Protesting Frontlines

[Nalien]

Morale stat was a bad idea from the start. Skill and skill alone is what should separate players in pvp. Not which player has the better gear. Morale gave players an advantage over one another. Now in Frontline, everybody will be equal. People who farmed 4v4 pvp won't dominate because of their high morale stat.

Morale doesn't provide an advantage over players, because it's not that powerful of a stat. Even if you only have skill separating players, new players to PvP are going to be grossly underskilled compared to existing ones, and get owned anyway. If they do some Wolves' Den to obtain Morale gear on the other hand, they'd enter Frontlines with some skill from their time in Wolves' Den. People who get utterly owned in Frontlines on day one will not be queuing again, I imagine.

Morale was a good idea to provide a separate sense of progression for PvP from PvE; you do PvP to obtain better PvP gear, just like you do PvE to obtain better PvE gear. That ensures there is a core community of PvPers working for the gear and fleshing out queues, as opposed to getting endless queue times when you want to queue for fun.

If SE hadn't dropped the ball on Wolves' Den, it would actually function properly. That's why they should delay Frontlines and rework Wolves' Den, rather than just trying to use Frontlines as a band-aid and letting it die in a few months once they hype wears off.

I really do not get where this notion that, without Morale, everyone will be equal, is coming from. No. People who obtained Morale gear did so by participating in PvP (sans win trading), they're going to be far more skilled for that fact alone. People who are only just stepping foot in PvP because Frontlines looks fun are going to get destroyed either way. At least if Morale was there, they could complain that Morale gives others an advantage, which we could reply with "So go obtain some Morale gear yourself", by doing which they'd get skilled. Instead we literally just have to say "Play better", which comes off as far more insulting, nor does it encourage players to use Wolves' Den.

With or without Morale, there is going to be a rift between existing PvPers and people trying out Frontlines. Morale provides an easy way to close the gap, even if it doesn't seem to at face value. If skill is the only deciding factor, then it's unfair because they have months worth of experience over you. If Morale is a factor, then it's unfair because they have Morale gear that you can go out and obtain as well, and learn how to PvP in the process.... With Morale there is very clearly something you can easily do to close the gap.

(not even trying to use real numbers, just illustration purposes)

Perhaps because, if you used real numbers, you'd realize Morale does not offer a significant bonus. Illustrating a point with pure hyperbole doesn't really help your point at all.

Saying "Go spend 3 months gearing up and come back" is a huge turn off for many people, and honestly not something anyone wants to hear.

Three months? Are you serious, it took me around a week to get i70 gear, and that is plenty of Morale for an event capped at i80. And that was with PvP rewards as they are, I'd actually suggest SE adjusts that to make the first set of gear faster to obtain.

The mere fact you say "If skill is the only deciding factor, then it's unfair" is near mind blowing to me.

Guess it's a good thing that's not what I'm saying then.

I'm saying you cannot discern someones skill from a distance, you can discern their gear. Gear is also an indication of their skill, if they have Morale gear, you'll be aware that they've put time into PvP and could be skilled.

If you see someone in Coil 2 gear in Frontlines, all you know is that they've cleared Coil and are skilled at PvE. You have no basis to judge them on PvP until they start hitting you in the face. If they have PvP gear on, because PvP gear does something, you know they've participated in PvP a fair amount.

If morale is not a significant difference, then its pointless to care about it being removed. Either it makes a difference and gives an advantage or it doesn't. Pick a side.

It isn't significant, but it's enough to provide PvP with a sense of progression. Without progression PvP wont last.

Also if I misunderstood your take on skill it was from this sentence -

If skill is the only deciding factor, then it's unfair because they have months worth of experience over you.

If I misread that I apologize.

That's different.

Do you think it's fair to pit new players against experienced players? Do you really think new players are going to be anything but frustrated by that vast gulf in skill?

And as far as not having exact numbers goes, it doesnt matter for the point I was making....which is that more damage from a pvp stat is more damage. Thats not something up for debate. If you do more damage than another player with the same skill based purely on a pvp stat...no reaction or decision made in game can alter that fact. IT IS PURELY HIGHER DAMAGE PERIOD. I think that isnt unclear even with numbers I clearly stated are just to illustrate the point. I could have used 5 damage vs 6 damage and its the same thing.

