Frontlines: How is this fair?

[Yukiko]

I call that smart strategy. It's hard to do that when you can't even communicate between two GCs. Seems unfair for the GC focused, but it's smart.

Um, yes, Teamspeak or such is not used, sure...

[lokinmodar]

Next time SE should put the red+black jacket in all GCs to avoid everyone going Maelstrom for it hahahahah

[lololink]

Next time SE should put the red+black jacket in all GCs to avoid everyone going Maelstrom for it hahahahah

nope.
/10chars

[Kaisha]

I don't get why the queue has no minimum threshold for taking people in. More than 10 missing by the time the commence timer is up? Cancel it and search again for more; not let potentially one group go in severely handicapped.

[SeraviEdalborez]

Um, yes, Teamspeak or such is not used, sure...

Coordinating 2 premades of separate GCs into the same queue for the purposes of sabotaging another GC is effectively pointless when you could instead make 2 premades of the same GC and stomp everyone.

Not that I would know anything about this.

[Titor]

This is not a rare situation. I have had it happen a LOT of times to me. What I WISH they would do is hold everyone in the starting zone until the entire match fills. As people hit accept, zone them in as now, but then do not open the gates until all teams are filled. That way everyone gets a fair start. If it does not fill after, say, 10 minutes, then kick everyone out and start over. Or something like that. Maybe they can add things to do while you wait, but I would rather wait an extra 5-10 minutes at the beginning of a match for a fair chance for the rest of the 20-30 minutes of playing, instead of getting roflstomped and unorganized as people fill up from one full alliance.

[Empyrean]

I just got into a full alliance match with a single party. One. Party. Needless to say we lost.
1) Matches should replenish members while inside the starting gate.
2) Matches should not be able to start until each alliance at least has the same number of parties.
2a) Or, an echo-like buff scaled to the number of missing people should be applied to the team(s) down members that decreases as more people entered in order to balance the discrepency.

[Gilraen]

The problem is another issue of the people 'wanting' something that doesn't make sense. People didn't like having to wait 'forever' for full alliances to form before starting a round of Frontlines. So Square listened to what people 'wanted' and set it so Frontlines starts with a reduced minimum of players. Remember that it's counting all players in this minimum, not players per side. So we get the situation in the opening post. Just like people 'wanted'.