Request/Idea: Capture The Flag(Frontline: PvP)

I'm very surprised PvP lasted this long without Capture The Flag... Every PvP thing has a capture mode somewhere! Captures tend to be my favorite modes.. I love protecting the carrier, keeping the enemies off an such. It could be sooo easy to do so..

-Grand Companies are fighting for disputed land and need soldiers to claim land. Plant the flag and hold, or maybe even simply get it to the point of capture and that equals points. Heck they could make 2 modes.

Capture The Flag And Defend:
-Capture the flag, plant the flag in the disputed territory and hold until the end.

-Flag-wielders have knockback and other basic survival skills to try and stay safe. Also has a "Throw" action that throws the flag where you want to drop(think ground AoE)


Retrieve And Capture:
-Go to disputed territory and take Allagan technology. This is just a game of who can capture the most technology. Whoever gets the most wins.

-Carriers can have a skill set similar to Capture and Defend.

And with GC restrictions being removed in 3.5, Frontline will be so much more lively!

Wait.. uhm, what?
What about Borderlands(Secure)?
Though it's not like how you described, it still involved capturing flags.
(Though it's more like capture objective :O)

A proper capture the flag would be a great PVP match. Secure is a King of the Hill Mithrahn.

Isn't king of the hill, at its basest, capture a location and defend the location?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aesteval

Isn't king of the hill, at its basest, capture a location and defend the location?

---

Yes. That is not Capture the Flag. Totally different game type.

A payload type map would be nice too. Then you can blame your teammates when they don't sit on it and lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magic-Mal

Yes. That is not Capture the Flag. Totally different game type.

---

But...

Quote:

---

Capture The Flag And Defend:
-Capture the flag, plant the flag in the disputed territory and hold until the end.

---

It sounds like there is some overlap in this case. It's not all of the additions you're asking for, but this much sort of exists?

~Bump~

I think the Devs are trying too hard to make unique game modes for PvP when a simple, more traditional game mode could be really popular.

We do have Base Capture(Seal Rock:Seize). But we do still lack a basic King Of The Hill and Capture The Flag for example.

Secure isn't really King Of The Hill it's more like Kill Nodes mode. They have Feast which could have been a basic Team Deathmatch but they added the extra mechanic to it with the medals.

We have a TDM in Carteanu but that's dead because it's lv50.

So yeah, I think the Devs are trying too hard to make something unique with PvP when keeping it simple would be much more popular with PvPers.

We may see CTF or some other 2 team modes in 4.0. Currently it wouldnt work but since the new modes in 4.0 were the reason of the gc restriction its highly possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magic-Mal

We do have Base Capture(Seal Rock:Seize). But we do still lack a basic King Of The Hill and Capture The Flag for example.

---

From what I remember, "basic" King of the hill is pretty much just:"Keep more members in the target area to accumulate points."

I don't think that works well in a game with tanks and healers. And they aren't overly conductive to engaging capture the flag gameplay either - In WoW, they had to give Warsong a time limit because of their stalling power, despite already having 50/100% damage debuffs on flag carriers.

I mean, I'm not opposed to them trying, but...egh. I don't think it would do anything to PvP as a whole other than make whatever mode they had previously obsolete like every PvP addition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zojha

From what I remember, "basic" King of the hill is pretty much just:"Keep more members in the target area to accumulate points."

---

you just summed up seal rock. Which is still the best FL map atm. Would be nice to have a mode where each team has to kill an opposing party member, but here's the catch. That person is a "boss" that can't be healed but has a large health pool, ex cyclops or primal? Party members will need to protect the "boss" by making sure opposing players dont deal too much damage to it while killing theirs. Bosses can hurt opposing bosses.

In 72 mans there can be a total of 9 "bosses", one per party, that can join the fight and these will act as your flag. First one to kill a boss 3 times wins. The closer you are to loosing the greater your chance at getting a trial/raid boss. If you die as the boss someone else in your party will become the boss. This will repeat until the match ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marxam

you just summed up seal rock.

---

Not exactly - In traditional King of the Hill as I know it from shooters etc, ownership is proximity based. If there are 3 people of Team 1 standing in the marked zone and 2 of Team 2, ownership goes to Team 1. WoW employed that in the bases of Eye of the Storm (And the bases ended up being the drop-off points for the flag in the middle).

In Seal Rock, ownership goes to whoever caps the node first and then stays that way until someone else caps. You can leave the node (hill) alone without it becoming neutral after you left, which isn't an option in classic King of the Hill as I know it. It also allows a single DRK in living dead to prevent capture against multiple enemies for a couple seconds if need be. It is very similar to Arathi basin, except with 3 teams and random nodes, rather than fixed ones.

I admit, it's nuanced and all similarsameish to a degree. But there are differences!

Aka warsong gulch from wow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zojha

.

