attention to the macros, macros which I spent several hours planning and creating,

---

LOLing so hard, again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mecan

macros which I spent several hours planning and creating,

---

dyin.

I welcome more people to provide advice for beginning players. I certainly want to see Mass-PVP thrive with healthy team work and cooperative gameplay.

This is perhaps the most misleading guide there is. Your team will still lose if you have 2 flags held entire game w/ no adds killed. Your team will still lose if you hold 3 flags entire game with no adds killed in center if the leading team holds 2 flags and kills all adds spawns/boss. I've had games where our team held 3-5 flags and lost by 10 points at the end. This guide does not explain the fact that there are 2 other nations you are competing with. Regardless if you are holding your 2 flags and or even 3/4 flags, strategies will change completely depending on what the other nations are doing if you are actually trying to win 1st place.

Also 5 points per kill, IS A LOT and adds up. Do not ignore kills per games like they give no benefit. Killing other teams makes it so they have a wait timer for re spawning and lose allied forces and lose flags, while giving you points every time you kill them. Holding enemy outposts is one of the best strategies for stomping out a nation and making them fall behind in points. It will also help the Center team claim all adds since they have to go through an outpost to get to the center.

The point of going center is not to kill 1-2adds. It's to claim all Adds. Good teams hold down the center before the adds are spawned so there is no chance for any other nation to claim any adds. Adds die within 5-10seconds. Quick easy way for points, then run back out to claim flags.

Go by experience.... not a spreadsheet. Guides like these are the reason why people will lose games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolRising

Go by experience.... not a spreadsheet. Guides like these are the reason why people will lose games.

---

Well said.

Preeetty much. Want to win Frontlines? Learn your class/job, maximize your damage/healing/survival, and crush.

1. You need mid...but not any more or less than you need to hold your bases. Holding bases is the cornerstone of victory yes, but it is a very, very rare thing to be able to simply hold 3 of your bases the entire time, and still win w/o any involvement in the middle (basically for this to happen, the other 2 teams would need to duke it out enough to spread the points from mid evenly among them...and typically, one team dominates the middle each match so again, this is unlikely).

The problem with Mid, is it's become an obsession for some. They stay up there too long, teams send too many up and lack defense below, people go up at the wrong times, people take it upon themselves to leave their team and post to go mid because 'no one is mid!, potentially losing their post. All of this adds up to many times, Mid actually caused your loss. But not because of math, because your team used it wrong. People need to treat mid as the 'risk/reward' zone. For every person your teams sends to mid, yes, your chances to get and claim the nodes increases, but your ability to hold and defend your bases, decreases. So unless you have really lame opposition, or really awesome support teams, over-committing to mid almost always =2nd/3rd place. That said, sending the right amount of people mid, at the correct times, while holding consistantly at least 2 bases, almost always =WIN.

However, where the OP is correct, is there are SOME teams that don't have any bases/desperately clinging onto 1 base, and their entire alliance goes up top. THIS ALSO will not help you win. If you're behind, I mean, like really behind, (esp if it's not 'big node time). Then this is sometimes a good time to regroup, let the other teams fight over the nodes, and take advantage of the smaller enemy forces and get your Flags back/maybe even ninja some of theirs. The TOP is really only helpful for the 'healthy', it's not going to pull you from last to first magically. In this he was correct. So there are times when sending ppl (esp. too many ppl) Mid is a bad choice. Of course, once you have a healthy hold on your OP and FLAGS, you should consider sending a team up for the next round mid.

2. The bigger problems (and why ppl lose/win) have nothing to do with this Mid vs. Hold the bases problem. But rather, the populations lack of wanting to 'stand and do nothing'.

Once you have a FLAG, YOU HAVE WHAT THE ENEMY WANTS! So logic would dictate you should leave it reasonably defended (esp the non OP flags). Sure, it's okay to send 1-3 people to go assist another team, snipe the other teams OP, fight off the opposition as they try to come back up the ramp on the ramp...but the FLAG is important. So often, I see my team gain a post like Manors, only to all rush off to go to another point/mid and leave it with maybe 1-2 people tops within 20seconds of the flag. Yes, standing on a flag, doing nothing for 10 minutes is boring, but it allows you to keep it. Bare Minimum, don't leave a flag if there are still 'dead people' around. They can see you leave, and /a still works if you're dead.

If you don't have the FLAG and are trying to claim it:
-Do not, I repeat do NOT, fight on the ramp leading up to the flag. That is wasted energy/lives/time. You need the flag, therefore fighting anywhere other than on it, is a waste of time. (body counts aren't worth it) Also, typically if you are being met with 6+ opposing team members on the ramp up to the Flag, that means there are few to no opposing players standing on the actual flag....you just need to figure out a way to get to it. Anyway, force them to fight on the flag. Because the FLAG=Points...everything else is a stall tactic that plays in the other teams favor (every tick they have the flag is points your team doesn't earn).

