Disruptive Frontline Gameplay

[OliviaLugria]

Translation of what you said: "LIES YOU CAN'T BE HELPING I REFUSE TO BELIEVE A SCHOLAR IS DOING ANYTHING MEANINGFUL BECAUSE IT BREAKS MY CAREFULLY MADE GOOGLE DOC AND WORLD VIEW"

My google doc and "world view?" don't know what that has to do with anything... but the guide consistently gets me an 70%+ winrate, and people who read it say similarly. I don't exactly see what I've been a hypocrite about...

https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...e/frontline/4/

Here's the link to shatter on the website. If you scroll down to the bottom, you'll notice that dragoon takes 50% less damage. This is also true for Seal Rock and Onsal. If they enter life of the dragon they gain this effect taken from the offical pvp guide "Increases damage dealt and damage suffered by 25%" So, you take 50% and subtract 25% from life and get 25% mitigation. Now, looking back at the play guide, you'll see that all the jobs I mentioned in my previous post already have -25% damage taken. It is easier to spread off these jobs consistently since they are always taking -25% unlike dragoon which can greatly fluctuate thanks to life of the dragon and horrid roar.

If you can't understand from looking at the above, then you're just willfully ignorant. When you first suggested this interaction I was intrigued and investigated it. I asked people in the discords, got people to test in game, and ran some math. You seem content to spout nonsense despite people with actual evidence saying things to the contrary.

https://youtube.com/shorts/DWJM_6uD-OE?feature=share
Link to the video that goes in depth and shows how scholar dot works. If you look at the numbers spreading off a range job does more damage on the spread than if spreading off a dragoon in life of the dragon.

[Chasingstars]

If you can't understand from looking at the above, then you're just willfully ignorant. You seem content to spout nonsense despite people with actual evidence saying things to the contrary.

Have you looked in a mirror recently? Because frankly such a description suits you. After all your the one who barges in and goes on just as long of a tirade about me pointing out the qualities of scholar.

Meanwhile you give me the lamest whataboutisms that are absolutes like:
"what if all 24 players are barreling down at you at once" Even though that is a situation no job can even handle, even dark knight will die unless they can run back into their own deathball to potion up.

or

"but your debuffs/buffs don't apply to the other sixteen of your party" while also ignoring that all the buffs your trying to do for a zergrush deathball precisely apply to your own argument as well.

It makes this whole conversation feel like I am talking to a brick wall who only knows how to argue in absolutes. Where there is no possible way you would ever get a team with players who wander off on their own, or divert from the plan, where no mistakes are made on your part.

After all if you truly believed what you claimed, that you don't need dark knight's root to do your piledriver moment, nothing is preventing you from using warrior or paladin or gunbreaker for your zerg deathball.

But as we all know that isn't true about Dark Knight. That it is in fact necessary for your strategy. If it weren't, you wouldn't be looking to the JP playerbase for your stratagems who invented this playstyle in the first place. Who were using dark knights for precisely the purpose of pull+root.

[OliviaLugria]

You're talking to the brick wall? You started saying a bunch of numbers that made no sense about dotting dragoons. I proved you wrong and it mysteriously vanished from your argument without any acknowledgement.

24 people barreling on you is what a burst is. Do you not understand that? My advice was to scatter "which I said scholar could help do, and I said they may be able to help tankier jobs survive. Later in our argument I listed several jobs that could stop entire burst from happening in the first place.

My argument about astro was that its lb affected only the party like scholar, but to a much greater extent, and that it also affected enemies, also to a much greater extent than scholar. You know I'll throw in that it does far more healing and does far more relevant damage than scholar as well. I don't even care about holding this position because what I took issue with is that scholar doesn't help stop an enemy burst from happening. As you say, no job can survive it, so it's a far superior option to stop attacks from happening in the first place. I listed several jobs later in the argument that could do so.

I said the bind dark had was nice, but it's biggest asset is the vaccum effect. Once you're sucked in it doesn't matter if you get bound or not because you're going to be charmed, feared, or sucked by another dark shortly after. Seraph doesn't prevent any of these things from happening.

I don't see how conceding points, making concessions, and giving superior options is arguing in absolutes... This tirade you speak of was 2 paragraphs. The first being that scholar fully mitting might save the tankier jobs and that better advice would be to spread out and not get hit by the attack. The second was saying that your assumption about hitting dragoons was incorrect. You were the one who decided to write several paragraphs first. Is it annoying that I replied to it or something?

[Chasingstars]

-snip-

Cool story.

[OliviaLugria]

Cool story.

Is this suppose to be evidence or something? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with it. It looks like you tagged 42 people and got 2 lucky kills from ticks. For less damage, a summoner scored 19 more kills than you with the same assist. I did less damage and got more kills and assist than you... We both also got significantly more ice damage than you did...

The 2nd game shows that a scholar can deal 3 times the damage I do, yet barely reached BH2. This is what I mean when I say most of scholar damage isn't really doing anything. It's often refereed to as padding... The damage reduction and the mitigation didn't seem to hamper our ability to fight either.

The final game shows the performance of several jobs that are built around burst. It should be obvious that the damage they deal is far more impactful than what a scholar does. Everyone has significantly more kills than you and double the assist.

