Can PVP ever be good in this game?

[aeoncs]

It depends, probably not when you compare it to the better PvP MMORPGs out there. The PvP definitely has the potential to be good/fun in a general sense though, if they tune some problematic jobs for large scale modes and manage to release battlegrounds/frontline maps that are on par with CC design-wise.

There's nothing wrong with Frontline at its core.

There's plenty wrong with Frontline at its core: being 1v1v1 instead of 1v1, having way more RNG to it than any PvP mode should have and offering very little room for tactics beyond stacking broken jobs and running with the bulk, which results in literally every single game feeling almost the same. Like, I've PvPed in every single big MMORPG that has been released over the last 18~ years and Frontline is amongst the absolute worst designed modes I've ever played - and tbh, the same can be said for every PvP mode in this game, with CC being the exception. Even The Feast was pretty bad when you compare it to arena-style modes in other MMOs.

That being said, I'm still somewhat optimistic for the future, considering that CC is actually really fun.

[LowIQ]

There's plenty wrong with Frontline at its core: being 1v1v1 instead of 1v1, having way more RNG

Nah there's nothing wrong with this. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with large scale pvp. You probably just don't like pvp where you can't definitely influence the outcome of a game. If anything, RNG objectives is a good attempt at making every game feel different. Clowny modes like FL and RW just need to be playable and fun, it doesn't always have to be about W/L ratios, tryharding and esports.

[aeoncs]

You probably just don't like pvp where you can't definitely influence the outcome of a game.

Obviously, and I'd make the not so far-fetched wager that this is true for most people. It's just not fun to lose games becauses of bad RNG and to me personally it isn't very fun to win them because of good RNG either.
1v1v1 is objectively worse than 1v1 in literally any game mode or even in sports, there's absolutely no way around it. So that is something that is 100% flawed design, irrespective of personal preference.

There's a reason that other MMOs don't really do RNG or 1v1v1 in PvP, because both just aren't fun for most players and the former is honestly lazy design. The queue times for Frontlines outside of events and the daily reset really speak for themselves - and that's true even after they were forced to introduce rotating maps.

[Sidamel]

Under the condition everyone wants to win a match A vs B vs C is actually better than A vs B. In many games battlegrounds with just 2 sides failed because it was impossible to balance the matchmaking. Beside there aren't many MMO out there with pvp especially mass pvp.

Give me the Aion client with skill set of FF14 before 6.1...

[LowIQ]

Obviously

Yeah basically you just dislike mass pvp. Which is normally fine because XIV had 3 different pvp modes to cater to everyone. But then SE decided that pvp should be about CC and CC only, killing RW and FL in the process. That's the only real "lazy design" here.

[aeoncs]

Yeah basically you just dislike mass pvp.

This isn't what I said, at all. There are plenty of examples of good mass PvP in other MMOs where I can still make a difference as an individual, some of which feature considerably more than 72 players. The difference is that they have good design with meaningful & widely spaced objectives that can be planned for ahead of time and approached accordingly.

Frontlines is literally always "run to the RNG node/s and hope that your team follows calls" while hoping that you have the better players and/or jobs, that's it. There's zero reason to ever change that approach and that gets old really fast.

But we clearly disagree on a fundamental level about what constitutes as fun and well-conceived battleground mechanics, so let's leave it at that.

Under the condition everyone wants to win a match A vs B vs C is actually better than A vs B. In many games battlegrounds with just 2 sides failed because it was impossible to balance the matchmaking.

This makes zero sense. Even if you disregard yourself as a player, how does a 50% coin toss decrease your chance of winning in comparison to a 33% coin toss? Like, what?
The same is true for balancing, it's objectively and undeniably easier to balance 1v1 than it is to balance 1v1v1.

[Sidamel]

The same is true for balancing, it's objectively and undeniably easier to balance 1v1 than it is to balance 1v1v1.

There you are utterly wrong. At best it's different but not easier. Depending on heavily how your matchmaking is.

For example Aion, it had all kind of group pvp from 6vs6 , 12 vs 12 , 24 vs 24 etc. Despite having a more or less okish balance between classes, the matches that were even you could count on fingers.
Why? Because you can't influence the matchmaking and the skill of players. This is idea behind having 3 sides to counter these problems.

Is it better? Who knows. But the influence on balancing isn't so different. A disadvantage is clearly that the battleground can get very chaotic with having 3 "groups".

[Corbeau]

Crystalline Conflict is already good. It would be better with more responsive servers and a bunch of Riot-level ISP wheeling and dealing, yes, but that's not a prerequisite to a fun game. As long as they keep tweaking balance outliers and banning cheaters, I'll be content.

[aeoncs]

There you are utterly wrong. At best it's different but not easier. Depending on heavily how your matchmaking is.

For example Aion, it had all kind of group pvp from 6vs6 , 12 vs 12 , 24 vs 24 etc. Despite having a more or less okish balance between classes, the matches that were even you could count on fingers.
Why? Because you can't influence the matchmaking and the skill of players. This is idea behind having 3 sides to counter these problems.

Is it better? Who knows. But the influence on balancing isn't so different. A disadvantage is clearly that the battleground can get very chaotic with having 3 "groups".

Again, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Three teams bring objectively more difficulties into the mix, both in balancing and matchmaking, than two teams. It's literally the most simple of math.

Aion is also one of the worst examples you could have come up with regarding PvP balance, it shouldn't even be part of the discussion. It was a shitshow on release, albeit an extremely fun one, and that is even more true today - but that had very little to do with having two teams and everything with faction/race imbalance. And faction imbalance especially is also way, way worse in a 3-faction scenario because one faction is almost aways going to be unplayable.
Have you tried a War in New World as the underdog faction? You basically had a 0% chance to win which I'd argue is somewhat worse than Aion's PvP being imbalanced 90% of the time.

Three teams don't counter anything, they literally make it worse, I have no idea what you're even trying to argue here. Give me one example of well-designed and moderately balanced 1v1v1 PvP that compares to the battlegrounds in games like WoW, SWTOR, GW2, or even ESO (which isn't exactly known for its good instanced PvP).

[LowIQ]

Three teams bring objectively more difficulties into the mix, both in balancing and matchmaking, than two teams.

But this is not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to Frontline. It evens out matchmaking, job, map design and other potential balance issues. Just look at CC, a small scale arena-like mode where people constantly seethe about matchmaking and give up the moment they see the enemy lineup before the game even begins.

Like I said, pvp doesn't only have to be about w/l ratios, ranking and tryharding. It's fine to do pvp just for the sake of doing pvp and FL is (was) great for that.
Feels like people who only think in terms of "I play well, therefore I should win" will never be able to appreciate mass pvp.