SUGGESTION: Change cadence of FL map rotation

Frontline is currently two different modes, tenuously related by common job kits.

Secure and Shatter are essentially PvE modes where fighting is allowed.

Seize and Onsal are PvP modes in which objectives influence positioning.

I imagine there are some individuals that are entertained by all four maps, but I think most people are going to fall into one camp or the other.

In some cases, this means only playing Frontline two days out of four. A great shame given the positive changes to jobs and gameplay in 7.2.

Assuming there are people who enjoy Secure and Shatter so that we can't just scrap the monstrosities, can we at least switch to a more rapid map rotation like CC, so that on any given day we all have reason to login to FFXIV.

I'd be down to try it.

Playing devil's advocate:
I like knowing that today i can rest because it's shatter day :)
Also organising q syncs for specific maps will become a nightmare :(
Will this get min-maxed and casuals will find a secret way to throw games quicker for their sweet sweet exp/tomes?

On the plus side:
I know some people only play certain maps and I'd like to see them more frequently.
Variety is a spice of life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TofuLove

I'd be down to try it.

Playing devil's advocate:
I like knowing that today i can rest because it's shatter day :)
Also organising q syncs for specific maps will become a nightmare :(
Will this get min-maxed and casuals will find a secret way to throw games quicker for their sweet sweet exp/tomes?

On the plus side:
I know some people only play certain maps and I'd like to see them more frequently.
Variety is a spice of life

---

I'm sure Q-synchers have the organizational skills to figure it out.

Even on the two maps I like it'd be nice to play both of them the same day, punctuated by naps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mawlzy

I'm sure Q-synchers have the organizational skills to figure it out.

---

I think you are underestimating how much people DONT want to play some maps, which would make qsync turn out really poor or people will leave half way through the event. If anything it just reinforces that we need custom games for this specific purpose. Anyway - I suppose this isn't the point of the suggestion, and they will just need to adjust.

Regardless, I agree that daily rotation has always been a sort of a bugbear for me. On the plus side it allowed me to farm achievements I want more efficiently - but now that I have those, variety is more fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mawlzy

I'm sure Q-synchers have the organizational skills to figure it out.

Even on the two maps I like it'd be nice to play both of them the same day, punctuated by naps.

---

You may hear people claiming Seize and Onsal Hakir are better PvP mode, but it is just like flat earth theory, a myth.
The fact is Shatter has been the most popular mode
Before they put in rotation restriction, Shatter is always you will get when you enter via roulette and Secure with 24 men
When they introducing Onsal Hakir, they force blocked all other modes and made everyone played this mode only for almost 6 months
I do realize you dislike Secure and Shatter but you assume too much that everyone shared same opinion
Current rotation is fine as it is
You can go play rank/casual CC when it is Secure/Shatter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

You may hear people claiming Seize and Onsal Hakir are better PvP mode, but it is just like flat earth theory, a myth.
The fact is Shatter has been the most popular mode
Before they put in rotation restriction, Shatter is always you will get when you enter via roulette and Secure with 24 men
When they introducing Onsal Hakir, they force blocked all other modes and made everyone played this mode only for almost 6 months
I do realize you dislike Secure and Shatter but you assume too much that everyone shared same opinion
Current rotation is fine as it is
You can go play rank/casual CC when it is Secure/Shatter

---

If I assumed everyone shared my preference I'd be calling for Secure/Shatter to be removed. I recognize some people prefer those two maps.

My suggestion simply ensures that, on any given day, those of us firmly in one camp or the other get to play FL. I see no downside to this suggestion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mawlzy

If I assumed everyone shared my preference I'd be calling for Secure/Shatter to be removed. I recognize some people prefer those two maps.
My suggestion simply ensures that, on any given day, those of us firmly in one camp or the other get to play FL. I see no downside to this suggestion.

---

Yes, I know what you are asking and I am simply recall a fact checking to show you that is not feasible.
Seize never pops when we have the option to choose mode freely
It was always 72 men Shatter and 24 men Secure every 15 mins.
Even when they added Onsal Hakir, it is still Shatter pop most of the time after 6 months lock out
This is why they forced current mode rotation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

Yes, I know what you are asking and I am simply recall a fact checking to show you that is not feasible.
Seize never pops when we have the option to choose mode freely
It was always 72 men Shatter and 24 men Secure every 15 mins.
Even when they added Onsal Hakir, it is still Shatter pop most of the time after 6 months lock out
This is why they forced current mode rotation

---

Sorry, not following.

If the map swaps every, say, 4 hours instead of every 24, there is still a rotation. How is that not "feasible"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mawlzy

Sorry, not following.

If the map swaps every, say, 4 hours instead of every 24, there is still a rotation. How is that not "feasible"?

---

Good luck with that idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

Good luck with that idea.

---

Thank you, but I can't take credit for the idea. It's SE's idea. I just scaled it based on match length and the 90-minute rotation of maps in Crystalline Conflict.