In that case, everyone in PvP should have their race normalized. Can't go having people with a minor advantage of slightly more/less VIT now, can we? Keeper of the Moon verses Seawolves would just be unfair, that's a 90HP difference right there.

Your "illustration" also only works in a 1v1 scenario, which is fairly ridiculous itself. Yes, in a 1v1 scenario, Morale will make a difference. I guess it's a good thing you're always part of a team in PvP then?

Im trying hard to put this in a way that cant be misunderstood, but anytime your new to something, I would hope you go into with a healthy realization your skills might not be as good as someone else. Some people catch on to something fast, some slow....but yes its fair to put new players in a 72 man pvp match with people who have more experience. The odds of one team being all newbies vs a team of all vets is probably not good. Its easiest to learn large scale pvp as a new player by PLAYING with the more experienced people on your team after all. Its not a 4 vs 4 match where each person has a huge part in the success or failure, its large scale 24 v 24 v 24 where its less focused on each person.

I guess that's why <insert Sports League here> pits the under 5s against the world champions so regularly.

Yes, there are always people better than you (unless your Morgan Freeman), but that doesn't mean your first attempt at a piece of content should be against those people. Putting all the new PvPers up against all the experienced PvPers is absolutely stupid, and will only server to piss off the new players and discourage them from trying again. This is why making Frontlines, a 72 man event, the entry level PvP content is absolutely insane.

It's utterly absurd. In a baking competition, you do not enter your son, because everyone in the competition has practiced for it, and your son still picks his nose. You do not enter someone in the F1 who's just passed their driving test. I could go on, but the point should be clear now; putting absolute newbs in with veterans is a huge mistake and it certainly has no possible equivalent in the real world. You simply do not make competitions so one sided.

Frontlines is going to be good entry pvp for the simple fact with 72 people you have less personal responsibility and more group responsibility. 4v4 pvp is a totally different ballgame compared to mass pvp. One mistake in arena can lose the match, one newbie screwing up with 23 others? not as big a deal.

By that logic, Crystal Tower would be a drama free environment.

Since clearly your to the point your just wanting to argue I am done then. At this point I am not sure what you even want, them to keep morale in game and have tier frontlines for each skill bracket? If you honestly think this game has the population to support 72 man pvp matches for newbies, intermediates and max geared I hate to break it to you but they may as well remove all pvp cause it wont work.

Really? It wasn't clear that I want Wolves' Den to actually remain an event, rather than being completely obsolete and forgotten, by making it viable for training and obtaining gear before doing Frontlines? That I don't want beginners entering Frontlines, getting destroyed over and over for 30 minutes, and then never queuing again? That I want PvP to have a functioning community based around progression, rather than being "just for fun", because XIVs PvP is no where near popular enough to sustain that beyond the initial hype?

Its a lot harder to do that when if you mess up against real people, your team mates can try to pick up the slack because its not an instant wipe from a boss mob.

So... In PvP if a player messes up, you can pick up the slack... Yet if your enemy has a slight advantage from Morale, you're doomed? If someone tunnel visions and keeps waking an enemy you're trying to sleep, you can recover from that, but you cannot recover from a minor stats difference?

Honestly, and I am being serious as someone who has played MMO's since Everquest 1 and done pvp in every one that has it....I have NEVER played a game where the arena pvp was considered the "training" pvp and the large scale pvp was skilled. Arena or 4v4 is usually the "ranked" or skilled pvp.....with tournaments and competitions and seasons/ladders and assorted benefits and bragging rights. Large scale pvp has always been about fun and enjoyment from my experience, but if you can tell me some games that have arena 4v4 as training and large scale as competitions I will gladly look into it.

What I'm suggesting is closer to;

Wolves' Den (low bracket).
Frontlines (mid bracket).
Wolves' Den (high bracket).

Rather than doing Wolves' Den for training, then Frontlines for competitive play. You start with Wolves' Den to get a feel for PvP and obtain i70, you do Frontlines for fun, but Morale and Wolves' Den remain there to create a stable community keeping the numbers up in both queues, and then if you want, you do the high bracket for competitive play.

Honestly, that would never ever work. Wolves den will play totally different from large scale pvp. I am not being argumentative here, just stating a fact. Anyone who has done 4v4 and large scale pvp will tell you the same if they are honest. Everything is different, from strategies you use to how the fights are even won 4v4 is killing everyone ASAP, large scale is taking objectives. Its apples and oranges to compare the 2 to each other in anything but the simple fact they are both player vs player. Wolves den and Frontlines are totally separate beasts and they will attract somewhat different crowds. SE needs to see about adding tournaments and seasons to 4v4 to give incentive to play it.

