Problem with FFA (free for all) game mode

[Garvey]

I really think the core of the problem with PvP right now is that FFA (free for all) is the only option. Some of the biggest problems with FFA:

1) You lose more. Assuming matches are balanced, 3 teams means you are only going to win 33% of games, (as opposed to 50% if it were just 2 teams) this leads to frustration.

2) The "sandwich" effect, where 2 teams battle it out, only to have their efforts come to nothing when the 3rd team comes in to clean up, also leading to frustration.

This is why FFA is the least popular game mode in many other online games. Its fun every now and then, but having it as the only real option is not good.

I think a 8v8 capture the flag would be more sane, and a lot more fun. The 24v24v24 free for all right now is just a chaotic mess full of summoners ><

[xxczx]

1) You lose more. Assuming matches are balanced, 3 teams means you are only going to win 33% of games, (as opposed to 50% if it were just 2 teams) this leads to frustration.

[Geologo]

I understand what Garvey say and normally if the 3 alliance are balanced it happens.
Falz you and some other skilled players usually switch together form a GC to another all together (or most of them), this will give you an higher winrate and you overall performace show it.

For example this is my PvP Profile

[Garvey]

Falz you and some other skilled players usually switch together form a GC to another all together (or most of them), this will give you an higher winrate and you overall performace show it.

I wouldn't flatter the troll by calling him skilled, it's not possible in a 72 player game for 1 person to have that much influence.

He could've read the simple "Assuming matches are balanced" to figure out what I was trying to say, but used the opportunity to be a dbag instead. I don't care that you can do premades and gc-switching to inflate your win %, I was talking about FFA in general.

[Geologo]

I wouldn't flatter the troll by calling him skilled, it's not possible in a 72 player game for 1 person to have that much influence.

I had him as allied and as opponent and even if I dont' like his attitude with havenscraker over the corpse (and I got a lot of /slap from me for that xD), I think he is a good player.
Anyway I wont' go Off topic too much x)

A single person obviously don't make the tide turn alone but if few veterans pack together in the same GC they usually win more than random players.
Anyway you putted the Sandwitch effect among the cons of Frontlines, instead up to me they are an opportunity to close the gap between the alliances points expecialy in seal rock where deaths will erode your points.

Honestly I don't want that this pattern will change but I'm glad that they are implementing something like the feast and maybe in a future patch you wil have even the "secure" mode of The Fest, like what happened for Cartenau that started as secure but after they putted the Slaughter mode.

[Februs]

I wouldn't flatter the troll by calling him skilled, it's not possible in a 72 player game for 1 person to have that much influence.

That's not necessarily true, especially if you have a full pre-made backing your decisions and call outs.

I've seen entire matches in which the actions of all 24 players are be dictated by one person. With PuG groups, it's extremely rare to get that much complacency, but I've seen it happen. You just need to work really hard at getting them all on the same page. This is obviously easier if they are all agreeable players with a good attitude. Having a pre-made makes it a little easier though. You're basically stacking the deck and influencing a mob mentality. Having 8 players out of 24 follow your calls and support them (vocally, if necessary) tends to gather a following, because people will follow the mob.

I do agree, though, that having 24 v. 24 v. 24 (or, 8 v. 8 v. 8) is stale, and it can get frustrating to play the same game mode over and over and over. This is especially true when you are at the mercy of the general mood of the mob. You can be the best leader in the game and have a pre-made backing all of your decisions, but if you're playing with a bunch of noobs who like to run around like ducks it won't make much of a difference. I'm looking forward to Feast, because it will be a nice change of pace after months of Seize.

[Kyani]

I wouldn't flatter the troll by calling him skilled, it's not possible in a 72 player game for 1 person to have that much influence.

Lifetime Aether Flames, almost exclusively (90%+) solo-queue:




While Flames have historically been the strongest on Aether, it's not to that degree; most people I know who are lifetime Flames are between 45 and 50%, with a few in the 52-55% range. Those toward the high end tend to queue with at least 1 or 2 other people, including dps-healer batteries. The right people make a huge difference - alpha players and good shotcallers boost your chance to win by 10% or more compared to random players.

[TiaHariberux3]

I wouldn't flatter the troll by calling him skilled, it's not possible in a 72 player game for 1 person to have that much influence.

He could've read the simple "Assuming matches are balanced" to figure out what I was trying to say, but used the opportunity to be a dbag instead. I don't care that you can do premades and gc-switching to inflate your win %, I was talking about FFA in general.

1 person? no but when a lot (even full premades) change gc u steamroll most of the other teams atleast on chaos

[TheWaywardWind]

FFA can be wholly obnoxious (especially when you factor in severe grudge cycling between teams), but it DOES allow for more strategic gameplay, which is more than just "kill the enemy."

In 1v1 settings, if you're thrashing your opponent, or your opponent is thrashing you, there is essentially no way to recover from it. If you get dogged all match long and there's nothing you can do about it, it becomes really disheartening and really just makes the entire game unfun.

1v1v1 is definitely annoying with sandwiching situations, I agree, but it's also for that reason that it is actually really clever in design.

1v1v1 and sandwiching is meant to keep balance between the three GC. If you're losing in a 1v1 situation, there's no one to save you. And while that might be more "fair" to some, it's definitely not fun if you're on the losing side.

1v1v1 means that team A is kept in check by both team B and C, B is kept in check by A and C, and C is kept in check by A and B. It's a triangle than is supposed to ensure that no one team simply dominates the arena and merrily skips their way to victory.

Now, I know what you're thinking, as it tends to work out in the opposite way, but that's more a reflection on player's abilities rather than the mode itself. Japanese games, for example, are much closer in point values overall than most EU or NA games are, because Japanese players don't tend to fall for grudge cycling as much as NA and EU players do. When this happens, you frequently see games where all teams are at 700+ point values because they're keeping their eyes focused on their goals.

Sure, I definitely agree it's annoying when you get cockblocked fighting one team by another, especially when the battle is getting intense, but it's usually necessary. (Unless you're the Adders on Primal, in which case you just needlessly fuck over whoever you want for god knows what reason).

[TiaHariberux3]

Winrates say nothing since there 3 teams and rng even the worst team can get a win but yea 33,3% would be avg but most ppl have a higher winrate cause ? well 3 teams are never equal there is always a GC that seems to dominate in one datacentre.