Frontlines sucks Ultra megathread

[OliviaLugria]

Yes, I agree that there is little incentive for player to improve. There is some, but not enough to entice most players.

I do not see why you are choosing to backtrack now. "Players having little reason to improve" is a reason why "players are not improving fast enough"

If you want to continue that line we can, but we have done all we can as players by posting those concerns and discussing possible solutions.
-
I will continue my line. I will be more direct. Is it wrong for me to offer advice about frontlines?

[Mistress_Irika]

Not sure why I didn't think of this until now. I know that very few people has brought that up. I just don't know when. (I sure feel really dumb now. facepalms)

Instead of reducing rewards why don't some of the rewards be tied to in game performance? No, I'm not talking about win/kill amounts being tied to mounts and titles. I'm talking about experience points being tied to the performance themselves. The additional experience points would be thrown on top of participation and team placement. If you've earned slightly more experience points for killing, healing/shielding, and battle high shut downs, and personal objectives acquired to name a few maybe some will naturally improve by pushing for certain extras. I can't say how much this would help though.

[Mawlzy]

Yes, I agree that there is little incentive for player to improve. There is some, but not enough to entice most players.

I do not see why you are choosing to backtrack now. "Players having little reason to improve" is a reason why "players are not improving fast enough"

If you want to continue that line we can, but we have done all we can as players by posting those concerns and discussing possible solutions.
-
I will continue my line. I will be more direct. Is it wrong for me to offer advice about frontlines?

Focus on what we agree on? We'd like the average skill level to increase. We'll get nowhere if we focus on the speed of improvement, since I think premades are partially responsible for the fact it is stuck in neutral.

In that spirit, no, it isn't wrong that you offer advice about FL. I've stated I wish more people would read your analysis of the strategic considerations raised by the three maps in your guide.

[Mawlzy]

Not sure why I didn't think of this until now. I know that very few people has brought that up. I just don't know when. (I sure feel really dumb now. facepalms)

Instead of reducing rewards why don't some of the rewards be tied to in game performance? No, I'm not talking about win/kill amounts being tied to mounts and titles. I'm talking about experience points being tied to the performance themselves. The additional experience points would be thrown on top of participation and team placement. If you've earned slightly more experience points for killing, healing/shielding, and battle high shut downs, and personal objectives acquired to name a few maybe some will naturally improve by pushing for certain extras. I can't say how much this would help though.

It's been raised in this thread, but unfortunately Olivia and I have likely obscured it.

[OliviaLugria]

Not sure why I didn't think of this until now. I know that very few people has brought that up. I just don't know when. (I sure feel really dumb now. facepalms)

Instead of reducing rewards why don't some of the rewards be tied to in game performance? No, I'm not talking about win/kill amounts being tied to mounts and titles. I'm talking about experience points being tied to the performance themselves. The additional experience points would be thrown on top of participation and team placement. If you've earned slightly more experience points for killing, healing/shielding, and battle high shut downs, and personal objectives acquired to name a few maybe some will naturally improve by pushing for certain extras. I can't say how much this would help though.

Yes, it has been suggested. It might even be more reasonable to say it could happen if they're trying to make the game "more stressful" or whatever. But unless you know a pvp dev we've reached the logical end of that discussion ;-;

[OliviaLugria]

Focus on what we agree on? We'd like the average skill level to increase. We'll get nowhere if we focus on the speed of improvement, since I think premades are partially responsible for the fact it is stuck in neutral.

I do not understand why we are having to go back to this.

-Premades are a problem*
-They are a problem because the average skill level is to low.
-if the average skill level increased, premades would be less* of a problem.
-the faster the average skill level rises, the faster premades are less of a problem.

Did you not agree with these points?

[Mawlzy]

I do not understand why we are having to go back to this.

-Premades are a problem*
-They are a problem because the average skill level is to low.
-if the average skill level increased, premades would be less* of a problem.
-the faster the average skill level rises, the faster premades are less of a problem.

