Seal Rock (Seize) 24-Man Only Queue

I don't know if this has been posted already, didn't find it while searching or if there's a forum for suggestions.

Has SE talked about adding in 24-man only queue to Seal Rock? Many people on my server prefer that to 72 man, and it's a lot more fun in my opinion. From what I've been reading, 24-man is the fallback when the DF can't get 72 people, but I'd rather take 24-man over 72 any day.

Sorry if it's already been posted. :D

Don't think they have, but they siad they're looking into the queue times and "Look forward to it, durrr" So I guess it may be considered. :/

Would really like this option for our premade, although a solo premade can't win a 72 man match we certainly have influenced games, sitting nice at 75% win rate when rolling premade

It is 100% possible to get a 24-man Seal Rock. I was just in one.

As for queuing as a full 24-man GC? No. It's bad enough that GCs will queue up in 3-4 groups of 8 and only accept if they get each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Selli

It is 100% possible to get a 24-man Seal Rock. I was just in one.

As for queuing as a full 24-man GC? No. It's bad enough that GCs will queue up in 3-4 groups of 8 and only accept if they get each other.

---

I know 24 man is possible, I prefer those. I'm talking about only queuing for 24-man. As in, not ever getting 72-man.

Que in the morning only so you get only 24 mans. Que in the prime time you get 72 mans.

I think an option for 24 player queue would be nice but make it SOLO ONLY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueDjinn

I know 24 man is possible, I prefer those. I'm talking about only queuing for 24-man. As in, not ever getting 72-man.

---

Oh, I see.

Well one of the ways to almost insure yourself a 24-man run is to run fairly early in the morning on a weekday (or fairly early for most of your server population). You'll probably be in queue for a very long time, but your chances of getting a smaller match are more probable.

In not too long seize will be dead and only 24-man will pop.

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. If they had 24 and the caves were the only spawning points forcing all three teams inside. Slaughter is great as 24 since all combat defaults to the middle circle.

Also they have not given any real answers or fixes at all for pvp. If they have any plan for 3.1 they have been quiet.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Februs

Some say random node spawns don't always encourage enough combat, so it sucks...

---

That's only true for the first one or two spawns, and even then only if the three nodes spawn far away from each other. If two of the nodes spawn near each other, then an early clash is pretty much inevitable.

Once A's and S's start coming out, the combat really gets going. Yes, the first minute or two can be slow, but once the fights start, they're much more intense because you know that every player's actions really count. 72 man can be a bit of a cluster#$% sometimes, but 24 man really tests your skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beckett

That's only true for the first one or two spawns, and even then only if the three nodes spawn far away from each other. .

---

That's true, now that I've seen it I know that it's not the case. We got attacked on our first node spawn so fighting seems to happen pretty quickly...

That being said, compared to 74 man fights, it is much slower. The number of targets available to fight and kill are lower and successful kill are more a matter of skill than swarm and overwhelming, so I can see why some people would find it a less aggressive game mode. I think it would be pretty hard to score a battle high/fever in 24 man fights compared to 72 man fights.

It's pretty easy to hit fever if you running with a good team, pretty much all of us hot fever in our video XD

Even our healer got 3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Februs

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...

---

Well, in my case it is because I don't trust team that I don't feel comfortable relaying in 7. If there are 24 I know the enemies will mess as well so, it doesn't matter if my team is just awful, I can survive through it and sneak enough.

Basically... If I have a group of 8, and 4 of them are bad, I know I'm not going to survive or kill enough... But if I'm in a group of 24 and 12 of them are useless I know I can still survive and kill enough, after all, the baits are there!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Februs

That being said, compared to 74 man fights, it is much slower. The number of targets available to fight and kill are lower and successful kill are more a matter of skill than swarm and overwhelming

---

That's what I like about 24 man. Your individual actions are much more impact to the match than they are in 72 man. In a 72 man, you can slack off and still have a good team carry you to victory (not that I'm recommending that). But in 24 man, if one person slacks off, they're going to be a detriment to the team, and it will be that much harder to get a victory. If my team wins a 24 man match, I know it's because I personally did a good job (along with the other 7 members of my team). In 72 man, even if I'm doing a great job, it doesn't matter as much to the overall score.

That said, I still really enjoy 72 man matches, and I don't think I would play 24 man matches exclusively, if given the option. I just enjoy the 24 man matches when they happen to come up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beckett

That's what I like about 24 man. Your individual actions are much more impact to the match than they are in 72 man.

---

I totally agree. It also depends on the role distribution.

Though my personal record for kills in a single match is still held by 72 man matches, I actually felt like i did more fighting in the 24 man match, because a lot of the time in the 72 man matches (for better or for worse) I'm usually the guy who ends up taking the role of general and giving orders. That means pulling out of fights early to check node timers and the map positions, than formulating the best path and the shortest, easiest to understand, way of putting it in the chat box for the team to read... and then there's actually making sure they read it and are pulling out of the fight when it's time.

Because the 8 man team was smaller and everyone was contributing to strategy, I actually got to be more involved in the fight and play my role. Honestly, probably the only reasons I had less kills than in Seize is because dmg outputs are less (as you have less people focusing the same target), there's more emphasis on playing your role properly (tank v healer v dps), and there are simply less targets to kill.

The thing is, I can see why certain players, namely those who enjoy getting those very long killstreaks that don't really do anything for them personally (not like you get bonus exp for them or anything, just bonus dmg), would dislike this mode. The players who can't shake the "Slaughter" mentality would have less things to kill. For myself, though, I would rather like having the option to swap between the two different game modes if they were available. I just hope they wouldn't kill que times too badly.

Quote:

---

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

Basically... If I have a group of 8, and 4 of them are bad, I know I'm not going to survive or kill enough... But if I'm in a group of 24 and 12 of them are useless I know I can still survive and kill enough, after all, the baits are there!

---

I see what you mean, but for me the win is more important than if I personally survive or get a decent amount of kills (though it is super satisfying to have a personally good match). The problem is that, if 12 of my 24 are rubbish, even if I can use them as bait or do really well for myself, those 12 can still cost me the match. I don't like losing. My personal kill record comes second to that.

Lot of 1v1 or 1vs2 in 24 players map. It really is more interesting than 72 players match.
You can focus on duels or little group fights if you don't feel like playing the objective.


It happens very often than 2 teams don't really care about the score and just fight each other in 24 man fight.

depends if you're lucky with nodes or not really i guess.

Hate it, even though I like 8v8 and hated slaughter. I just feels too empty and ast becomes, like, 5 times better than before. Plus a premade will pretty much wreck everyone else. I mean, if you get a team of 8 that's not especially amazing, you'll pretty much lose every fight or be stuck in an eternal stalemate. Personally, it's either boring or downright frustrating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutemutt

Hate it, even though I like 8v8 and hated slaughter. I just feels too empty and ast becomes, like, 5 times better than before. Plus a premade will pretty much wreck everyone else. I mean, if you get a team of 8 that's not especially amazing, you'll pretty much lose every fight or be stuck in an eternal stalemate. Personally, it's either boring or downright frustrating.

---

Well, they could always have it like how Wolve's Den is for light parties, except you have to queue in with a full party.