3. The entire alliance and their Momma, does NOT need to be Mid, nor should it be....ever. I don't care that the big node is popping. EVERYONE playing on ALL the teams know the big node is popping. Let B team (+maybe, maybe 1-2 more from A/C if B senses they need backup) handle it. If the other alliances are sending 2+ teams up top, yes, they might get the big node....but they also committed a lot of people to the top and away from bases. Go clean up. Steal their OP's/ heck steal that Flag on the opposite side of the map from your spawn point. But if you send everyone up, the other teams will see that, and all it takes is a /a Flames have 2+ parties up on node. Go claim their OP/Flags for your team to be screwed.

which leads to the final:

4. Know how and when, to use Alliance chat.
-ALWAYS /a if you know how many of the enemy are guarding a flag your team is after. This helps people know if you need assistance or if switching plans and targeting another Flag is a better option.
-Warn if you see 'Spawn Camping' or a large opposing group on the move towards your held bases.
-Be specific. Don't type a/ MIDDLE NOW! ....because that tends to confuse and you end up with people leaving their positions who shouldn't going mid. You only meant ' Team B head to middle' THAT is what should be typed....ideally 1-2 minutes before they should be there....LOTS of times people say something about the middle too late....this is the worst thing you can do as now people leave their bases under-defended AND go up top to the slaughter and the nodes are gone. And again, best to let Team B decide if they should /assist A&C in holding bases or go mid. (Like sometimes skipping the first set of drones in order to claim all 3 strongholds+enemy Op=better start than only claiming 2 Strongholds+2 Drones). But so often, this is where people F up. They see no one up top, and take it upon themselves to go do it....and in so doing, lose the base they were responsible for holding AND typically ride of to their death/don't get a drone. Basically
-Be a good sport, ditch the profanity. Win Lose or Draw, do your best NOT to bemoan and belittle your teammates. You might think they are the most horrid PvPers you've ever seen....you might be in 3rd. It's okay, it's only a game. It'll be over soon. Filling the chat with negative information however leads to people ignoring it/turning it off/ reporting you or purposefully doing things to annoy you more. The /a chat should be fairly quiet except for information that needs to be known by other teams. Keep everything else out of it.

A guide should be include information about the basic layouts only. It is not recommend to put in your personal ideas about the strategy. All strategies would work, but at the end of table, it is still three GCs anticipate each other's strategy.

We all know centre is important, but what if

- one GC decides to lock down the path going up with knock back?
- your GC party got sandwiched by two other GCs at the same time?
- vice versa

Are you still going to blame that you are lost because your own GC is bad? That sounds kinda immature.

The math is nice and all, but flawed. This is only true if you have 3 superior teams that can defend and hold 3 outposts at all times. But there's only 6 outposts, and 9 teams. So it quickly becomes very hard for you to hold those points of interest.

Frontlines is all about adapting to the opponents to be able to see where there's a high concentration of the opponents, then they would have to have left some places unguarded. But the other way around is also true, if they have very little people at one station, it means that they're targeting someplace else. And if you're at that point with the rest of your team, you can probably ask the majority of that team to head someplace else to secure another point.

One of the best moments in frontlines for me was when we were in the last place, knowing that the node was going to spawn. I asked each party to send one DPS with LB to the heliodrome. Within 5 seconds of the heliodrome spawn, we 3x LBed the node with 2 DPS LB and one caster LB, killing the node. This shot us up in first place, and we did win that match.

to the OP : holding 4 base = 8 pt / 3 sec
Holding 5 base is 16 pt / 3 sec

i assume 6 base is 32 or more every 3 sec having 3 base and rush another one to breakdown other GC team is the best

If you are solo-q'ing, and can get your team to ride it out easy and hold your camp in check, then I think it's alright to play safe and aim for 3 camps control at all time, placing little to no value in mid (but that mostly matter if you are in the B alliance). It's a decent strategy to aim for 2nd place and we know 2nd is still better for earning marks than 3rd.

BUT............

Like other people mentioned, playing safe like this and not pushing to control middle is not effective in most situation and frankly it just say that you are settling for 2nd which gets lame after a while. As for personal experience, I don't have much but I have been getting 2nd place more consistently by applying this strat when I queue with 2 or 3 other friends. The only time that I managed to win 1st this week so far was when I got into B alliance, assisted the other alliances, and took my team mid to kill a couple nodes and the big boss.

Well you get 5 point for each kill you do on the allagan plateform mid, + 20 point per drone and 200 per boss.

You have 2 choice :
- get 3 point, and ninja the 2 others start spot sometimes
- get 3 spot, and VH mid (assuming you can keep 3 spot by staying mid)

It's actually easy to get a 4th spot alone since no one defends GC post.
Early game is a VH party, kill other GC 2-3 time and you will start to get 15-20-25 sec or more with no resistance to get more spot.

The best choice is to get both other GC spot each time you have clean a bus or add pop in mid because every one is focus of the middle fight or waiting to the raise, and there is no one to def GC spot ^^
If you can get 4 (or 5 with good people) spot for 30 sec with 16 pt / 3 sec, it's really worth it instead of wasting time mid ^^