---

I don't really like Seal Rock's King Of The Hill because again, they added these extra mechanics to make it not really King Of The Hill..

Bases are done completely with RNG which can make it very unfair. One time a triple S rank spawned in the caves where Flames based. We lost of course. Or a in a close 750/800 to 750/800 game, all a team needs is to have a node spawn close to them by luck and they win. Happened so many times. I hate that.

DC Universe Online(not sure if anything has changed) did their PvP KotH matches really well. If an opposing member was on the base it was contested until they were gone. And stuff didn't spawn in favor of another team. Such as lucky spawns or lucky S ranks..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TiaHariberux3

We may see CTF or some other 2 team modes in 4.0. Currently it wouldnt work but since the new modes in 4.0 were the reason of the gc restriction its highly possible.

---

1). Why does it not work with 3 teams?
2). What new 4.0 modes? :0

i like the idea but i can already see teams with 3 of each tanks and nothing else but healers but then again. the pve in pvp never mattered....

I love this game mode, seal rock is the closest you can get to it - but again, if you leave your flag it doesn't auto-neutral; someone has to disable it. GL Ninja! Proximity based objectives (like the bases in shatter) are good; but the whole PVE element of bursting ice leads to 3 distinct play styles - striking dummy practice, premade killer teams and base nabbing.

I'd like to see an inclusion of feast elements with party & alliance wide buffs for bursting a mini-boss (vs a neutral box that doesn't fight back - for those people that like to hit striking dummies in PvP; this would be your chance to really help your team). Along with the status ailments for picking up too many coins. For example if your team is all about killing, in order to get the points from the kill your team would have to nab a drop and potentially stack dmg up to the point an auto-attack would kill you (hello ninja hide!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magic-Mal

1). Why does it not work with 3 teams?

---

Because it's not viable with 3 teams.

A proper CTF game mode has one objective (ie: the flag). In a 2 team match, it basically works out that one team has the flag, while the other defends it until they can score. The status quo is always the same regardless of who has the flag. If there are 3 teams, however, than whoever has the objective is subject to a 2 v 1 gank. Assuming all 3 teams are equally invested in winning, then scoring would be nearly impossible. The only way it would work out would be if one team is pants-on-head stupid or, vice versa, leagues better than the other 2. This kind of team dynamic would also open the door to easier match fixing, as it would be possible for two full teams to team up against the 3rd. One team would throw the match, while their partner cinched the win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magic-Mal

2). What new 4.0 modes? :0

---

They haven't announced them yet; however, when they announced the removal of GC restrictions, they heavily implied that the upcoming 4.0 game modes were the reason behind their decision. To most of us, this implies 2-team game modes. The fact that we will still be able to queue up as a specific GC member also implies this, because it would seem that whatever they have planned has no GC v GC lore involved.

To be fair, it could mean a lot of things. They could be overhauling the GC system entirely, for all we know. They could also be simplifying the queue process for the sake of old or outdated rewards that are nearly impossible to achieve with the current GC match-ups. They could be considering a PvPvE MOBA styled game mode. Or, it could just be a simple matter of changing the current lore. They did announce that OMEGA WEAPON would be the next major raid. That particular bit of lore was first mentioned as the reason behind the GC Frontline conflicts in the first place, so if the lore of the main title is taking us back to that plot point, then they could be making the necessary PvP adjustments to suit the new direction of the story. Yoshi-P also hinted that they are considering some variety of open-world PvP later in the Stormblood life-cycle, as well more attention to PvP on the whole (I'll believe that when I see it). In any case, there's a lot in the air right now. We'll need to wait and see what happens when the dust settles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Februs

.

---

I see.. I can understand that way of thinking with factions teaming up on one for the flag. However in FFXIV it can be pretty hard to kill people lol.. Depending on how good your healers are. Sadly, I've already experienced getting KO'ed by one faction and then watching the other get KO'ed. Considering the fact that the flag would be planted down however, I think after the defending team falls, the other 2 factions will have to fight just to get the flag off xD.

With GC restrictions gone, wouldn't it be alot harder to do win-trading?? Unlike now?

This PVP mode could be a small PVP. 8 v 8 Capture the Flag would be perfect :), it takes way too long looking for Frontlines. If all you want to do is PVP(and you don't like arena) in the morning quickly you just can't :(.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magic-Mal

Considering the fact that the flag would be planted down however, I think after the defending team falls, the other 2 factions will have to fight just to get the flag off xD.

---

We've already seen a similar system in both Secure and Seize. It's very rare for all three teams to balance out. More often than not it turns into a 2v1 gank, or one team simply gets ignored while the other two duke it out. Secure was the closest to getting it right back when it was still 72 man because there was an even distribution of outlying camps, but even that could easily turn into a mess if one GC started allying themselves with another.

