Frontlines: How is this fair?

[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 ! ).

[Tiggy]

It's the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard, too. Seriously, who came up with this idea?

Lol, WoW did. It was just a stronger divide between the factions so it worked better, but it's the same thing.

For the Horde!

[JayCommon]

That's a rare situation right there. BOTH other parties would have had to withdraw altogether for that to happen as if your group had been 8 or 16 it would have been a 24 or 48 person match. They should probably look at this I think since the DF may not be able to refill parties that never existed in the first place.

Just curious, but has anyone ever taken part in one of these phantom "24 or 48" person matches, because I'm slowly becoming convinced that they don't exist. What I see as part of the Immortal Flames is always along the lines of OP screenshot. Queue for Frontlines, see 62/72 people queue before entering and all 10 people missing from the match are from the Flames.

I appreciate the fact that SE addressed the queue problem with 71/72 and then a back out happening, but this "24 or 48" people shit is a farce and I have never seen it happen. If one team out of 3 is missing damn near 30% of their alliance then the match should scale down and kick the last extra people from the other full GC's to enter the queue out of that specific match and combine them into the next one. It is clearly not working correctly, and provides for an experience that isn't fun at all.

[LadyVal]

when i switch from maelstorm to twin adder i will not be able to use maelstorm chocobo barding, all the weapons and armor and gc leader minion will swap to whin-e-sena, thats what im talking about. So yes i can swap to play with friends but will look like treehugger. If it was atleast without that 15 day cooldown so i could swap just for frontlines then i could accept it.

That's kind of the point. You can't be a Maelstrom in Twin Adder clothing. You accept a GC and all that comes along with it. I like that they are segregated. Maybe work on recruiting your friends to join your GC? Or bite the bullet and become an Adder yourself. I just dislike the notion that you would be able to get everything you want because you don't like the stipulations with your current GC. You make a choice and you get the pros and cons that come with it. You can't have everything.

I mean I'm a SCH and could argue that I should get PLD moves and DRG artifact armor "because I want it and my friends are PLDs and DRGs" but that makes no sense. If I want PLD moves, I become a PLD. If I want DRG artifact armor, I become a DRG. If I want to play frontlines with my Adder friends, I become an Adder. Or, I just deal with the fact that I don't get everything.

[LadyVal]

Just curious, but has anyone ever taken part in one of these phantom "24 or 48" person matches, because I'm slowly becoming convinced that they don't exist.

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.

[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.

[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.

[GilbertLapine]

Lol, WoW did. It was just a stronger divide between the factions so it worked better, but it's the same thing.

For the Horde!

Ugh WoW... large-scape PvP honestly hasn't been done right since Dark Age of Camelot. Lineage II was pretty good pre-2006, too.

[KenzieLynch]

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.

Talk about missing the point. The issue is that sort of behaviour shouldn't be happening in the first place.

[lololink]

Talk about missing the point. The issue is that sort of behaviour shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Do you have any proof that the two other GC agreed on attacking the 3rd one ?
Or was you team just bad ?