GC Restriction's end result of inequality due to polarization; supporting data

While we have similar threads, I felt like my observations here were shocking enough (to me, anyway) that I wanted to be sure this didn't get buried on page 4 of another thread.

I've been saying it, others have been saying it, and here's all the proof anyone should need- I now rest my case re: GC restriction leading to extremely polarized groups of players being pitted against each other, creating a system that is unfair for some, benefits others, and is the reason many players who once championed Frontlines and tried to build up a community of players have become demoralized when there has been no acknowledgement of the problem from SE's side and have largely given up.

I'm in Twin Adder where I've felt the impact of polizaration between GC's resulting from movement of players from less dominant to more dominant of the players (who aren't yet effectively locked into their GC due to high PVP rank). And while this data confirms what I'd expect it to from Adder's perspective, what I found from the Flames perspective did so to a degree that's as astonishing as it is dismaying. This is an inevitable result of a system such as ours. I feel bad for players in Flames who are skilled, can coordinate well, and don't have the benefit of as strong of an Alliance on their side because to less of a degree I'm facing that problem too.

You might still be in favor of the GC restriction (depending on how much the GC restriction favors you), but if you look at this data and think you can say a really skilled, experiences player in Immortal Flames has a fair chance in getting into an Alliance that's equally matched?

Players with Victory Rate >= 50%, Primal Data Center, Week ending March 8, 2015

- Maelstrom: 94
- Twin Adder: 57
- Immortal Flames: 2

(2??? Oh maybe that's a typo or he did it wrong I better check myself...)

http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...kly/?sort=rate

I'd played some games recently where we had the Flames Alliance all on Adder and Maelstrom was getting the nodes unopposed while we were caught in-between on both fronts, and we were like why is Flames pushing us so hard and someone said 'Flames hates Adders'... another said 'Win Trading' and I'm like 'No way- when is Maelstrom giving Flames their share of the wins for that to even be a possibility, and based on how things are going, why would they feel the need to?'

Really, the question in my mind has nothing to do with wintrading but rather prioritization of targets... why isn't Adders and Flames both turning this imbalance which has favored Maelstrom against them by jointly deciding to attack the drones and Maelstrom, but not each other, until the point where the main central node goes down, and then go into 'every GC for themself' mode to decide the battle.'

Either that, or just keep getting farmed battle after battle so people who just started Frontlines even can get carried to their ADS Mounts faster than long term players in Flames/Adders in it since the beginning...

Yeah, someone had a 2.9% victory rate on Flames last week. It's... a little saddening. 60-something games and only 2 wins. I think a lot of the top tier Flames players are not playing for whatever reason. (protecting win rate?) But I have heard via word of mouth that they do not have someone to lead and organize them so they're all a bit scattered. Their tactics are messy at best when they try to execute something sneaky.

You seem like a player who would find competition amongst equals to be more rewarding and engaging... my guess is some in Maelstrom will perceive an imbalance such as this as a good thing... but others may see it as lost potential in what kinds of battle and competition might otherwise exist. What are your thoughts there?

it seems the only fair thing in my mind is for the system to change. Can't expect any of the teams to not try hard. And sometimes we lose battles that were fought hard and well, and barely lost, that's the point of competition and that's what makes me try harder. When I get in a big one-sided loss though I stop because I'm not going to play a part in an unfair system generating rewards to the benefit of others and exclusion of ourselves, and trying to get people in losing teams to boycott queueing up might be one of the only ways to share the pain with the dominent GC in each datacenter to make sure more people recognize this as the problem it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buff_Archer

it seems the only fair thing in my mind is for the system to change. Can't expect any of the teams to not try hard. And sometimes we lose battles that were fought hard and well, and barely lost, that's the point of competition and that's what makes me try harder. When I get in a big one-sided loss though I stop because I'm not going to play a part in an unfair system generating rewards to the benefit of others and exclusion of ourselves, and trying to get people in losing teams to boycott queueing up might be one of the only ways to share the pain with the dominent GC in each datacenter to make sure more people recognize this as the problem it is.

