For the love of god, make frontlines 24vs24 instead of 24vs24vs24

Now you may ask yourself "Why, whats the problem with it?"

Pretty simple, imagine this scenario.

Your team is at 702 points and the enemy team is at 700 points, both are currently fighting and the third team who is at 100 points decides "Well uuh, that one team has 2 points more than the other one, so lets sandwich them and make them lose."

Most of the time it doesnt even take that for you to lose sometimes your team has 500 points while the enemy has 700, and yet the damn 3rd team still attacks the team with 500 points just because they either tunnelvision or dont like the color of your GC.

In 70% of my PVP games these scenarios happen, and I am just sick of losing because of the arbritary decisions of the third team

I'd rather see smaller teams and less / no XP bonus. Some of us like the different objectives and trying to win.

I am also fine with 8vs8vs8, I had a 90% winrate with my shotcalling back then when it was still available

Yes please... cut it down to two groups and while at it, greatly reduce exp...

Having 2 teams instead of 3 is not the solution, it will just make games worse. Let me explain.

If you only had two teams, they would rush at each other from the start. In theory, if both teams had equal skills, you'd pretty much be at a stalemate. However, that's not how it will go most of the time. One team will have better player and will just decimate the other team and get some battle high. You'll know right away that the other team is better. Some of your players that died will have just given up and every single battle after that will be lost.

Having 3 teams is what is supposed to make it fair. That way, 2nd place and 3rd place can work together to lower the points of 1st place and catching up. Now, of course, that's not how it currently goes, but that's a player issue, not a design issue. Japanese players use that 3-team system how it should be and games are pretty much always close. There's no design that will make games better until the players get better and start to care.

Rival Wings is 2 teams and look how it goes. It's either you stomp or you get stomped, you very rarely get anything in between, at least on NA. Casual CC is the same, 2 teams and 95% of games are steamrolled by one side. Ranked Crystal Conflict can be close more often because the players are supposed to all have higher skills.

The solution is not to increase or decrease the number of teams/players, it's to make the players better (or keep the bad ones away).

yeah game mode would be much more enjoyable if it was 2 team game
grand company aspect is dead and no map would need a rework to accommodate with also the possibility of putting rival wings in the daily roulette.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GordonGeeko

Having 2 teams instead of 3 is not the solution, it will just make games worse. Let me explain.

If you only had two teams, they would rush at each other from the start. In theory, if both teams had equal skills, you'd pretty much be at a stalemate. However, that's not how it will go most of the time. One team will have better player and will just decimate the other team and get some battle high. You'll know right away that the other team is better. Some of your players that died will have just given up and every single battle after that will be lost.

Having 3 teams is what is supposed to make it fair. That way, 2nd place and 3rd place can work together to lower the points of 1st place and catching up. Now, of course, that's not how it currently goes, but that's a player issue, not a design issue. Japanese players use that 3-team system how it should be and games are pretty much always close. There's no design that will make games better until the players get better and start to care.

Rival Wings is 2 teams and look how it goes. It's either you stomp or you get stomped, you very rarely get anything in between, at least on NA. Casual CC is the same, 2 teams and 95% of games are steamrolled by one side. Ranked Crystal Conflict can be close more often because the players are supposed to all have higher skills.

The solution is not to increase or decrease the number of teams/players, it's to make the players better (or keep the bad ones away).

---

I'd much rather a steam roll than just 2 teams fighting while other sits back and wins.

3 teams is way more interesting. It's even possible to have a 3 way tie for first. If you want your two team options, they're out there. Rival Wings is coming back in 6.2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GordonGeeko

Having 2 teams instead of 3 is not the solution, it will just make games worse. Let me explain.

If you only had two teams, they would rush at each other from the start. In theory, if both teams had equal skills, you'd pretty much be at a stalemate. However, that's not how it will go most of the time. One team will have better player and will just decimate the other team and get some battle high. You'll know right away that the other team is better. Some of your players that died will have just given up and every single battle after that will be lost.