There is still overlap though. You cannot take objectives if your team is being destroyed because your healers don't know how to kite DPS. You cannot take objectives if your team is failing because they don't know how to use/react to PvP skills. Yes, they're different, but that doesn't mean players wouldn't benefit from 4v4. It is a lot easier to realize what is going on in a 4v4 environment than it is in a 24v24v24 one.

It's not like I'm suggesting you get stuck in Wolves' Den forever, either. Make the initial grind much quicker, so people get into i70 earlier. That would mean anyone who wants to progress in PvP can, since Wolves' Den would still be an active piece of content for leveling/gear purposes. i70 is more than adequate for i80 capped Frontlines, while still leaving room for i90 as an improvement to entice players into a higher, non-competitive bracket.

With Frontlines just for fun, Wolves' Den remains as it is, if not worse. With Frontlines as part of the progression and for fun, Wolves' Den gets a breath of new life.

"Real" PvP should be the competitive element, and that is something that's missing, but if you have Frontlines for fun, and Wolves' Den as the "real" PvP, then that just means your "real" PvP is grinding up the ranks, rather than proper competitive play. One of the main things I had been suggesting is making the grind more manageable. I agree, if left as it is, the difference between Morale would be somewhat unfair, simply because of how much of a grind it is to obtain, that's why they should change the grind though. Morale should only be a small advantage that is enough to entice people into the (much more tolerable) Wolves' Den grind.

Also, if you gate frontlines behind doing 4v4, you will lose a LARGE amount of the population you would otherwise have. I know for myself and people I know, we all hate 4v4 these days (just too old to deal with the crap) but love mass scale pvp. If I had to go through wolves den to do frontlines? I wouldnt bother and I know we are not alone in that. Arena pvp is a huge turn off for a lot of people period.

Oh, I'm not suggesting out right locking Frontlines behind Wolves' Den. I'm suggesting keeping Morale so that people can be enticed into doing Wolves' Den, rather than it becoming a forgotten piece of content. The bonus it provides is manageable, but it should be enough to entice people into Wolves' Den. When it comes to gear people will do anything for stats (See: Novus).

You should be able to jump into Frontlines with PvE gear and enjoy it. Morale does not prevent that, all Morale does is provide a reason to also use Wolves' Den to obtain such gear. Absolute worst case when it comes to PvE verses PvP gear in Frontlines, I think they should just add a buff that gives you Morale, but have its bonus capped at, lets say, i65. That provides PvE players with less Morale than PvP players, but it significantly closes the gap on what Morale does for PvP verses PvE.

And the problem with that becomes, if both are PvP and both use morale then both should give the means to buy the gear, and then no one would do wolves den because Frontlines would be an easier source of gear. And at this point, Frontlines very well might give marks to buy the gear even if morale isnt valid in it, just because we have no other real pvp system but ranks and marks.

They've already told us Frontlines rewards are the same as Wolves' Den, but with Tomestones as well. That means you can progress with Frontlines, it will just be at a much slower pace, since the matches last 30 minutes. The idea behind doing Wolves' Den is that, ironically, it would be faster. Frontlines certainly wont be the easier source of gear if it has the same rewards on what will be a much longer match. Main thing they need to do is fix the progression so it isn't ridiculously steep.

There needs to be changes to wolves den for the people who enjoy it I know, but it needs to be something to get people to play it FOR it alone, not using it as a carrot for other things. Having the gear be glamour-able got us in the mess of win trading after all. If it was strictly used in PVP and PVP only you wouldnt have had people going after it so hard.

I can see where you're coming from with that, but with what I'm suggesting, you'd be using Morale as the carrot, which is strictly PvP only.

It would just be a simple case of being able to enjoy Frontlines regardless of Morale (with various adjustments I mentioned earlier), and Morale being there to entice people to keep coming back to PvP. Since Frontlines would be a slower means of obtaining EXP/Marks, Wolves' Den retains purpose through being the "fast" way to advance. If people farmed Atma to paint their weapon, I'm willing to bet they'd do Wolves' Den for some minor Morale as well, though that isn't to say you have to do Wolves' Den; you could just enjoy Frontlines if you want.