I have literally zero clue where this idea that people prefer shatter and secure. In my experience, shatter is almost universally despised and has always been. Secure has been so and so in its previous iteration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

You may hear people claiming Seize and Onsal Hakir are better PvP mode, but it is just like flat earth theory, a myth.

---

I have yet to hear more people praise the new Shatter than the other modes; it arguably has the most criticism since its rework that I've seen across most active FFXIV discussion hubs. In my opinion, I would find the exact opposite to be true where it's a "myth" to think Shatter is in any way a better PvP mode than Onsal and Seize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

The fact is Shatter has been the most popular mode
Before they put in rotation restriction, Shatter is always you will get when you enter via roulette and Secure with 24 men

---

That was largely because the original Shatter was the newest mode, and people who already had Secure and Seize's achievement rewards wanted to farm the white ADS achievement mount. If it always popped, it was because it was the newest shiny toy and everyone was bored of the other 2 maps by then (and Slaughter was removed not too long later). It's been a long while but I also seem to recall that the map rotation was implemented because people complained that they couldn't reliably pop the map they wanted to play to earn their achievement wins.

Also, that was the original Shatter map; the one we have now is a shadow of it's former self and you can ask most people who were around for it and they would say they preferred the old map too, so talking about Shatter's popularity from years ago is a moot point. I enjoyed Seize, old Shatter and Onsal roughly equally (Seize being the least by a small margin because the map is still unbalanced and favors caves and shafts North), Secure was largely the unfavorite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

When they introducing Onsal Hakir, they force blocked all other modes and made everyone played this mode only for almost 6 months

---

This was because they wanted people to enjoy the new Frontlines mode and not have it where people would need to catch it only popping once every 4 days and have a chance to grind out the achievement mount without interruption of the rotation. I don't think it makes Onsal any less popular for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

I do realize you dislike Secure and Shatter but you assume too much that everyone shared same opinion

Current rotation is fine as it is

---

True. We can't assume everyone has that same opinion, but new Shatter has arguably had the most noticeable negative reception, and needed one or two sizeable adjustments right after it launched just to fix ice spawning behavior and point systems to make it tolerable. New Secure still needs a little bit more time to have everybody get used to it, but compared to new Shatter, the feedback appears to narrowly tilt towards "positive" compared to the largely negative opinion of Shatter. It also has the benefit of launching with the new role actions.

But yes, the current rotation is fine. I suspect it's done this way so people can plan out their days if they want to play or not and (probably more importantly to the devs) so that achievement rewards on each map have equal chances to be worked on at reasonable intervals.

Old Shatter was the one I could barely bring myself to queue on in the past. The middle section was just so bland and open and most of the time was spent shiffly-shuffling awkwardly making lukewarm pokes (not to say that this doesn't happen in the current day). For me the lack of good cover was what clinched it as the worst. It may not have been a big deal to many, but let's just say I'm rather often marked. I don't lead or anything btw. So yeah, lack of meaningful cover was the pits. Also the peripheral large crystals where it was super easy to pull out from? Wasn't a fan of that either.

On the other hand the small crystals at the edges were where I could have a bit more fun, or the bases itself. Nobody to fake-rely on, numbers of enemies wherein I can more easily track who is doing what, and yeah, I'd have some fun there. Going 1vs2+ is something I enjoy, that's where the new Shatter fails. I'd like small crystal spawns to be random and more frequent again. I'm a very niche case though, so doubt that would happen.

That's also why I happen to have always enjoyed Borderland Ruins. It's a soloer's haven in comparison. Though again I'm going to have to say, the revised ground level has less effective cover in some corners of the map than before... Anyway. Thus my map preference has almost always run in reverse to the majority.

As for the proposition at hand, I'm indifferent. Despite what I've said I'll queue all maps. I have more hatred directed at certain CC maps than FL maps. Tbh I think I'd be more for this suggestion than against, but for no particular reason... well, other than I prefer change vs static in a lot of cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

I have literally zero clue where this idea that people prefer shatter and secure. In my experience, shatter is almost universally despised and has always been. Secure has been so and so in its previous iteration.

---

I personally prefer old shatter but I don't see new shatter is any bad
As long as spawn timer being manipulated until small and those pve oriented can go hit ice when those can fight actually go for kill.
Also, since solo kill right now is possible with new role action, have a tank and a melee harass the spawn area would be very effective (cutting the enemy supply)
The mode isn't that bad as people thinks

Also, for Secure, if you understand the mode and how it works, you will have a great time
I played total of 25 games yesterday and walk with 58% first place.
Based on the fact a solo joined with random team mate as variable, I find Secure > Shatter > Onsal Hakir > Seize for first place rate
Both Onsal Hakir and Seize has series issue of once casuals seeing an objective spawn, they immediately abandon teammates in combat and ran for it right away
Difficult to control compares Secure/Shatter in which has clear timing for casuals of when to PvE and when to PvP

Harassing bases and spawns on NA and EU is the best way to get ganked by a blob. Provided it even works since one just has to mount up and run away taking advantage of the invulnerability timer anyway.