[Kathleen_]

Cool story.

About the damage you'd expect from someone spreading the dot off melees.

[Chasingstars]

Is this suppose to be evidence or something? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with it.

Of dotting and running, healing and shielding.

Also updated signature.

About the damage you'd expect from someone spreading the dot off melees.

You wish that were the case. I do dot plenty. of ranged and healers and casters.

[Mawlzy]

My google doc and "world view?" don't know what that has to do with anything... but the guide consistently gets me an 70%+ winrate, and people who read it say similarly. I don't exactly see what I've been a hypocrite about...

And therein lies the problem (returning this thread to its title).

I was frankly amazed when SE decided to introduce a PvP mode in which the expected loss rate for a match was 66.7%. It's counter to much of their casual-friendly approach that tries to remove "failure" whenever possible.

Any strat that generates a 70%+ win-rate is taking that win% from somewhere/someone else. Coupled with the tedium of playing on the same team as a premade following Olivia's advice, this approach is the greatest toxin currently running through the veins of FL. Add the Q-synchers on top of it and I really question what the end goal of the "PvP community" is, beyond satisfying their self-serving arrogance and practicing complete contempt for the wider player base.

[Mistress_Irika]

I'm just going to say my last piece and watch from afar. This will end with me purposely making a horrible suggestion.

I've reached my final verdict last expansion. My thoughts have not changed this expansion, and I'm pretty certain that it's not going to change this coming expansion. Things need changing for certain. However, for the most part it's not a balancing issue that has persisted. It's a community issue. Majority hyper focus objectives, and when contesting or collecting them isn't possible for majority of the game one of the losing team decides to help the winning team reach their goals. It doesn't matter how you change the rules. It will still persist. The only ones that will not be affected are those that are just there for the experience points. If you change frontlines to have 2 teams the only thing the losing team would do is either afk, leave mid match, or "run it mid." You can take away premades entirely, and a lot of people will get that high for a short time before finding something else to complain about, the defeatist attitude still being present in some games. I think premades are showing everyone the state of frontlines and how certain things are broken. However, if you want to see how many people care about playing frontlines or pvp in general add a surrender button. Just like everyone has the option to abandon dungeon runs and trial/raid runs give everyone the option to abandon the game without any penalties.

[Scintilla]

snip

I agree that things need changing and I agree that some of the blame lies within the community on both sides of the argument. Whilst the crux of current issues lies squarely on DRK's voke (which I do feel needs changing in some way, whether that is limiting the number of players it can affect or some other adjustment), even in the unlikely event that SE addresses this existing issue, another one will rise in it's place. However, I can't help but feel that removing the third team, therefore reducing Frontlines to a 2 team game, will only make existing matters far worse. There are limited counters to the current approach taken by premade teams. Yes, there are a few classes which can play a notable role in hindering a premade (MNK, RPR, WHM, WAR), but these often require experienced players to apply them: requiring someone more aware of their surroundings than an average casual player would be, someone with a knowledge of their class and it's strengths and applications within such a scenario, someone able to get in and out of the danger zone quickly whilst still doing the job, and someone able to work to the very specific timing required. As such, the likelihood of seeing these roles being effectively applied to counter premades is small - at least in EU. Therefore, the counter which is most commonly applied (and easiest to do providing the team is cooperative and determined) is for the two random teams to repeatedly pincer the premade and their alliance. If changes are made to remove the third random team from Frontlines, this only leaves one random team to somehow counter an coordinated premade alone.
Obviously, there are some scenarios in which the third team becomes more of a headache than a help: for example, if they decide to give up first place to the premade and focus on stealing second place for themselves by siding with the premade to focus down the other random team. But, as bad as such games can be, to remove the third team from Frontlines would be far more of a hinderance than a help.

As for the community issues, there are problems on both sides. The PvP community holds to the mantra of 'Play to Win' and, to an extent, I agree with it. Players shouldn't enter a game without wanting to put their best effort into winning it and players entering with the sole purpose of "idc, give me the exp and get me out" tend to contribute very little (and can, in fact, be a hindrance if they actively go out of their way to lose their team points and help the winning team). Unfortunately, though, these players exist on every team in every game. They are a handicap that all teams will suffer to some extent within any given game.
However, on the side of the PvP enthusiasts, there are very different approaches towards 'Play to Win' - some will simply put in their best effort using their knowledge and experience and teamwork with the random team they were assigned. Others will actively go out of their way to shunt random teams for the openly more beneficial, better coordinated approach of forming their own premade. In most cases, this totally removes any semblance of competition from a game, with the premade alliance quickly building up a BH advantage and spending the remainder of the game flattening any team which they approach with minimal counter. Despite claims that this is 'all in the benefit of the community' (a poorly veiled attempt to disguise egoism as altruism), it does nothing of the sort. Ultimately, it reduces the skill floor by pushing more and more players out of competitive PvP. Not only this, but it pushes players against the very 'Play to Win' mantra that is supported by the community - the majority simply losing interest in competitive PvP entirely and get pushed further and further to becoming leeches, not caring about the outcome because it will obviously favour the premade ('just give me my exp'). And those few who do hold their morale and keep fighting do so in defiance, no longer playing to win, now playing just for the satisfaction of trying to stop the premade winning.