Please remove FF14 from my frontline roulette

[Jokerz_93]

I’ve always this thought that XIV pvp enjoyers are the worst PvP players on all others PvP based-games.

It’s just a thought, so don’t get me wrong.
There’s LoL/Dota which is a PvP game with a similar structure to an MMo.
There’s Overwatch, Battlefield, Destiny which are shooter competitive.
There’s Where Winds Meet, Elden Ring/Souls which are Action RPG and have a competitive PvP mode one can enjoy.
There are FIFA and all EA sports games that has a competitive mode.
Quake, Unreal, Doom which are arena PvP.
There are many others genre that have a focused PvP modes.

So, why forcing yourselves to play XIV for its PvP when it is not designed to be a focused competitive game?
If one enjoy a particular mode, what they do is simply playing the game that can deliver to them the best experience they are looking for.

XIV’s PvP is not bad…it’s just doesn’t work well within a tab-targeting system…especially on a mode where there are 24vs48.

So back to my starting statement, although I can understand there are players who love the game AND the PvP mode, the ones who instead are whining like OP makes me think they are not quite good at PvP and just find XIV be their playground, like an older man who think they are the best at playing soccer just cus they are playing against kids.

[Sunhwapark]

Well XIV is amazing in the way that you can pvp without even doing actually fighting the other 'P' bit.

Anyway, I vote the mode be renamed Final Fantasia because I often witness the alliance having 4-8 bards playing music while one person sings tearfully about how bad our team is and how we won't win.

[ThreeBeastSmile]

I’ve always this thought that XIV pvp enjoyers are the worst PvP players on all others PvP based-games.

While this is the case for some, it's not in all. Yes XIV's PvP could be regarded as the "idle game" of PvP offerings, but sometimes you might want that no? Something low key on the side, but still dealing with the area one is interested in. Personally I enjoy fighting others directly no matter the format rather than beat a high score e.g. parses in PvE. And right now the main part of the game is pretty boring, yet I don't quite want to pull out the sub yet, and PvP gives me a means to justify the sub a bit more beyond house upkeep lol.

But I guess what I am tired of is... something that is pretty prevalent across the rest of the game as well; aversion to any negative press, even when valid. Even when it's delivered mostly neutrally. Even when it's a mere status update that so and so is winning sometimes. Then when there's any answer back, usually something extra bemusing or heated, nowadays I just shrug and revert to treating the mode as a quasi OW playground (ngl that's my preference).

Too much conflict of interest to bother between the ones who apparently want to win but won't invest the individual effort and bitterly hate their time there, and the ones that are "just let me have my xp faster wth is wrong with you guys stop trying to push buttons and resist!" The mode being seen as an obstacle rather than something fun to engage with, and it's not wholly the mode's fault imo. I'm just there to hit buttons in a not so random order for some entertainment while the core game sucks, and it's disappointing to not see that many in that camp.

ED: I did not fully take in your last sentence there sry I'm eepy so this post kinda pointless, but I ain't gonna delete.

[TofuLove]

It's quite funny when people are taking a non-serious thread seriously.

XIV’s PvP is not bad…it’s just doesn’t work well within a tab-targeting system…especially on a mode where there are 24vs48.

Have you tried using controller? It's much easier.

whining like OP makes me think they are not quite good at PvP and just find XIV be their playground, like an older man who think they are the best at playing soccer just cus they are playing against kids.

I am not into FIFA sorry...

edit:
(also it's football, not soccer)

[TofuLove]

Anyway, I vote the mode be renamed Final Fantasia because I often witness the alliance having 4-8 bards playing music while one person sings tearfully about how bad our team is and how we won't win.

What about renaming Final Fantasy 14 to FiFa 14?
Make it more stealth...and we can add some balls...

[Connor]

You have to combat not only the enemy teams, but also every single member of your party! Who are all running in opposite directions! You can’t tell them what to do, you don’t pay their sub. Clearly this the supreme form of PvP

(Not a serious reply just a joke lol)

[spoo]

All we ask is for unmotivated players hindering teams and killing the fun much more than any premade to either stop queueing for Frontline, or try to to contribute harder.
You'd not love seeing the same waves of players invading your Party Finders and Duty Finders, grief your clear and act like they don't give a single mind to try more than a mere body presence (I also met them, in PvE, though fortunately rarer).

this 100% - its okay to be serious and insult and ridicule someone in a raid context for messing up. It's also normalized to feel guilt and feel horrible if you grief. Yet those same people would join a FL and then act like their take on it is the one that matters - and that its ridiculous that there are people in the game mode they chose to queue into that actually want to play it. Often I'm told to stop crying - its not that serious - or any multitude of insults for pointing out that our team has plenty of AFK people.

Moreover, forget WANTING to play. Those AFKers are the most selfish kinds of gamers. Their needs (getting exp) stand above all. They don't care about your fun, they don't care about the player next to them who is farming achievements, they willfully participate in a game mode that requires their cooperation with their team only to AFK and then yell and insult you when you express any semblance of passion towards the game mode you enjoy.

