Disruptive Frontline Gameplay

[IDontPetLalas]

It's not a 'view', it's a real outcome. Premade scores increase incredibly fast purely from the kills they get, meanwhile the random alliances fall following the deaths. The results screenshot I posted on the previous page show this: the two random teams have fairly even scores, both around 600. Meanwhile the premade's alliance score is more than double the score of the two random teams. This isn't just a one-off lucky game, this is frequent.

Random teams cannot afford to waste time fighting each other over nodes. Whilst they're busy trying to win the objectives, the premade are farming kills (and points) from both of them. Obviously, this isn't a tactic employed only by premade teams - any aggressive alliance will do the same. But the key point is that premades obtain far higher kill numbers than random teams do, with these kills leading to a significantly faster point gain. If you want even the slightest hope of keeping that point gain under some level of control, you have to spend the entire game focusing them down. This can only be done with both alliances. More often that not, they will have already picked up a major lead before both alliances come to accept this (if they ever do - some don't) and/or despite attempts to slow it, their point gain will continue to increase rapidly. With the premade getting such a large and rapidly increasing lead and the random alliance scores trailing further and further behind, "win the FL" becomes "stop the premade winning the FL". And sometimes, the only option to do that is for full effort to go on killing the premade's alliance members, with objectives going to the random alliance in second place just to keep alive the chance of them winning the game and pushing the premade to second place.

Numerous occasions I've heard agreements in alliance chat to "just focus the premade, I'd rather (other random team) win than them"

You're missing the point. I explained why I would expect this would happen, I'm not challenging that it does happen, in addition I explained that it happens in this mode ( 3 faction combat) outside of FFXIV as well.

What's rather humorous is that you last line summarized what I was saying, and yes, your "view" or "opinion' if you like was expressing that you were in your own words "sacrificing their game to assist the second random team". That is your opinion of this tactic. You just agreed that the goal of each of the coalition members is to beat the alliance in the lead so that one of them will win. I don't see how that is a "sacrifice".

[Chasingstars]

You're missing the point. I explained why I would expect this would happen, I'm not challenging that it does happen, in addition I explained that it happens in this mode ( 3 faction combat) outside of FFXIV as well.

What's rather humorous is that you last line summarized what I was saying, and yes, your "view" or "opinion' if you like was expressing that you were in your own words "sacrificing their game to assist the second random team". That is your opinion of this tactic. You just agreed that the goal of each of the coalition members is to beat the alliance in the lead so that one of them will win. I don't see how that is a "sacrifice".

Because it is not always about beating who is in the lead. It can be beating down who has the perceived advantage. If the shotcaller believes and were to think that the 3rd or 2nd place team has a premade stack that could make a comeback, the map's objectives matter far less to those people. That the team that relentlessly "pinches" whoever has the perceived advantage, even if that other team has fewer points. That upon seeing Astrologians or Dark Knights with a battle high of 3 to 5, it is to potentially "throw" the match to spite another team and prevent them from winning. This warps the mentality of the game, where throwing is perceived as a moral victory over another team, and therefore make the experience far more miserable for those that want to have a normal match. And in turn shifts the meta in a way that is not conducive to long term health of the game and the retention of the player base.

[IDontPetLalas]

Because it is not always about beating who is in the lead. It can be beating down who has the perceived advantage. If the shotcaller believes and were to think that the 3rd or 2nd place team has a premade stack that could make a comeback, the map's objectives matter far less to those people. That the team that relentlessly "pinches" whoever has the perceived advantage, even if that other team has fewer points. That upon seeing Astrologians or Dark Knights with a battle high of 3 to 5, it is to potentially "throw" the match to spite another team and prevent them from winning. This warps the mentality of the game, where throwing is perceived as a moral victory over another team, and therefore make the experience far more miserable for those that want to have a normal match. And in turn shifts the meta in a way that is not conducive to long term health of the game and the retention of the player base.

I honestly am not understanding what you're trying to communicate, my apologies as I'm not trying to be obtuse, however it's a bit convoluted I can't quite follow your logic.

So, in my view the end game is to win. Whether the tactics that you use are to go directly for who is in the lead, or to get there by hitting the 2nd place team- why is that relevant?

Then you're discussing throwing a match. Let's be clear- throwing a matching is giving up, in various ways, so that another team can win. How is advocating for that? If for example , teams A and B want to block team (c) from winning, at a specific point when "C" is demoralized or far enough behind, either A or B is free to go for the win.
Unless I misunderstand, you seeme to be in a situation of team A being very strong, team B being v very strong, and team C saying 'what the hell, I know I won't win, but I'll make sure that I'll pick whom I want to win". If so, if team C really does have the weakest team- why should they win? What you see as "being miserable", in that same situation, I would see as making the best of a bad situation, it is a "normal" match.