Having 3 teams is what is supposed to make it fair. That way, 2nd place and 3rd place can work together to lower the points of 1st place and catching up. Now, of course, that's not how it currently goes, but that's a player issue, not a design issue. Japanese players use that 3-team system how it should be and games are pretty much always close. There's no design that will make games better until the players get better and start to care.

Rival Wings is 2 teams and look how it goes. It's either you stomp or you get stomped, you very rarely get anything in between, at least on NA. Casual CC is the same, 2 teams and 95% of games are steamrolled by one side. Ranked Crystal Conflict can be close more often because the players are supposed to all have higher skills.

The solution is not to increase or decrease the number of teams/players, it's to make the players better (or keep the bad ones away).

---

Then remove battle high and copy WoW battleground where skills, coordination and respawn timer/place determine the game. Rather than avoiding stalemate by putting 3 teams. I would love frontline if its FFXIV version of WoW battleground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GordonGeeko

Having 2 teams instead of 3 is not the solution, it will just make games worse. Let me explain.

If you only had two teams, they would rush at each other from the start. In theory, if both teams had equal skills, you'd pretty much be at a stalemate. However, that's not how it will go most of the time. One team will have better player and will just decimate the other team and get some battle high. You'll know right away that the other team is better. Some of your players that died will have just given up and every single battle after that will be lost.

Having 3 teams is what is supposed to make it fair. That way, 2nd place and 3rd place can work together to lower the points of 1st place and catching up. Now, of course, that's not how it currently goes, but that's a player issue, not a design issue. Japanese players use that 3-team system how it should be and games are pretty much always close. There's no design that will make games better until the players get better and start to care.

Rival Wings is 2 teams and look how it goes. It's either you stomp or you get stomped, you very rarely get anything in between, at least on NA. Casual CC is the same, 2 teams and 95% of games are steamrolled by one side. Ranked Crystal Conflict can be close more often because the players are supposed to all have higher skills.

The solution is not to increase or decrease the number of teams/players, it's to make the players better (or keep the bad ones away).

---

Thats not the case for rival wings, I have 55% winrate on it and we have atleast turned around a match 70 times in 180 matches where we were outclassed

In theory the teams in 2nd and 3rd place could team up to get the team in 1st place, but this is an entirely theoretical concept that forgets the human factor. What happens in practice is that the team in 3rd place fights with the team in 2nd place over who gets the least amount of wolf marks while the team in 1st place can either sit back and watch the shit show or decide to sandwich one of the teams.

This doesn't even account for the genius idea to have objectives spawn randomly on the map which can decide the match before you even step out of your spawn, depending on where the objectives spawn and where your graveyard is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cesarion

Thats not the case for rival wings, I have 55% winrate on it and we have atleast turned around a match 70 times in 180 matches where we were outclassed

---

Sounds like I need to play some Rival Wings on Light to see how it is being played. Personally, last time I played on Aether we steamrolled 20 games in a row and it only ended because people had to go. I already shared the story with print screen of someone I know winning 74 games of Rival Wings in a row. It is not competitive in the slightest if you have people who can implement a good strategy.

I'd rather battle high gets removed than turn it into only 2 teams.

There's 0 reason to give an already winning team and even easier time to keep winning.

Rival Wings will be back with 6.2. That's your 24v24 mode.

That would be terrible because people will start doing premades harder than ever, so enjoy getting respawn camped for straight 15 minutes.

1vs1vs1 adds that "surprise " thing, even if a alliance its dominating in terms of BH/kills/TF they can still lose if one of the two alliances play "smarter" and gets objectives more often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OskarXCI

Rival Wings will be back with 6.2. That's your 24v24 mode.

---

Cool, then frontlines still stay shit, while rival wings will die out because it has no daily roulette, thanks for the solution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnnRam

That would be terrible because people will start doing premades harder than ever, so enjoy getting respawn camped for straight 15 minutes.

1vs1vs1 adds that "surprise " thing, even if a alliance its dominating in terms of BH/kills/TF they can still lose if one of the two alliances play "smarter" and gets objectives more often.

---

People do that in frontlines anyway they go a full party of summoners with their friends and win the game, nothing will change anyway