---

I've tried explaining this many times in the past and yet some still don't think its an issue. With the way it is right now GC restrictions are creating a toxic PvP environment where dominant teams are chasing away potential fresh blood that could fill ques. I know because I've seen this in action from other Gcs including my own. There's plenty of people that are either teachable, or naturally talented that don't stick around when they realize the hurdle they're up against. You combine that with an extended que and its no wonder we're at the situation we are now. Not to mention those extended que times are chasing away veterans like myself who don't wanna que for anywhere between 30-40+mins for 1 game thats a 50/50 to lose unless you have a group like I do. Obviously those who are benefitting from the current system of course don't want it to change, but something needs to change and change now. The consequences of course being longer and longer que times-with the end result being a 2nd "wolves den", where getting a que may take you DAYS :/

I enjoy competition in this game's PvP BUT I do not enjoy having to go up against the cometeor stacks + constant sleeps. >_> At that point it's just like whatever. No point in me being alive if everyone else is dead on the other alliances. I think it's just been a while so people forgot how to dodge.

Storm was at a bit of a disadvantage when Slaughter first came out but I think we have finally found a sweet spot. HOWEVER, we do have a lot of bickering about strategies which annoys me to no end (strats that only work once in a while mind you) and players that kinda just do whatever they want which is why I really like 8v8v8 more than the larger matches. It's so much harder to coordinate with people that don't want to listen. :( As far as this 'imbalance', I don't know. I think Storm is equal in terms of power to Adders (we really don't have a "leader" at the moment though.. like a Kisada-type) but Flames lacks a strong core group of players to bring them to victory. And yes, there was that one group that spammed cheap tactics from my server but you don't see them playing anymore due to dumb drama that occurred in their LS. They have Kirito but I don't see him much outside of the 8v8v8s I am in with him.

The only way for anything to change is if SE starts caring about PvP but they can't really do that for now since they're focused on almost all other aspects of the game for the time being.

To clarify, I have nearly zero interaction with anyone from Flames nowadays because nearly all of the ones I run into have terrible attitudes and are generally STANK and I talk to a few Adders on my server. We've never done this 'win trade' thing, lol.

EDIT: Oh, I have noticed we have gotten a slew of former Flames on Storm... and a lot of people on Adders swapped to Flames..? And some of our long time Storm members are now Adders. D: So odd.

Surprised I haven't heard from more Primal Flames/Adders on this one... pulling the lodestone rankings, do you feel angry about a system that despite your best efforts has you getting farmed? I do, especially since I've spoken out about this since the beginning and here it is at its worst. Or if there are people happy to play and not come in first, I'd be interested in hearing that perspective.

The question shouldn't be... is SE going to change the GC Restriction... it should be HOW SOON CAN THEY DO IT!!!

So until/unless things get better from that standpoint, what can the 2 underdog GC's in each data center do to overcome this?

Quite a different status between data center :/

My flames profile:
http://i.imgur.com/pIMla5J.jpg

That is a pretty typical breakdown. Without any boosts to your winrate (premades, etc), you should average out to about 30-33%~ of 1st/2nd/3rd. Since people started running premades I rarely ever get 3rd x_x. I used to queue solo a LOT in October/December because I needed the marks and EXP and used to have about 100+ more 2nd places than 1st.

http://i.imgur.com/Fpoph9D.png

Things change a lot in a month. D:

I'm at 125 / 180 / 160

... I've had my horse since before slaughter (or close, was around the same time iirc), and at that time I had an even spread of 33% 32% 31% always favoring first, third being pretty far behind (before slaughter, it was pretty hard for Maelstrom to get 3rd in Secure, needed serious derping by 2 of the 3 parties)

...So yea,

Slaughter

</3

1095 ! Damn... i wish queues would allow me that kind of streak :(

I had way too many derps happen where we would get 2nd instead of 1st in Secures. :/ I think at least 100-200 games of close calls that ended up NOT in our favor.

And solo queue + queuing IMMEDIATELY after a game always helped back in the days of Secure. :) Sometimes would get at least 10-20 matches a day. I think my unrecorded record due to Lodestone messups in my 2nd week of PvP was about 200 matches in one week... maybe more.