"And in turn shifts the meta in a way that is not conducive to long term health of the game and the retention of the player base." There will always be some "meta" that players perceive. We had ranged jobs as the meta not that long ago- particularly SMNs and to some extent WHMs. We had the PLD cover issue. We had MNKs (in particular) kicking people off of ledges and racking up BH which drove new people in particular crazy (and nothing was done). If you define a specific "meta" as problematic then players will always switch to another. That is just the nature of many players. I would prefer than Square considers FL and CC separately with regards to jobs in PvP, in addition there is the issue of BH which should be re-examined.

[Chasingstars]

I honestly am not understanding what you're trying to communicate, my apologies as I'm not trying to be obtuse, however it's a bit convoluted I can't quite follow your logic.

So, in my view the end game is to win. Whether the tactics that you use are to go directly for who is in the lead, or to get there by hitting the 2nd place team- why is that relevant?

Then you're discussing throwing a match. Let's be clear- throwing a matching is giving up, in various ways, so that another team can win. How is advocating for that? If for example , teams A and B want to block team (c) from winning, at a specific point when "C" is demoralized or far enough behind, either A or B is free to go for the win.
Unless I misunderstand, you seeme to be in a situation of team A being very strong, team B being v very strong, and team C saying 'what the hell, I know I won't win, but I'll make sure that I'll pick whom I want to win". If so, if team C really does have the weakest team- why should they win? What you see as "being miserable", in that same situation, I would see as making the best of a bad situation, it is a "normal" match.

"And in turn shifts the meta in a way that is not conducive to long term health of the game and the retention of the player base." There will always be some "meta" that players perceive. We had ranged jobs as the meta not that long ago- particularly SMNs and to some extent WHMs. We had the PLD cover issue. We had MNKs (in particular) kicking people off of ledges and racking up BH which drove new people in particular crazy (and nothing was done). If you define a specific "meta" as problematic then players will always switch to another. That is just the nature of many players. I would prefer than Square considers FL and CC separately with regards to jobs in PvP, in addition there is the issue of BH which should be re-examined.

Okay let me lay it in layman's terms for you to understand.

Your team is going to potentially lose, give away 1st place win in a frontlines match, because they want to spite another team who they believe is a premade party with astrologians and dark knights. As to your potential team, it's better that the premades have another loss.

Do I need to simplify it more? As this is what I been seeing with the whole emphasis on Dark Knights and Astrologians. And I easily play 3 matches of frontlines a day.

[IDontPetLalas]

Okay let me lay it in layman's terms for you to understand.

Your team is going to potentially lose, give away 1st place win in a frontlines match, because they want to spite another team who they believe is a premade party with astrologians and dark knights. As to your potential team, it's better that the premades have another loss.

Do I need to simplify it more? As this is what I been seeing with the whole emphasis on Dark Knights and Astrologians. And I easily play 3 matches of frontlines a day.

First of "layman's terminology' hardly applies here, so need for the condescending tone.

No wonder I said it was convoluted, you've mixed up some people that have potentially a fear not only of (a) premades (b) a specific number of jobs who may or may not be in a premade and (c) an issue that you have because you just may lose in a 3-way PVP match, because you have a grudge if you encounter a premade.

As to the 3 a day- well we're close, I usually do 2, however, it seems I've done considerably more FL than you. This behaviour is hardly new - so if anyone's should be using the "layman's terminology' , well it hardly applies here. In any case I'm not about to tell you on whether you should like it or not.

[Chasingstars]

First of "layman's terminology' hardly applies here, so need for the condescending tone.

No wonder I said it was convoluted, you've mixed up some people that have potentially a fear not only of (a) premades (b) a specific number of jobs who may or may not be in a premade and (c) an issue that you have because you just may lose in a 3-way PVP match, because you have a grudge if you encounter a premade.

As to the 3 a day- well we're close, I usually do 2, however, it seems I've done considerably more FL than you. This behaviour is hardly new - so if anyone's should be using the "layman's terminology' , well it hardly applies here. In any case I'm not about to tell you on whether you should like it or not.

I chose to be condescending as I figured you would have understood by now that players will use what works the best, and that personal victories often matter more to an individual than the more statistical truth of actually getting 1st place, which you agreed to.

Like let me use an offtopic example for a moment. Magic the Gathering, Modern Format. There is a deck called Rakdos Scam. It blows up and becomes the most dominant deck in the format that only loses to a mirror match of itself. It takes the parent company an entire 8 months to ban one of its key cards, all the while up to that point claiming the format, aka game mode, is "healthy". Like wow, that sounds messed up the game designers would just let something run a muck for so long.