The main thing which causes win trading, in my opinion, wasn't the vanity gear itself, but rather how much of a drag R40 is. I'm sure someone has the number of wins required to reach R40, but I found it too ridiculous to make note of. SE seems to have only made it this way to disguise the lack of PvP content, and by that I of course me tournaments/leaderboards/etc.

[Tandy]

-snip- I really do not get where this notion that, without Morale, everyone will be equal, is coming from. No. People who obtained Morale gear did so by participating in PvP (sans win trading), they're going to be far more skilled for that fact alone. People who are only just stepping foot in PvP because Frontlines looks fun are going to get destroyed either way. At least if Morale was there, they could complain that Morale gives others an advantage, which we could reply with "So go obtain some Morale gear yourself", by doing which they'd get skilled. Instead we literally just have to say "Play better", which comes off as far more insulting, nor does it encourage players to use Wolves' Den.

With or without Morale, there is going to be a rift between existing PvPers and people trying out Frontlines. Morale provides an easy way to close the gap, even if it doesn't seem to at face value. If skill is the only deciding factor, then it's unfair because they have months worth of experience over you. If Morale is a factor, then it's unfair because they have Morale gear that you can go out and obtain as well, and learn how to PvP in the process.... With Morale there is very clearly something you can easily do to close the gap.

Where to even begin...

If you cant see the difference between morale (in game boost) vs personal skill (how you play/manage decisions) I can try to illustrate it.

If we have 2 bards for instance, 1 in pvp gear and one not, and they each shoot at each other using the same skill, ungeared player does 500 dmg vs morale geared doing 1000 dmg (not even trying to use real numbers, just illustration purposes) it does not matter what the lesser geared player does....they are taking more damage period. No decisions/actions they take will mitigate that fact. Saying "Go spend 3 months gearing up and come back" is a huge turn off for many people, and honestly not something anyone wants to hear.

If we have 2 equal geared bards, each doing 500 damage....then we get into where personal skill matters. Your personal actions and responses are what determines the outcome. If you lose, it literally is "Play More, Learn from your Mistakes". Next match you WILL do better. Its generally quantifiable advancement, the more you play the better you end up getting. Its not grinding gear to be superior.

The mere fact you say "If skill is the only deciding factor, then it's unfair" is near mind blowing to me. What in life isnt about having skills? From work to play to leisure activities, skill plays a part in every aspect of your life. Someone is going to cook better than you, drive better than you, paint better than you etc and you will in turn be better at things than someone else. If you think playing a video game is unfair if its about skill, then what would you use to judge it???

*Edit for new response -

If morale is not a significant difference, then its pointless to care about it being removed. Either it makes a difference and gives an advantage or it doesn't. Pick a side.

Also if I misunderstood your take on skill it was from this sentence -

If skill is the only deciding factor, then it's unfair because they have months worth of experience over you.

If I misread that I apologize.

And as far as not having exact numbers goes, it doesnt matter for the point I was making....which is that more damage from a pvp stat is more damage. Thats not something up for debate. If you do more damage than another player with the same skill based purely on a pvp stat...no reaction or decision made in game can alter that fact. IT IS PURELY HIGHER DAMAGE PERIOD. I think that isnt unclear even with numbers I clearly stated are just to illustrate the point. I could have used 5 damage vs 6 damage and its the same thing.

Do you think it's fair to pit new players against experienced players? Do you really think new players are going to be anything but frustrated by that vast gulf in skill?

Im trying hard to put this in a way that cant be misunderstood, but anytime your new to something, I would hope you go into with a healthy realization your skills might not be as good as someone else. Some people catch on to something fast, some slow....but yes its fair to put new players in a 72 man pvp match with people who have more experience. The odds of one team being all newbies vs a team of all vets is probably not good. Its easiest to learn large scale pvp as a new player by PLAYING with the more experienced people on your team after all. Its not a 4 vs 4 match where each person has a huge part in the success or failure, its large scale 24 v 24 v 24 where its less focused on each person.

I guess that's why <insert Sports League here> pits the under 5s against the world champions so regularly.

Since clearly your to the point your just wanting to argue I am done then. At this point I am not sure what you even want, them to keep morale in game and have tier frontlines for each skill bracket? If you honestly think this game has the population to support 72 man pvp matches for newbies, intermediates and max geared I hate to break it to you but they may as well remove all pvp cause it wont work.

