Disruptive Frontline Gameplay

[IDontPetLalas]

Veteran players are less likely to die repeatedly to premades. But, in my own experience, even when playing as part of very good teams, the most effective (and sometimes the only way) of handling of premades remains to 2v1 them with the other alliance. This isn't simply "pinch them once or twice and then play as normal", but a constant focus on them throughout the duration of the game:



Is it a remedy? Yes, it's not frequently employed by random teams largely because it involves adjusting play significantly from what would usually be correct. But it is a method becoming more common as players become more familiar with premades. But it's treating the symptoms, not the cause. There is currently a significant imbalance caused by current FL setup which is taken heavy advantage of by premade teams. This is a reality.

There are 2 options to work around this:
1. Create a premade team of your own
2. Spend the entire game with both random alliances focusing down the premade's alliance, often finishing up with one random alliance having to sacrifice their game for the sake of the other.

Having a premade team of your own should never be obligatory or a prerequisite purely to make FLs competitive and to do so would only make the situation worse by making the issue more common and widespread, forcing more and more to do the same or quit PvP entirely.

As for option 2, I don't see why FL games should involve forcing one random team into sacrificing their game to assist the second random team, just to keep any semblance of competition going. The many being forced to adjust purely for the benefit of the few - a few who prefer to take an easy route to wins rather than employing any of these characteristics which you define to be 'skill'

"As for option 2, I don't see why FL games should involve forcing one random team into sacrificing their game to assist the second random team, just to keep any semblance of competition going. The many being forced to adjust purely for the benefit of the few - a few who prefer to take an easy route to wins rather than employing any of these characteristics which you define to be 'skill'"

That's... an interesting view. I don't view 2 alliances forming a partnership as "sacrificing their game". What game, exactly, when it's a 3 way match, and even in other game's that I've played, such as in in 3 faction OW PvP, it was typical for temporary alliances to form between 2 factions in order to fight the 3rd? You may not like the mode - but in a 3 way fight- this is going to happen. There is a good chance that one of those 2 teams will win - so, again "no sacrifice". Personally, I like having the choice of this mode and RW as a 2-way fight.

[Garten]

The gamemode need some drastic changes (little example:remove BH), or more simply they need to REMOVE party premades
Or we can just enter and afk and call it a day

[Astrahime]

bring back 8v8v8, that'll solve most of the issues in this thread other than "premades are unfair".
Are you being attacked by stun after stun after stun? Now you don't have to deal with as many people and Purify's CD isn't an issue anymore.
Too many Summoners blowing their load at once? They're gimping what they can do outside of burst because those 8 summoners are literally just 8 summoners.

[Scintilla]

That's... an interesting view. I don't view 2 alliances forming a partnership as "scarificing their game". What game, exactly, when it's a 3 way match, and even in other game's that I've played, such as in in 3 faction OW PvP, it was typical for temporary alliances to form between 2 factions in order to fight the 3rd? You may not like the mode - but in a 3 way fight- this is going to happen. There is a good chance that one of those 2 teams will win - so, again "no sacrifice". Personally, I like having the choice of this mode and RW as a 2-way fight.

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"

[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.

[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.

[Aravell]

Veteran players are less likely to die repeatedly to premades. But, in my own experience, even when playing as part of very good teams, the most effective (and sometimes the only way) of handling of premades remains to 2v1 them with the other alliance. This isn't simply "pinch them once or twice and then play as normal", but a constant focus on them throughout the duration of the game

Can you define what "play as normal" means? Do you mean just playing for objectives? Because that's a fantastic way to lose the game. This is PvP, player vs player, you gain points from killing a player and the other team loses points for losing that player, killing players is the most effective way to win the match, you're even saying that the pre-mades are winning off kills.

So, why exactly would going after and farming the pre-made harm your chances to win? If you insist that pinching the pre-made is the only way to beat them, that means that the other alliance is also in combat with the pre-made, why are they getting the objectives and you're not? Your scenario doesn't make any sense at all. If the other alliance is breaking off a light party to go and grab objectives that spawn while the bulk of them are staving off the pre-made, that is a common tactic, why is your team not doing the same?

If your team is hyperfocusing on the pre-made when they're behind the other team for fear of the pre-made having a sudden comeback (which is laughable, since if you've been destroying them long enough for them to fall to last place, they're very likely to not have any battle high and they'll be more wary of diving into places where you're both fighting), then your team did actually throw the match, but not because the pre-made made your team throw the match to keep them down, your team threw the match because none of your team had the map open to go contest the 3-4 people from the other alliance that went to grab the objective that spawned.