SE, about GC win rates

So... you guys are SE have all sorts of statistics on the PvP scene, right? Does it show that Maelstrom is victorious a great deal more than the other GCs?

I mean, every day I try to do at least some PvP and almost every time it’s the same: don’t even bother, Maelstrom wins.

The match could be close but too much too often Maelstrom would be the winner. Now, I can only speak from personal experience, but does your data show the same?

I mean, it is very disheartening to say the least. Can something even be done if there is an unfair ratio of victory/losses?
I would like to discuss this.
Thanks all

What's there to discuss? The GC attracts those who like to PvP more often than others.

There is literally zero advantage, it just so happens, like the previous poster, that Maelstrom seem to attract more PvP minded people.

The only solution would be to enforce Freelancer, which would be horrific if you want to level a specific rank and/or achievements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JowyAtreides

There is literally zero advantage, it just so happens, like the previous poster, that Maelstrom seem to attract more PvP minded people.

The only solution would be to enforce Freelancer, which would be horrific if you want to level a specific rank and/or achievements.

---

Freelancer status has no effect on achievement progress. It still count if you win a match with a team other than your current GC.

i just hate when our GC keeps losing when i'm on them, then i pick freelancer and get put on another GC then my native GC actually pulls one off. arghghghghghg

You cant pick a GC to just run with like you could before.
People kept hoppin around trying to get carried by mael so the players who are actually good said FU and just started making premades so people that suck cant just go and leech off people ten times better then them.

If youre good, find a premade cwls to join
If not, get better then ask once you arent being carried

I have done 1200+ front lines as Twin Adder and my winrate is 31%, so I assume that the winrate between mael and Adders isn't too different

It was never very fair but hey-ho. They were still learning when they thought to design PvP around the 3 Grand Companies. The more recent Rival Wings doesn't have that type of problem. I don't think they will put the resources into making changes that would disrupt advanced players from teaming up to farm noobs. I kind of miss the madness of 72-player Secure Borderlands. Maybe we can see another short-lived resurgence of PvP when the new expansion is released and see the pro teams diluted a bit more by increased participation of casual players.

I'm maelstrom and I lose almost every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spf1200

I'm maelstrom and I lose almost every time.

---

Maelstrom seems to be going through it's semiannual rough patch when it becomes swamped with players attracted to the team with higher winrates and thus gets bogged down with teams full of disarray and general uncooperative players.


It'll pass.

The biggest problem is that Frontlines is inherently disappointing. It always feels like you lose way more often than you win simply because it's true. You actually lose about twice as often as you win. That's the nature of the three team system. It guarantees you'll walk away disappointed most of the time, and that never fun.

In general Frontlines I feel needs to have its algorithm checked, because RNG dictates who has the "High Ground" most of the time. Let alone, the terrain is also an inherent advantage in some areas like down in the caves. If they really, REALLY wanted Frontlines to be fun, they should delete Seize altogether. There's also the issue of "kills" being the aim other than territory. Killing shouldn't be a win condition; it should be an advantage that doesn't give points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kisama

PvP shouldn't be a win condition in PvP.

---

That suggestion isn't about avoiding fighting, it's about changing how kills affect the scoring.

You're forgetting that killing people is NOT the main goal here. Frontlines are almost entirely objective based where bases/ice/drones/etc are king and kills are a distant second. Killing enemy combatants already has the indirect benefit of taking them out of play for a time, making it easier for your team to complete objectives. By making kills no longer directly affect the score it would incentivize people to fight over the objectives, rather than randomly in the middle of no where.

Personally I'm not sure that's a necessary change, but I can absolutely understand why someone might want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyperiusUltima

If they really, REALLY wanted Frontlines to be fun, they should delete Seize altogether.

---

from my cold dead hands

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyperiusUltima

In general Frontlines I feel needs to have its algorithm checked, because RNG dictates who has the "High Ground" most of the time.

---

Maybe some of the time will you be completely at the mercy of RNG. What dictates who has the "High Ground" majority of the time however is whichever team can coordinate better (or coordinate at all) and if the other two teams are playing to win or are content in deadlocking eachother all game while the 3rd team holds multiple tomeliths for free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyperiusUltima

Let alone, the terrain is also an inherent advantage in some areas like down in the caves.

---

I don't refute this. The caves team has a terrain-based advantage in the way the tomeliths closest to them are situated, and the number of them they can get to and feasibly hold compared to the other teams. The map may be "interesting" but poorly balanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyperiusUltima

If they really, REALLY wanted Frontlines to be fun, they should delete Seize altogether.

---

While I do think Seize has faults created mostly by the unequal map layout, it is by far the most interesting Frontlines mode. There are no NPCs to make you stop PvP'ing to try and react to, instead it throws more decision-making situations at you. In my opinion, Secure should be the next mode to be "deleted," because not only does it have the most boring 24-man, but it feels like you spend the entire game just traveling back-and-forth between distant objectives and waiting around for something to happen in the middle for 20 seconds before it's over. And due to the nature of the base-holding, your entire team is literally helpless should your two adjacent bases be pushed by both teams. I think Yoshi-P also said we're getting a new Seize map in an interview last year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyperiusUltima

In general Frontlines I feel needs to have its algorithm checked, because RNG dictates who has the "High Ground" most of the time. Let alone, the terrain is also an inherent advantage in some areas like down in the caves. If they really, REALLY wanted Frontlines to be fun, they should delete Seize altogether. There's also the issue of "kills" being the aim other than territory. Killing shouldn't be a win condition; it should be an advantage that doesn't give points.

---

Killing players in PVP should definitely count.

I'm all for deleting RNG Rock though.