Real life sports and game pvp might have similarities, but team sports would go with arena team pvp which you dont send in the B team to fight the best.....not large scale pvp....which is more like a war....in which we obviously send in the lesser skilled privates to fight right along with the officers.

Frontlines is going to be good entry pvp for the simple fact with 72 people you have less personal responsibility and more group responsibility. 4v4 pvp is a totally different ballgame compared to mass pvp. One mistake in arena can lose the match, one newbie screwing up with 23 others? not as big a deal.

By that logic, Crystal Tower would be a drama free environment.

Players doing something in PVE scripted events does not equal a player vs player environment where nothing is scripted and its all human responses. You mess up a script you mess it up period. One reason why people do it so often in crystal tower is to piss others off. Its a lot harder to do that when if you mess up against real people, your team mates can try to pick up the slack because its not an instant wipe from a boss mob.

Really? It wasn't clear that I want Wolves' Den to actually remain an event, rather than being completely obsolete and forgotten, by making it viable for training and obtaining gear before doing Frontlines? That I don't want beginners entering Frontlines, getting destroyed over and over for 30 minutes, and then never queuing again? That I want PvP to have a functioning community based around progression, rather than being "just for fun", because XIVs PvP is no where near popular enough to sustain that beyond the initial hype?

Honestly, and I am being serious as someone who has played MMO's since Everquest 1 and done pvp in every one that has it....I have NEVER played a game where the arena pvp was considered the "training" pvp and the large scale pvp was skilled. Arena or 4v4 is usually the "ranked" or skilled pvp.....with tournaments and competitions and seasons/ladders and assorted benefits and bragging rights. Large scale pvp has always been about fun and enjoyment from my experience, but if you can tell me some games that have arena 4v4 as training and large scale as competitions I will gladly look into it.

What I'm suggesting is closer to;

Wolves' Den (low bracket).
Frontlines (mid bracket).
Wolves' Den (high bracket).

Rather than doing Wolves' Den for training, then Frontlines for competitive play. You start with Wolves' Den to get a feel for PvP and obtain i70, you do Frontlines for fun, but Morale and Wolves' Den remain there to create a stable community keeping the numbers up in both queues, and then if you want, you do the high bracket for competitive play.

Honestly, that would never ever work. Wolves den will play totally different from large scale pvp. I am not being argumentative here, just stating a fact. Anyone who has done 4v4 and large scale pvp will tell you the same if they are honest. Everything is different, from strategies you use to how the fights are even won 4v4 is killing everyone ASAP, large scale is taking objectives. Its apples and oranges to compare the 2 to each other in anything but the simple fact they are both player vs player. Wolves den and Frontlines are totally separate beasts and they will attract somewhat different crowds. SE needs to see about adding tournaments and seasons to 4v4 to give incentive to play it.

Also, if you gate frontlines behind doing 4v4, you will lose a LARGE amount of the population you would otherwise have. I know for myself and people I know, we all hate 4v4 these days (just too old to deal with the crap) but love mass scale pvp. If I had to go through wolves den to do frontlines? I wouldnt bother and I know we are not alone in that. Arena pvp is a huge turn off for a lot of people period.

Oh, I'm not suggesting out right locking Frontlines behind Wolves' Den. I'm suggesting keeping Morale so that people can be enticed into doing Wolves' Den, rather than it becoming a forgotten piece of content. The bonus it provides is manageable, but it should be enough to entice people into Wolves' Den. When it comes to gear people will do anything for stats (See: Novus).

You should be able to jump into Frontlines with PvE gear and enjoy it. Morale does not prevent that, all Morale does is provide a reason to also use Wolves' Den to obtain such gear.

And the problem with that becomes, if both are PvP and both use morale then both should give the means to buy the gear, and then no one would do wolves den because Frontlines would be an easier source of gear. And at this point, Frontlines very well might give marks to buy the gear even if morale isnt valid in it, just because we have no other real pvp system but ranks and marks.

There needs to be changes to wolves den for the people who enjoy it I know, but it needs to be something to get people to play it FOR it alone, not using it as a carrot for other things. Having the gear be glamour-able got us in the mess of win trading after all. If it was strictly used in PVP and PVP only you wouldnt have had people going after it so hard.