Worqor Chirteh feedback

[aereniil]

I feel like the biggest issue is just the map layout. It just feels off. SR and Onsal, you can pretty much run in a straight line to any engagement and then choose which side you want to engage from. Movement on those maps feels quicker. Sure, you might still miss the Onsal node but, more often than not, you can get anywhere and fight. Worqor, it feels like there are just too many environmental blocks that force you to run around. There is no real direct path to any edge engagement, if you are the far team.

NE hill node. If you are blue, unless you have an aggressive team, you will almost never see any 3-way fighting there. It takes too long to go red side to engage. If you go yellow side, you have to contend with any re-spawners.
SE caves. You will almost never see red pinch blue here, cause it takes too long to run through mid, up ramp and along the blue path to cave entrance. And you have to contend with any blue re-spawners that will be behind you.
SW platform is probably the easiest out of them, as yellow can pinch on blue and then escape over the cliffs to mid. But typically you will never see yellow engaging on the red side of that platform.

The only direct engagement is mid and, good luck with that, if you have a team that doesn't want to pvp but would rather stay outside and collect edge nodes.

I applaud and bow, nothing more to add to this briliant analysis.

[LeCorbeaux]

Player behavior is still the same. Chasing nodes instead of fighting, then being shocked that they can't hold/fight back on nodes late game vs teams with better BH.

There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must not be attacked, towns which must not be besieged, positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed.

Strategy is part of PvP. I wish Frontlines maps would encourage picking your fights strategically more, not less.

The highest excellence is winning without fighting, not decimating every adversary you encounter.

[aereniil]

Strategy is part of PvP. I wish Frontlines maps would encourage picking your fights strategically more, not less.

There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must not be attacked, towns which must not be besieged, positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed. - Sun Tzu

The highest excellence is winning without fighting, not decimating every adversary you encounter. - Sun Tzu

You're right. i'd add that

1) If only we were in the real world, and that every players in the teams always had a consistent level of PvP/"military" professionnalism (a minimum, like thinking about the best strategy at the moment or follow orders that matter)
2) Unfortunately, most of those who don't attack or avoid fighting will get rolled by BH-filled teams in a majority of cases. I'm speaking about statistics/numbers over hundreds of games.
3) Luck is too important in Frontline. Luck can help both the fighting and the non-fighting teams (be it your team's spawn position, S rank spawns, or ground mechanics positions)
4) To apply "strategy" with 24 players at the same time often need at least one wise general who knows what they do and which correct orders to give. And of course, a team ready to listen to these orders (and if possible, adapt your strategy to theirs). With the current state of Frontline, it rarely happens or only 1 or 2 teams benefit from it.

Otherwise, everyone need to think and act in synergy and trust towards the best decisions, all by themselves.

5) When you add the difference/unbalance in skills (including premades), most games with teams fighting where it needs to be fought win over non-fighting teams (excluding luck factor). This is consistently true for teams with a few players (often premades) that play particularly well together and individually. "Carry them all!", I say.


But of course many teams that only went after kills and fights also lose games. The most consistent winner teams are those who balance the objectives and the right fights, while being lucky and adaptative enough.

[ChrysOCE]

Strategy is part of PvP. I wish Frontlines maps would encourage picking your fights strategically more, not less.

Sorry but that makes no sense. Are you seriously suggesting that the best way to win in Frontlines is by not pvping?

Providing you are winning engagements, every kill is worth 8 pts. 7 players killed is worth more than a B rank. Not just that, but you drain those same points from the other team. Obviously, you dont want to sustain losses. But this idea that fighting in PVP should be discouraged, or is somehow pointless, is so alien to me. It's pvp. You fight to win. Yes, objectives matter and shouldn't be ignored. What good is an objective if you can't hold it or attack it?

[TofuLove]

"Quote Originally Posted by Sun Tzu
There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must not be attacked, towns which must not be besieged, positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed."

