Should 24-Man Matches Be Longer?

[Februs]

Exactly that. Should 24-Man matches of Seize be longer?

I enjoy 24-man matches. They're more tactical and reliant on teamwork, but they always seem to end so darn fast. If one GC gets lucky with RNG, the shorter point cap doesn't leave adequate time for a comeback, and the match ends just as it's starting to pick up. I play PvP for fun, not tomes, so the shorter point cap doesn't feel proportionate to the wait it takes to get in.

[xxczx]

24 matches can be just as long as 72 matches but solely dependant on the teams playing i.e if one GC likes another GC a bit too much

[Februs]

24 matches can be just as long as 72 matches but solely dependent on the teams playing i.e if one GC likes another GC a bit too much

I don't think I've ever had a 24-man match last as long as a 72-man match, but I do know what you mean. Grudge cycling makes a difference when it happens ... Which is pretty much all the time.

Power derping (focusing on one GC with a vengeance) is not as common or intense as it is in 72 man-matches, but it happens. In fact, the game mode encourages it. For example, I played a match a night ago (24-man) in which Flames and Mael had almost no choice but to keep fighting Adders without exception. The details are a little foggy, but it went something like this:

-1st node set:

Equal spawns. B Ranks all around. All 3 GC's score exactly the same, and no one fights.

-2nd node set:

Adders luck out and get an early A rank and a B rank right on top of one another, and only one node position away from where they started. Mael and Flames engage. After a tussle, Adders get shoved off of their nodes. Mael takes the A. Flames take the B. They scuffle a bit, but the nodes are almost dead so we start to spread out.

-3rd node set:

Another couple nodes spawn directly in the path that the Adders retreated to. They're practically already standing on them when they spawn. The last node spawns behind Mael, so they cut off to go get it. Flames chase after Adders. There's a scuffle. Adders, again, get shoved off of their B rank node, but keep the other for almost the whole time. Mael shows up, but too late to make a difference. Adders retreat ... and guess where the next node spawns...

4th node set:

That's right. Adders luck out yet again with another set of nodes, right in their retreat path. Basically, the entire match Adders were retreating along the exact path of all the new node spawns. The odds of this are astronomical, I'm sure, but they got really lucky. At this point, both Mael and Flames are trailing too far behind Adders to be able to catch up, because the point cap is only 500 points. Adders are closing in on the score cap quickly. So what do Mael and Flames do? The only thing they can do: Fight for second place.

Now, is any of this a problem? No, not really. RNG is part of the game mode and it requires players to think on their feet. The problem is that Adders were being out-preformed but were still handed the match. An early A rank and repeated RNG blessings upon Adders meant the game ended faster than most. It was probably one of the shortest match I've ever played, and the entire time both Mael and Flames were being forced by RNG to power-focus Adders. The only reason it lasted as long as it did was because Adders had a couple of deaths each time they got shoved off of their nodes (usually their poor healer). If they hadn't the match would have been over even faster.

Mael was closest to having a comeback, and they likely would have won if the match had gone on a little longer, but the short point cap meant that it was over before that could happen.

[Kyani]

24 matches can be just as long as 72 matches but solely dependant on the teams playing i.e if one GC likes another GC a bit too much

Actually, the games are naturally shorter. Starting at 19:30, with no upgraded spawns and 2 minutes per node cycle , 72-mans will generate enough points to guarantee a victor at 5:03, and 24-mans will generate enough at 7:00. With any upgrades (or point disparities from one team being positive), the game will end sooner - the only instance in which a game will last over these times is when teams are incredibly evenly matched with large periods of unclaimed nodes. In a practical sense, 24-mans often find themselves ending before a full 2-node cycle occurs - even a small advantage of +50 points causes the game to end almost instantly if you cap one of the first two A ranks.

24-man should probably switch node spawns @ 12min instead of 10 to keep the pacing of 72, because it consistently ends early enough to make the "comeback" portion not matter at all.

[P4X0R10N]

I'm torn on this question. On the one hand, less people results in fights that last longer allowing me to build stacks as a warrior and utilize cooldowns to buff myself and my allies. But they can be boring sometimes cuz nothing happens.

[TheWaywardWind]

24 matches can be just as long as 72 matches but solely dependant on the teams playing i.e if one GC likes another GC a bit too much

This.
IF anyone actually looks at the data provided for the length of matches, 24 man Seize games last almost as long as 72 man matches do (in some cases, longer.) The average 72 man match lasts around ~16- minutes, while the average 24 man match lasts around ~13-14 minutes.