Did you not agree with these points?

Yes. The problem is your reference to an average player. This may seem like a pedantic point, but to me it's critical. Like the average number of children in a family, in which it is physically impossible to have a non-integer number of children, the "average player" in FL is meaningless because the skill/playstyle distribution is trimodal:

1. Players who don't give a tinker's cuss and will likely never improve.
2. Players who play because they enjoy PvP, and tend to naturally improve, either passively by playing or actively by analyzing the mode and talking to others.
3. Premade members (formed to farm wins, not simply friends playing together). A small minority, almost completely dislocated from the rest of the community.

My position is that, to improve the average skill level, you increase the ratio of players in group 2 relative to group 1 (for example, by reducing rewards so less group 1 players queue), and by eliminating group 3 entirely. I think I've explained the reasons for that more than adequately by now.

[Scintilla]

Not sure why I didn't think of this until now. I know that very few people has brought that up. I just don't know when. (I sure feel really dumb now. facepalms)

Instead of reducing rewards why don't some of the rewards be tied to in game performance? No, I'm not talking about win/kill amounts being tied to mounts and titles. I'm talking about experience points being tied to the performance themselves. The additional experience points would be thrown on top of participation and team placement. If you've earned slightly more experience points for killing, healing/shielding, and battle high shut downs, and personal objectives acquired to name a few maybe some will naturally improve by pushing for certain extras. I can't say how much this would help though.

As the others have said, yes the idea has been proposed before. Initially, it doesn't seem like a bad idea at all and would encourage players to push for improvements. But it isn't at all straightforward and there are various issues with such a suggestion:

1. To give better rewards for wins/kills etc., it would just encourage more players to take the easy, high-profit, minimal effort premade option, which would push more regular and new players away from FLs

2. To reward by damage/kills would give some classes an advantage over others. For example, SCH is huge damage numbers for very little effort.

3. How are other contributions going to be judged? For example, a MNK using their LB and knockbacks to try to stop a particularly troublesome enemy DRK. They would be contributing to the team immensely, but that might not be reflected in the statistics at the end of the game.
Whether it is possible somehow to measure such contributions, we have no real way of knowing.

[OliviaLugria]

Yes. The problem is your reference to an average player. This may seem like a pedantic point, but to me it's critical. Like the average number of children in a family, in which it is physically impossible to have a non-integer number of children, the "average player" in FL is meaningless because the skill/playstyle distribution is trimodal:

1. Players who don't give a tinker's cuss and will likely never improve.
2. Players who play because they enjoy PvP, and tend to naturally improve, either passively by playing or actively by analyzing the mode and talking to others.
3. Premade members (formed to farm wins, not simply friends playing together). A small minority, almost completely dislocated from the rest of the community.

My position is that, to improve the average skill level, you increase the ratio of players in group 2 relative to group 1 (for example, by reducing rewards so less group 1 players queue), and by eliminating group 3 entirely. I think I've explained the reasons for that more than adequately by now.

You can't even accept that my concern is valid, and I think your solution is inactionable and wouldn't even work, so probably just give up here.

You say my actions are short sighted, that remains to be seen. I've seen more commanders, more communication, and more grouping up in the past few months then my entire 6 years of XIV. I think these things improves the mode, so as long as I'm able to, even if it's not very much, I'm gonna push FL in that direction.

[Mawlzy]

You can't even accept that my concern is valid, and I think your solution is inactionable and wouldn't even work, so probably just give up here.

You say my actions are short sighted, that remains to be seen. I've seen more commanders, more communication, and more grouping up in the past few months then my entire 6 years of XIV. I think these things improves the mode, so as long as I'm able to, even if it's not very much, I'm gonna push FL in that direction.

Agreed, it's clear we have irreconcilable differences on the topic. I remain convinced your actions are damaging the mode. I guess it'd be kinda funny if we're both wrong and the overall quality of play remains pretty much the same. It's possible there's enough inertia in the player base that it is the most probable outcome.