Disruptive Frontline Gameplay

[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]

then that doesn't really say much for your having a good faith discussion, does it?

Oh that is rich coming from you.