I've never hated secure in its older iteration, and I cannot judge of the new one because I haven't played it much yet (maybe next moogle event). I liked that you could split up but that lasted unfortunately until early shb with their pvp rework and mount speed upgrade, which shifted the meta radically toward blobs moving back and forth, which removed the only fun side the mode had for me, and the lack of rng objectives with goals being followed on a script to the millisecond felt really tedious, boring and always the same past a few games with little variations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

Harassing bases and spawns on NA and EU is the best way to get ganked by a blob. Provided it even works since one just has to mount up and run away taking advantage of the invulnerability timer anyway.

I've never hated secure in its older iteration, and I cannot judge of the new one because I haven't played it much yet (maybe next moogle event). I liked that you could split up but that lasted unfortunately until early shb with their pvp rework and mount speed upgrade, which shifted the meta radically toward blobs moving back and forth, which removed the only fun side the mode had for me, and the lack of rng objectives with goals being followed on a script to the millisecond felt really tedious, boring and always the same past a few games with little variations.

---

I think the new Secure might be interesting if each alliance had a competent commander (three per team) who knew what they were doing. This would also require some convention as to what each alliance does, as is the case in some alliance raids.

Since there isn't even an informal way of producing such a situation, and to-date I haven't been in a single match in which any kind of useful input was provided, I think it's doomed to be an unmitigated disaster.

The only organized play I've seen to date is through padding premades who prefer not to to tell their "team-mates" what they are doing. And why would they? They're not there to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mawlzy

might be interesting if each alliance had a competent commander (three per team) who knew what they were doing

---

I would like to see a system in place, that enables players to apply for being such a commander at the start of a match, like signing up for it, they will appear in a list that gets displayed in the warmup time - all other players can then vote their leader for their alliance.
This would give them privileges to use map tools like placing symbols like waymarks where to attack (a sword symbol) and to defend (a shield symbol) or placing arrows on where to go. You could also give them unique markings over their characters so everyone will recognize they are leading, or simply increase their size by 50% base model (might be useless for lalafell - similar to Dohn Mheg 2nd boss mechanic 'Growth' lol). These symbols would also appear on the map and minimap.

Could also give them a battle cry ability once a match, that gives players 30y around them full LB. This can be used super tactically if you think its a match deciding moment. Can be placed as another special ability like the role action we have now.

This would also prevent people from trolling leaders, by removing their markings that they places on themselves. Chat still doesn't show when a player removes a marking, it will only show that it was placed sadly. Which enables them to grief while not being able to be punished.

There shouldn't be any achievements tied to this, or any item rewards, it is purely cosmetically for 1 round of frontline or rival wings. Just for strategy.

If a leader trolls, he is sure to not be voted again, could also be an option to change one mid match I guess if his approval rating goes below a threshold.

If one enemy alliance doesn't have a player applying for a leader. None of the three alliances will get one. So there is no unfair advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commander_Justitia

I would like to see a system in place, that enables players to apply for being such a commander at the start of a match, like signing up for it, they will appear in a list that gets displayed in the warmup time - all other players can then vote their leader for their alliance.

---

I think this is an interesting idea that I believe has cropped up before here.

Much of the friction between commanders and the foot soldiers is that the current system requires the commander to appoint themselves. A formal voting system would remove that issue, and perhaps also communicate the idea that FL is a serious strategy mode.

It would also allow those who prefer matches without a single shot-caller to have input on whether or not they got one.

I would be surprised if the majority of players (once a day rouletters) even recognize people who play a lot of frontline, which makes me think such a system would randomly appoint people. Though to be fair, I don't think there would be many applications for leader to start with.

If people don't want a leader, they can either pass or vote for "no leader" I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commander_Justitia

If people don't want a leader, they can either pass or vote for "no leader" I guess.

---

Yup, exactly.

And as Perly notes, I doubt there'd be a lot of competition anyway. Most of the shot-callers from 18 months ago on Aether have gone into hiding (running silent alts with premades?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mawlzy

Much of the friction between commanders and the foot soldiers is that the current system requires the commander to appoint themselves. A formal voting system would remove that issue, and perhaps also communicate the idea that FL is a serious strategy mode.

It would also allow those who prefer matches without a single shot-caller to have input on whether or not they got one.

---

Unless you also disable or restrict chat, à la Crystaline Conflict, anyone and everyone will still be able to try their hand at calling shots and directing the troops. The ability to place markers might be helpful, but it's hardly a requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmiableApkallu

Unless you also disable or restrict chat, à la Crystaline Conflict, anyone and everyone will still be able to try their hand at calling shots and directing the troops. The ability to place markers might be helpful, but it's hardly a requirement.

---

On Aether at least, if someone takes command they have to be really horrible for anyone else to interject (outside of pinch warnings).

If the team decides on a commander via vote, I think they'd get an even smoother ride. Like anyone being disruptive in that scenario is arguably violating ToS.