Naturally, they are always going to be events that can change this (I've had 24 man matches last as long as 16 minutes and 72 man matches last as short as 9), but those are the extreme events that occur when two GCs tend to either be fighting each other incessantly to allow the third an easy win, or when all three teams are on their A games and all manage to get into the 700+ point range before one gets to be the victor.

[Februs]

This.
IF anyone actually looks at the data provided for the length of matches, 24 man Seize games last almost as long as 72 man matches do (in some cases, longer.) The average 72 man match lasts around ~16- minutes, while the average 24 man match lasts around ~13-14 minutes.

You must have a very different experience with this then I do, because all of my 24 man matches are consistently shorter than my 72 man matches. I've have almost never had a 24 man match come anywhere near the 15 minute mark. They all end much faster than that.

I have had 72 man matches stretched out to be longer if the teams are evenly matched, but that almost never happens in 24 man matches. Either one GC dominates the other 2 because of better party composition, pre-made, or just overall better players, or the the RNG forces 2 of the 3 GC's to power focus one another. Throw in a couple of early A ranks and the match ends by round 2 of the Node spawns. I only wish that I had your luck and ended up in lengthier matches were the teams had even points.

That aside, a 9 minute 72 man match is abominable. That must have been one hell of a horrible match up (except for the winning team, obviously. I'm sure they were happy about it). I'm definitely thankful that I have never seen this happen. I would be pretty let down to wait an hour long for a Q to pop only to have the match end in 9 minutes. Even if I won ... it would just be sad and unsatisfying.

[TheWaywardWind]

You don't need to have my luck, though, there are several websites (xivpvp.com) that show the length of each match. If you just look at the length provided, you'll find that most tend to fit under the lengths I just posted. 72 mans tend to stretch to about 16 minutes and 24 mans to about 14. It's not "having my luck" so much so as it is you apparently having very bad luck, because almost every single match fits under that description.

And a 72 man match lasting 9 minutes is possible, but is "astronomically" at odds of it happen, same as the description you gave in your other post about the Adders. (Which, again I have never personally seen happen, ever).

[Kyani]

That doesn't tell the whole story - the time shaved off of the match is all from from the tail end, which is the most interesting/difficult part of Seal Rock. As a result, the complexity of the games is a lot lower, because most games are determined before a second post-10 wave has a chance to spawn (even if they haven't technically ended).

[TheWaywardWind]

Not necessarily - it just means the "tail end" comes up a little bit faster than it does in 72 man. Which is to be expected; less people in a game equates to less action overall and means that the match should end genuinely quicker.

Most of the arguments that it makes the games less complex stems from the fact that most people are too docile to actually act towards the latter half of matches - fighting for second should never be the option, even if a match seems "hopeless."

I watched a live stream of a game from the Chaos data center where the Flames were all but guaranteed a victory, sitting at a comfortable 475+ points and holding a B node until they were trashed to third place by both data centers.

What you seem to be arguing is not that the matches are too short - because they aren't, and actually are about the same length - but that the dynamic of each match forces the teams to not act in their best interests because they're too scared and otherwise "powerless" towards the end (which isn't true) because there aren't as many people backing them up, which makes the games feel shorter as a result, because you don't have as much time to turn the tide in your favor. You do, it's just that people are too often plagued by "let's fight for second" when things look dreary rather than "push them with everything they have until they fall from 1st place."

And honestly, if you give up during a match it does make the match seem shorter because you're pretty much admitting defeat. Never assume that just because a team gets lucky spawns or that it appears they're going to win that you should give up and hunt for second. That's Frontlines 101. The tide of battle can always change. I've played matches where people want to give up and think we can't win but a genuine push has stopped both teams from winning and allowed us to win. The game wasn't "shorter" because of it, but it did make it feel longer because we were actually making use of the time handed to us.

The dynamics of a game can always change. Be it 72 man, or 24 man, but in the end, they both end up about the same length anyway. The difference of a minute duration can change the game, yes, but in this case it's merely the difference between how quickly those game changing moments happen. Which naturally isn't much of a problem, anyway - the whole point of 24 man is genuinely to be a lot more strategic seeing as you have less resources to accomplish your goals.