Imagine if I say "it aint that serious stop crying" in a savage PF...


Frontline is effectively the only game in human history where bad play and intentional throwing is encouraged.

[TofuLove]

Frontline is effectively the only game in human history where bad play and intentional throwing is encouraged.

Frontline roulette is kind of like mario kart (especially worqor with it's travel times lol), if you ever had people in a house party trying to play it.

One guy is pretending to play whilst chatting up a hot girl who is pretending to play.
Another guy is drunk and doesn't know his left from right and still has motion controls turned on unknowingly.
Last guy is tryharding trying to become the king of mario kart.

I am definitely tryharding, cause we all know that hot girls like mario kart kings.

[Cynric]

Snip

I mean, that depends on how you define what a game is.
There are in fact many ways to define what games are. What are the necessary conditions and sufficient conditions of a game? What does it mean to play it?

One such definition by Bernard Suits states that a game is "the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles." This definition in and of itself is quite interesting. What are the obstacles we choose to overcome? Do the obstacles being overcome define the winning of a game? A game certainly can be won and a game can be lost. But is the act of winning and losing a necessary condition for a game to be a game?

If we consider cops and robbers a game, you can't really win at cops and robbers, therefor if we determine cops and robbers or other similar games of pretend to be games, then winning can't be a necessary condition to be playing a game.

Therefore now we must compare this "Frontline" to our current working definition of a game, and the combatants as players. If we consider our working definition of games to be similar to Suits' definition, while all players are inside "Frontlines" are they all in fact playing the same game? Must one be a willing participant in order to be considered playing? We must assume that if one chooses to "queue" into frontlines that they are in fact choosing to be a willing participant and while we can not say for sure if one must be exercising free will in order to be considered a player, we can certainly assume that one has chosen to "play" frontlines.

However, is the "Frontlines" they've queued into the same game that others queued into the game they have chosen to play? Or are they in fact playing a different game?

If we assume that the "unnecessary obstacles" must be similar that we can also assume that if they consider different obstacles unnecessary then they are in fact playing a different game. To many players the other players on the opposing team are the unnecessary obstacle in their way in order to win. But what if we surmise that for other players, the act of "participating" in frontlines is in fact, an unnecessary obstacle to them obtaining currency to earn some sort of reward. Therefore we can say that for them Frontlines is in fact not the game they are playing, but an obstacle in the true game they are playing. If we surmise this, then they are in fact playing the game correctly, at least the game they are playing. While they are acting as a hindrance in the game of others, they are still in fact playing a game. The game is of their own choosing even if the obstacles are not.

It is then possible to finally surmise that, while frontlines may be some sort of game that many play, the obstacles within frontlines does not change often, "other players" be them opposing or on the same team, act as unnecessary obstacles to "winning", and whatever "winning" may be, is not for this text to surmise. However, we can certainly say that though some may "queue" into frontlines and choose it as an activity to participate in, the game they are playing through that participation is not necessarily the act of Player vs Player that Frontlines is. But in fact they are playing their own game.

We can of course choose this "non-play" and change the "game" we have defined here, if in fact someone decides to play Frontlines simply to "kill the most players" they are not advancing the "game state" or the state of play to a winning state in all instances. Would these people be defined as not playing? Not by our definition of course. In fact these "players" are simply playing a different game, one where the "goal" may often align with winning Frontlines but sometimes may not.

Therefore finally, this text can say, that "playing" Frontlines "correctly" may have a small scope, but "participating" in frontlines in order to play some other game or achieve some other goal means that non play, is in fact still participation in the "voluntary attempt to over come unnecessary obstacles" as per Suits' definition of playing a game. Is this bad play? No certainly not, is in fact play of a different kind.

[TofuLove]

Chill on the AI...

We can of course choose this "non-play" and change the "game" we have defined here, if in fact someone decides to play Frontlines simply to "kill the most players" they are not advancing the "game state" or the state of play to a winning state in all instances. Would these people be defined as not playing? Not by our definition of course. In fact these "players" are simply playing a different game, one where the "goal" may often align with winning Frontlines but sometimes may not.

Therefore finally, this text can say, that "playing" Frontlines "correctly" may have a small scope, but "participating" in frontlines in order to play some other game or achieve some other goal means that non play, is in fact still participation in the "voluntary attempt to over come unnecessary obstacles" as per Suits' definition of playing a game. Is this bad play? No certainly not, is in fact play of a different kind.

If somebody is padding for kills or damage - that to me is advancing the game state. You can even pad node capping - anything is useful. "Non-play" is non participation.
I don't think anyone who queues into frontline and wants to not participate is thinking "i am participating in pvp of a different kind - i want to be an obstance to my team winning that they need to overcome". This is some crazy rationalisation.

The point of a lot of these messages in this thread is arguing that non participation should be combatted and discouraged. The key word in the definition "the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles." is "attempt".

[edit]
It's like if you are playing cops and robbers and a person just stands there not willing to "attempt". The hell is wrong with them... You can then use your logic and rationalise that it's because they are playing their own game, which in real world could result in person getting sectioned.