Why bring that as an example? Just look at Dark Knight. Everyone day one of 6.1 could see it had a lot of problematic elements to its kit. But Square Enix does nothing to actually address the stuff people noticed, like the AoE effect not matching the visual indicator as just one teeny tiny example. It among other elements of the job are things have existed well over a year and a half at this point. And nothing is done to actually try and fix, the expectation is more so it will dodge another patch notes update for any potential nerfs that isn't a sweeping one like the duration of crowd control or the adjustments of damage reduction. As all that matters to Square Enix is Crystalline Conflict, if it is fine there, then surely it is fine in every other game mode to them.

[IDontPetLalas]

I chose to be condescending as I figured you would have understood by now that players will use what works the best, and that personal victories often matter more to an individual than the more statistical truth of actually getting 1st place, which you agreed to.

Like let me use an offtopic example for a moment. Magic the Gathering, Modern Format. There is a deck called Rakdos Scam. It blows up and becomes the most dominant deck in the format that only loses to a mirror match of itself. It takes the parent company an entire 8 months to ban one of its key cards, all the while up to that point claiming the format, aka game mode, is "healthy". Like wow, that sounds messed up the game designers would just let something run a muck for so long.

Why bring that as an example? Just look at Dark Knight. Everyone day one of 6.1 could see it had a lot of problematic elements to its kit. But Square Enix does nothing to actually address the stuff people noticed, like the AoE effect not matching the visual indicator as just one teeny tiny example. It among other elements of the job are things have existed well over a year and a half at this point. And nothing is done to actually try and fix, the expectation is more so it will dodge another patch notes update for any potential nerfs that isn't a sweeping one like the duration of crowd control or the adjustments of damage reduction. As all that matters to Square Enix is Crystalline Conflict, if it is fine there, then surely it is fine in every other game mode to them.

If you figured you "choose to be condescending" in a reaction to someone who say that your argument is unclear, and could your clear up what may be a misunderstanding on their part, then that doesn't really say much for your having a good faith discussion, does it?

So I'll leave this at saying that I have no idea of where you drew the conclusion that I agreed to "personal victories often matter more to an individual than the more statistical truth of actually getting 1st place". If you want to extend " some players will form a premade because they have friends, like to play together, and like to win" to "players will use what works the best", sure I agree. Or, 'some players will switch to whatever job they think is meta", again- agreed.

[Chasingstars]

"And in turn shifts the meta in a way that is not conducive to long term health of the game and the retention of the player base." There will always be some "meta" that players perceive. We had ranged jobs as the meta not that long ago- particularly SMNs and to some extent WHMs. We had the PLD cover issue. We had MNKs (in particular) kicking people off of ledges and racking up BH which drove new people in particular crazy (and nothing was done). If you define a specific "meta" as problematic then players will always switch to another. That is just the nature of many players. I would prefer than Square considers FL and CC separately with regards to jobs in PvP, in addition there is the issue of BH which should be re-examined.

Also that is not some arbitrary bullshit I can pull out my backside of a "ranged meta". It happened. Ninja and Samurai and Dragoon used to have a 40% damage reduction. Then Summoner spam happened. And they got knee-jerk reaction buffed to 60%. Then later nerfed to 50% after player outcry.

EDIT:

Also something was done about monk's kicking people off ledges. Have you actually played Shatter recently? There really isn't a high spot any more that causes death due to the distance from falling. And the other favorite of monks that did that? That map is currently being reworked and is unavailable to the public. The closest you can get to that now is you have to soften someone up first then knock them off the ledge to cause fall damage. Shatter has less verticality than it used to.

And yes battle high is antiquated. It is a hold over from an old MVP system in frontlines.

[Scintilla]

You just agreed that the goal of each of the coalition members is to beat the alliance in the lead so that one of them will win. I don't see how that is a "sacrifice".

To make it simpler - Blue are premade, Yellow and Red are random.

Now, just to check that I'm not misunderstanding:
You argue that because the random alliances' goal has now changed from "Let's win" to "Let's make sure anyone wins except the premade", that Red having to voluntarily lose the game in favour of supporting Yellow to win, means that they are no longer making a sacrifice?
That Red are sacrificing nothing because their new goal was to stop the premade (Blue) winning?

It is another angle to view it from, but I still can't say that I fully agree with it. I acknowledge it remains a conscious decision, but in all fairness, they aren't given all that much choice: you either both lose to the premade or only one of you loses to the premade. And given that the whole point of FL is to support your alliance to victory, being presented with such an ultimatum somewhat goes against this. Unless you would now view the two random alliances as one united, singular alliance.

So many players affected, solely because 4 players decided they wanted an easy run.