Bursting targets is also a non-issue. Limit breaks make short work of health bars, and focusing all the action into one spot, fixed or otherwise, guarantees a gank. There is no degree of healing that can beat the pure number supremacy of a 2v1 gank, unless the 2 are playing with only auto attacks or something equally stupid. Party compositions are also random and unrestricted in Frontlines, which makes it an uneven roll of the dice as to who will have the biggest gun or the largest sustain. SE could get around that by implementing forced party compositions (2 tank/2 heals/4 dps), but they'd be harming queues in the process and removing one of the biggest draw factors to the game mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magic-Mal

With GC restrictions gone, wouldn't it be alot harder to do win-trading?? Unlike now?

---

It would actually be easier without GC affiliations ... in theory.

Currently, to fix a match you first have to organize two parties from two different GC's, which means you need a somewhat even split of GC affiliates. Second, you need to fill the exact amount of players to actually get a queue to go through. Full Pre-mades are often a no-go, because the number random queued solo-players can generate a dead queue line. The game has conniption fits when it tries to fill a full match with uneven sets of players. Third, the two independent parties from two different GC's need to get into the same match for them to fix it. It's possible to organize that kind of thing with 3rd party chat, such as discord, but it is still a headache, and you can only skip 3 queues before it's a ban. This doesn't seem like much; however, one, rather massive, drawback to match-fixers is that not all of the three GC's queue equally. Mael has astronomically long queues, whereas Adders are relatively short. This means that it may actually be impossible for your two pre-made parties to get into the same match, depending on how many people are queuing for each GC at that time. The fact that queues are naturally long due to GC restrictions just makes this issue worse. Finally, if you manage all of the above and get into a match, you still have to deal with the logistics of random players. In a full 72 man game, you have 2 other alliances that can throw a wrench into your match fixing efforts. In an incomplete 8-man party, any randoms you have can also make a difference. It's still possible, of course, and one full team of sleeper agents can do a lot of damage, but it is not necessarily easy or effective.

Now, take out GC requirements. The first, and biggest, hurdle to match fixing is completely removed, because anyone can join in your pre-made parties. The queue will also be standardized across all players. There won't be any more discrepancies between Mael / Adder / Flame queues, because you are not required to queue up as any of the 3. That means a far faster queue rate on a "first come, first served" basis. In theory, 2 pre-made parties queuing up at the same time will be FAR more likely to meet each other in the same match under those conditions, because they queued at the same time and neither group are shackled by their traditional GC restriction (ie: Mael has to wait an eternity, whereas Adders can just go right in). The only thing that would be left to throw a wrench into the works is the random players, but how much or little they get in the way will depend on how many solo-players are queuing up at any given time. Peak times vs dead times can still be worked around.

In the end, the only way to stop match fixing completely would be to simply do away with 3-way matches, depending on the game mode. It can be worked into certain things just fine, and there is some fun to be had in that uneven styled game play, but in something like CTF it would only make a mess of what could be a fun and competitive game.

This is a great idea, as much as I loved Secure and Seal Rock, neither are CTF. Warsong Gulch is the best comparison, and would be a great addition that would make 8v8 viable, would increase certain classes usefulness and as much as i'd hate to see WAR take a dip, it would allow the other two tanks to finally be preferred over raw damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Februs

.

---

Ty for your posts Februs ^-^. They were very informative and I understand the queue stuff alot better now!

If they do CTF then max size should be 16man(24 if they dont want to invent new size)if its FL and 8v8 if its Feast and map should be midsize with properly placed LoS objects in midfield for flag carrier/defenders, also could use some high ground but with enough LoS objects it might be not needed. Also multiple paths to enemy flagroom is must so enemy team cannot trurtle by defending chokepoint.

PS: Dont forget to add forced flag drop when PLD uses HG as that would be OP as f..k!

EDIT: What murph said here "Warsong Gulch is the best comparison" SE could literally just copy WSG and i would jizz in my pants as its still my 2nd all-time favorite pvp mode/map after Huttball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magic-Mal

Ty for your posts Februs ^-^. They were very informative and I understand the queue stuff alot better now!

---

Anytime! That's what the forums are here for. Glad I could help ... sorry for being wordy, though. I'm bad for that >.>

*Casts Raise*

Bumping for the chance of Dev attention. Some more simple modes would be very welcome. I think being unique in their own way hurts Seize and Shatter's popularity.

And PLEASE make Carteanu/Borderlands lv60 already. It's driving me crazy.

I like wow's Capture The Flag system but we need better job balancing to allow it in this game. A huge problem with pvp in ffxiv it is an after thought and they do a very poor job with job balancing in pvp. They just throw in rules hoping it will work, I got no clue how something like a holy spam team was missed of being an issue, passed so called "testing" and they allowed it, then the lazy cop out was banning cleric stance completely.

If they do PVP since there is no GC restrictions and the theme of expansion.

They should do any two team modes as garlean vs eorzea alliance would be fun