Strategy is part of PvP. I wish Frontlines maps would encourage picking your fights strategically more, not less.

Lol. Art of war...
It's a good thing sun tzu wasn't playing frontlines and there is no BH irl.

[LeCorbeaux]

Are you seriously suggesting that the best way to win in Frontlines is by not pvping?

No, I'm seriously suggesting that designing Frontlines should take into account all levels of PvP - individual, tactical (How to approach the OpFor in front of us?), operational (Which objectives to tackle next, given the current situation?) and strategic (What should we concentrate on, and which objectives to ignore or just see as targets of opportunity for this fight?). Maybe even add logistical aspects if you want to include DoL and DoH classes into the mix.

That's an iterative process, and I'm not even going to pretend I have a ready-to-use solution. My personal preferences would include changing the maps so that there are clear lines of defence and avenues of attack, that it's dynamic (due to time passing, player actions, and random events) with structures like walls and bridges not being purely static, and that it gives us time to strategise (Maybe an Eorzean day, 70 minutes of real time?), and adding forward spawning points players can create and have to defend (so that you never know where OpFor is coming from unless you are diligent about scouting).

[TofuLove]

No, I'm seriously suggesting that designing Frontlines should take into account all levels of PvP - individual, tactical (How to approach the OpFor in front of us?), operational (Which objectives to tackle next, given the current situation?) and strategic (What should we concentrate on, and which objectives to ignore or just see as targets of opportunity for this fight?). Maybe even add logistical aspects if you want to include DoL and DoH classes into the mix.

That's an iterative process, and I'm not even going to pretend I have a ready-to-use solution. My personal preferences would include changing the maps so that there are clear lines of defence and avenues of attack, that it's dynamic (due to time passing, player actions, and random events) with structures like walls and bridges not being purely static, and that it gives us time to strategise (Maybe an Eorzean day, 70 minutes of real time?), and adding forward spawning points players can create and have to defend (so that you never know where OpFor is coming from unless you are diligent about scouting).

I believe you are talking about starcraft. Do you think the mode you are describing would be popular? (enough to play for 70 minutes...who even has an hour to drop non stop... )

Explaining strategy to someone in real time in frontlines is like... i can't even think of a more tedious and pointless thing to do...

[LeCorbeaux]

I'm just coming at it from my experiences with PvP in Lineage II (which has two-hour long castle sieges all over the overworld, and not following people who know what they're doing means you're just meat for the grinder) and PlanetSide 2 (which, if you don't pay attention to what everyone else is doing and the comms of your side, means you will just play a bad shooter and will occasionally be blown up or sniped from range without any idea where that came from). As to who would play it? Well, I know what I like, and I totally would.

[Valence]

No, I'm seriously suggesting that designing Frontlines should take into account all levels of PvP - individual, tactical (How to approach the OpFor in front of us?), operational (Which objectives to tackle next, given the current situation?) and strategic (What should we concentrate on, and which objectives to ignore or just see as targets of opportunity for this fight?). Maybe even add logistical aspects if you want to include DoL and DoH classes into the mix.

That's an iterative process, and I'm not even going to pretend I have a ready-to-use solution. My personal preferences would include changing the maps so that there are clear lines of defence and avenues of attack, that it's dynamic (due to time passing, player actions, and random events) with structures like walls and bridges not being purely static, and that it gives us time to strategise (Maybe an Eorzean day, 70 minutes of real time?), and adding forward spawning points players can create and have to defend (so that you never know where OpFor is coming from unless you are diligent about scouting).

Honestly, I'd love it, but that's definitely completely out of the scope of FL. That's a whole other beast.
I don't think it would fit within their mcdonaldized approach to everything in XIV, but who knows. PvP has always been the odd one.

[tsuchii]

This mode is irredeemable.
This whole mode is a just a mistake tbh.
If you think Frontline cannot be any shittier, they come up with Worqor Shitteh.