Protesting Frontlines

[Pibz]

A french mod say on forum we need to have the same company to play together

Ridiculous

Oh god, please no..

Wtf were they thinking. It brings nothing to the table and just screws up party play and possibly creates imbalance among the gcs(specially in queue times) and just overall unnecessary mess . Just... why?!

[Geracia2]

Oh god, please no..

Wtf were they thinking. It brings nothing to the table and just screws up party play and possibly creates imbalance among the gcs(specially in queue times) and just overall unnecessary mess . Just... why?!

to add variety.
you might have forgotten that they have access to more information than you. statistics on GC preferences, activity with seal accumulation and what not. If they have the data on the average stats and completion rate of those attempting coil1/2, prettry sure they have a more informed perspective on how to introduce something like Frontlines.
XI had a similar thing with their PvP. City-states determined your team and each team played for control of a zone.

TL;DR - dev understand of the game > your understanding

[Menriq]

to add variety.
you might have forgotten that they have access to more information than you. statistics on GC preferences, activity with seal accumulation and what not. If they have the data on the average stats and completion rate of those attempting coil1/2, prettry sure they have a more informed perspective on how to introduce something like Frontlines.
XI had a similar thing with their PvP. City-states determined your team and each team played for control of a zone.

TL;DR - dev understand of the game > your understanding

To be fair, this is the same team that said less than 100 people would beat T5 before it was nerfed, and we see how that turned out. They also got wrong how many subscriptions would be around at the beginning (not that this is a bad thing). I could understand there being skepticism on their understanding.

[SeraphimXI]

Sorry for quoting back a day but I couldn't let this slide.

To be fair, this is the same team that said less than 100 people would beat T5 before it was nerfed, and we see how that turned out. They also got wrong how many subscriptions would be around at the beginning (not that this is a bad thing). I could understand there being skepticism on their understanding.

Lets not re-write game history so quickly. They were correct. 8 People beat T5 before it was nerfed. T5 wasn't cleared for a long time and people were insisting some of the mechanics were simply broken. The devs left the content at the very hard setting untill BluGarter cleared it the first time. After they cleared it a patch was released along-side a post from YoshiP where they made it easier. http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/113486 It's only been 8 months, lets not start making silly strawman arguments.

[Menriq]

Sorry for quoting back a day but I couldn't let this slide.

Lets not re-write game history so quickly. They were correct. 8 People beat T5 before it was nerfed. T5 wasn't cleared for a long time and people were insisting some of the mechanics were simply broken. The devs left the content at the very hard setting untill BluGarter cleared it the first time. After they cleared it a patch was released along-side a post from YoshiP where they made it easier. http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/113486 It's only been 8 months, lets not start making silly strawman arguments.

I'm not making strawman arguments. Yes, people were working on T5 for a while. They fixed bugs, which I don't consider nerf. You could certainly argue the twisters were a nerf, and I would probably concede that. However, once you know something can be killed legitimately, then it just becomes a matter of execution. We'll never know if more people would have cleared it before that patch because the time between BG's kill and the patch happened relatively quickly. I would be more than happy to discuss this further, but this isn't the forum for that since we've gotten off topic from this thread.

[Pibz]

to add variety.
you might have forgotten that they have access to more information than you. statistics on GC preferences, activity with seal accumulation and what not. If they have the data on the average stats and completion rate of those attempting coil1/2, prettry sure they have a more informed perspective on how to introduce something like Frontlines.
XI had a similar thing with their PvP. City-states determined your team and each team played for control of a zone.

TL;DR - dev understand of the game > your understanding

What does this have to do with perspective?!
And variety? It's the exact opposite, it'll restrict people into not being able to play with whoever they want, and it may cause who knows how many unnecessary hurdles to the system, and for what?!
There's 0 to be gained from it vs unrestricted team building, it's just *possible* losses all over for everyone. It has nothing to do with population distribution, although that could play a factor in worsening certain factions queues, again for no reason.
You should never gimp a PvP system unnecessarily because it's more immersive for roleplayers or whatever.
Also, do you really see the devs as some kind of infallible gods? oO

[Rose-Wild]

to add variety.
you might have forgotten that they have access to more information than you. statistics on GC preferences, activity with seal accumulation and what not. If they have the data on the average stats and completion rate of those attempting coil1/2, prettry sure they have a more informed perspective on how to introduce something like Frontlines.
XI had a similar thing with their PvP. City-states determined your team and each team played for control of a zone.

TL;DR - dev understand of the game > your understanding

Rofl more variety = always face the same people??? And lol at devs knowing their games. If the devs played the game and pvp they wouldn't come up with all this absurd ideas.