Shatter

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

That's false though, players are encouraged to play it that way because it's the considerably safer option unless you're part of a premade. There's a reason why such a game mode doesn't exist in any of the more successful PvP MMORPGs. If an objective in PvP revolves around doing damage, it should be damage dealt to players, e.g. Capture The Flag or player-oriented objective control (pick up and defend/survive).

Having fun with Shatter is perfectly fine but pretending that it isn't a badly designed PvP mode is just silly.

Shatter is garbage. I've been on both ends of the barrel too. Have literally jumped up and down in front of a healer for 10 seconds while I die to dots on WAR. Said healer never targetted me.. or anyone lol. But I've also killed plenty of players who were attack ice right in front of their healers who never bothered to cast. It practically requires no skill at all and rewards the players who abuse a system of free rides: "gimme light, gimme mount, brb gotta watch dis YouTube video of somebody actually pvping!"

If they really wanted to spice things up they could keep an alliance, add mechanics and turn the crystal into a shape-shifting ball and have it do stuff too.. Take away "friendly fire" and call it a day. (Extreme sarcasm, WoD reference for those who would take this way to seriously)

Players not looking out for a teammate or tunneling on the objective doesn't make the mode itself terrible, just like trying to focus ONLY on the objective isn't a solid way to win. As I keep saying, there's a bit of a check and balance to all things there, which invalidates following only one strategy or trying to play it safe. The very idea of playing it safe in a PvP mode is a bit unrealistic. Someone has to attack, objectives or players. If no one does that in the name of playing it safe, that's when I say you're doing it wrong.

Baiting tactics while splitting up and going after objectives (bases, ices) can work against a super aggressive team that ONLY wants to focus on attacking players.
Attacking players that ONLY want to go after objectives and retreat otherwise works too
The third team letting the 2 others fight and capitalizing on objectives OR targeting either of the others in the skirmish can work too.
Playing it safe when you have a strong lead (assuming the other teams don't seem to notice this) works too.

I can't say it enough: if you stick to one strategy to win - and your opponent adapts and changes, then you risk losing. Most players fall into this trap, and it's honestly easy to do so. That's not Shatter's fault, it's yours for failing to adapt to the changing flow of battle.

[aeoncs]

Snip

You keep arguing like the individual player and what they think and/or want to do matters when they have 23 teammates. That's all nice and well on paper but it just doesn't work that way in a real game, at least not most of the time.
Shatter in and of itself allows PuGs to play it the way it's played more often than not, thus the mode definitely is at fault, or rather SE for designing it that way. How it can be played doesn't matter in the slightest.

[Enlial]

Shatter in and of itself allows PuGs to play it the way it's played more often than not, thus the mode definitely is at fault, or rather SE for designing it that way. How it can be played doesn't matter in the slightest.

That's only somewhat true. SE designed seal rock and shatter so that playing tactically matters alongside brute force. What ends up happening, though, is players new to pvp want to be able to do well right off the bat and convince themselves that winning/losing is 100% tactics and only focusing on the pve side of objectives is a good path to winning. Its not. Brute force matters. But they win sometimes, because of RNG and the other two teams being stupid, and when they lose just write it up to bad RNG or people not listening. Its not a good strategy and its almost certainly not what was intended, but you're right. It's ultimately the maps themselves at fault for being conductive to that sort of mindset. Borderlands did a good job of deterring that, with the LB bar diminishing out of combat, needed for the big node.

What we have now is a more subtle system where through battle highs/fevers the stronger team becomes stronger, if left unchecked, and able to steamroll during the late game. Ive given up arguing the point, though xD "yep you're rank 10 and you read the art of war in middle school. what do I know?" lol.

But yeah, its a new player thing. And its become much more prevalent since garo dropped.

[AdamZ]

You keep arguing like the individual player and what they think and/or want to do matters when they have 23 teammates. That's all nice and well on paper but it just doesn't work that way in a real game, at least not most of the time.
Shatter in and of itself allows PuGs to play it the way it's played more often than not, thus the mode definitely is at fault, or rather SE for designing it that way. How it can be played doesn't matter in the slightest.

So you want 1v1 PvP only? All the TEAM based PvP will relay on your teammates...

And truth, your random PuGs actually are more likely to chase kills then ice (and in the process kill themselves). There are titles tied to kills, there are no titles tied to ice damage.

[aeoncs]

So you want 1v1 PvP only? All the TEAM based PvP will relay on your teammates...

And truth, your random PuGs actually are more likely to chase kills then ice (and in the process kill themselves). There are titles tied to kills, there are no titles tied to ice damage.

Yeah, because I totally said that; is reading between the lines that difficult? And idk what PuGs you're seeing but that totally hasn't been my experience.
There's a difference between having to somewhat rely on your teammates and being entirely at the mercy of their will to cooperate, follow and/or listen. The more participants you have, the more reliant you are on them, especially in game modes where most players stick together as a single group instead of being spread out - when you solo queue into such an environment the fun you will have is entirely dependent on whether the way you want to play is more or less in line with the way 23 other people want to play, not to mention having to coordinate when no one else steps up.

Random battlegrounds should be about casual fun that anyone can get into with every game being somewhat different from the last. That's simply not the case in Frontlines, aside from the RNG, with Shatter being an extreme example. Frontlines (or rather Frontline because nothing but Shatter actually pops on some data centers) being as "popular" as they are, without the Garo event to back them up, should tell you everything you need to know about how fun they are to many players.

So, TLDR: No, I don't want 1v1 PvP only. I want Frontlines that are decently designed, with non-RNG objectives that don't revolve around almost every single player running to the same spot and for SE to finally cut that 3 teams crap.

[AdamZ]

And idk what PuGs you're seeing but that totally hasn't been my experience.

SE to finally cut that 3 teams crap.

Find text difficult to read between the lines, as I have no idea to the nature of the person writing the statement. So sorry for missing your point.

Is Shatter a great mode, no, but it is better then the other ones we have gotten to date. Unlike Seal Rock, PuGs can beat pre-mades which leads it to be causal fun. That is cause it is easy to coordinate, calling out go here and hit the thing is easy. The PuGs I see, that result in losses, are the ones that fragment for no reason (generally to chase kills or to try and fail to take a base), or charge into the other team without assessing what support they currently have.

I also find Shatter balances out healer ability from PuGs as well. It is harder to actually PvP when healer skill is in real question, or you do not have any healers on your team. But you can move as a group, protect yourself and get in position for some ice, and still win.

And good news, SE has said that we are just getting two teams in 4.0, so there is hope yet.

[aeoncs]

And good news, SE has said that we are just getting two teams in 4.0, so there is hope yet.

Wait, seriously? How did I miss this lol. Do you have a source?

[AdamZ]

Wait, seriously? How did I miss this lol. Do you have a source?

Ba, just forget me, can't find a source for it. Think it was in a Q+A from fan fest, along the lines of in the new models they are looking at, they would consider just 2 teams. But can't find anything backing that up, so just like it ever happened.