Frontlines: How is this fair?

[JayCommon]

I've been in three 48-person matches. So, yes they do exist. Generally if I queue before 1 am, it's a 72-person match. It's like between 1 and 5 am PDT that I ever get matches with less than 72.

So then Frontlines matchmaking is blatantly broken. There is no good excuse for allowing one GC to enter a 72 player match when their 24 player alliance has 10-14 players and the others are full. Queue-in-progress happens but it takes awhile in the match for a gap that large to be filled. More often than not, when the players that get matched up into such lopsided BS that as soon as Duty Commences, half of the people on the team leave anyway. This needs to be addressed, what's the point of having lower match options if they don't get utilized in situations that keeps the balance fair?


OP: You should really post this in the PvP section of the forums also, if you haven't.

[Lithera]

There's issues there in terms of your PvP rank etc. What if you change FCs to one that doesn't match your current alignment? Suddenly you're starting your horse achievement all over etc. because you wanted a new FC.

[Sadana]

Orrr... allow the option to pick which you fight for.

Friends of mine that run Frontlines regularly say it's been weird lately. They're only seeing 48 once they get in... if they get in at all.

[KenzieLynch]

What is more unfair is the alliance brewing between Maelstrom and Flames. 4 out of the 5 matches I played last night had us being double teamed, with both of the accused attacking us but not each other.

[whoopeeragon]

What is more unfair is the alliance brewing between Maelstrom and Flames. 4 out of the 5 matches I played last night had us being double teamed, with both of the accused attacking us but not each other.

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.

[KenzieLynch]

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.

It's not really that smart at all. It's pretty simple in concept, the issue is that it's unfair and a little disappointing that the community resorts to this.

It's also not that 'hard to do', because it just becomes an 'understanding' between the two GC's when word of mouth spreads.

[lololink]

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.

No, that's just what happen when your team is bad and no one try to think of a solution( we never managed to take markets in 10 mn but let's keep going maybe we will take it ! ).

[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...

[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.

[GilbertLapine]

What is more unfair is the alliance brewing between Maelstrom and Flames. 4 out of the 5 matches I played last night had us being double teamed, with both of the accused attacking us but not each other.

Sounds like someone didn't have a strong B. Noticed this the other night, whole adder alliance was whining about it. I took charge and we mopped the floor with maelstrom and flames collectively. 9 front line losses out of 10 are the result of poor leadership and coordination.