Frontlines sucks Ultra megathread

[Mawlzy]

Yes, I agree that there is little incentive for player to improve. There is some, but not enough to entice most players.

I do not see why you are choosing to backtrack now. "Players having little reason to improve" is a reason why "players are not improving fast enough"

If you want to continue that line we can, but we have done all we can as players by posting those concerns and discussing possible solutions.
-
I will continue my line. I will be more direct. Is it wrong for me to offer advice about frontlines?

Focus on what we agree on? We'd like the average skill level to increase. We'll get nowhere if we focus on the speed of improvement, since I think premades are partially responsible for the fact it is stuck in neutral.

In that spirit, no, it isn't wrong that you offer advice about FL. I've stated I wish more people would read your analysis of the strategic considerations raised by the three maps in your guide.

[Eastwall]

You at least accept that my issue "people are not improving fast enough" is a valid issue.

I would like to continue asking a few more questions. This is not some sort of "gatcha" trap. This is to find where are reasons diverge in a stright forward an direct manner.

Is it wrong to offer advice to players?

It is not, but there is no incentive to improve since you get the roulette bonus even if you lose. So it enters one ear Then exits right away from the other ear.

[Mawlzy]

It is not, but there is no incentive to improve since you get the roulette bonus even if you lose. So it enters one ear Then exits right away from the other ear.

Not sure if Olivia was thinking of in-match advice or mentoring via Discord/FC. The former is tricky simply because the battles tend to be hectic, but I'd suggest the standard, aggressive commanding that is becoming increasingly common does more harm than good in this regard. With light commanding or multiple players providing suggestions, all those players who are actually trying have to make constant assessments of the battle state via the map and the current engagement. That is how you learn the mode. It is also essential for fast responses to changing situations. Even with macros firing off, a marker, and the chat getting blasted with <se.X>, there is a significant lag between the commander reaching a decision and the broadcasted orders being processed and acted upon by the other players. Part of this lag is simply that players "simply following orders" have no idea of the current strategic situation; they just do as they're told.

In other words, in the absence of an overbearing commander, interested players develop the strategic skills they need to be good at the game, and in doing so will have far faster reaction times than someone who is simply being told what to do. Indeed it raises the question of why someone would even play a strategy game if their role, as dictated by a self-appointed boss, is to do precisely what they're told. I can imagine the playstyle driving away the best players.

Again I guess it comes down to goals. If the only reason to play FL is to win, then following strict orders from a competent commander may very well be the best approach. But if you want to actually improve, thereby raising the overall skill floor, or heaven forbid exercise some personal agency, such a commander isn't helping at all. The only "learning" element is practicing w-a-s-d navigation, which I suspect most of us have mastered by now.

[Mistress_Irika]

Not sure why I didn't think of this until now. I know that very few people has brought that up. I just don't know when. (I sure feel really dumb now. facepalms)

Instead of reducing rewards why don't some of the rewards be tied to in game performance? No, I'm not talking about win/kill amounts being tied to mounts and titles. I'm talking about experience points being tied to the performance themselves. The additional experience points would be thrown on top of participation and team placement. If you've earned slightly more experience points for killing, healing/shielding, and battle high shut downs, and personal objectives acquired to name a few maybe some will naturally improve by pushing for certain extras. I can't say how much this would help though.

[Mawlzy]

Not sure why I didn't think of this until now. I know that very few people has brought that up. I just don't know when. (I sure feel really dumb now. facepalms)

Instead of reducing rewards why don't some of the rewards be tied to in game performance? No, I'm not talking about win/kill amounts being tied to mounts and titles. I'm talking about experience points being tied to the performance themselves. The additional experience points would be thrown on top of participation and team placement. If you've earned slightly more experience points for killing, healing/shielding, and battle high shut downs, and personal objectives acquired to name a few maybe some will naturally improve by pushing for certain extras. I can't say how much this would help though.

It's been raised in this thread, but unfortunately Olivia and I have likely obscured it.

[Scintilla]

Not sure why I didn't think of this until now. I know that very few people has brought that up. I just don't know when. (I sure feel really dumb now. facepalms)

Instead of reducing rewards why don't some of the rewards be tied to in game performance? No, I'm not talking about win/kill amounts being tied to mounts and titles. I'm talking about experience points being tied to the performance themselves. The additional experience points would be thrown on top of participation and team placement. If you've earned slightly more experience points for killing, healing/shielding, and battle high shut downs, and personal objectives acquired to name a few maybe some will naturally improve by pushing for certain extras. I can't say how much this would help though.

As the others have said, yes the idea has been proposed before. Initially, it doesn't seem like a bad idea at all and would encourage players to push for improvements. But it isn't at all straightforward and there are various issues with such a suggestion:

1. To give better rewards for wins/kills etc., it would just encourage more players to take the easy, high-profit, minimal effort premade option, which would push more regular and new players away from FLs

2. To reward by damage/kills would give some classes an advantage over others. For example, SCH is huge damage numbers for very little effort.

3. How are other contributions going to be judged? For example, a MNK using their LB and knockbacks to try to stop a particularly troublesome enemy DRK. They would be contributing to the team immensely, but that might not be reflected in the statistics at the end of the game.
Whether it is possible somehow to measure such contributions, we have no real way of knowing.

[Mistress_Irika]

It's been raised in this thread, but unfortunately Olivia and I have likely obscured it.

Yes, it has been suggested. It might even be more reasonable to say it could happen if they're trying to make the game "more stressful" or whatever. But unless you know a pvp dev we've reached the logical end of that discussion ;-;

As the others have said, yes the idea has been proposed before. Initially, it doesn't seem like a bad idea at all and would encourage players to push for improvements. But it isn't at all straightforward and there are various issues with such a suggestion:

1. To give better rewards for wins/kills etc., it would just encourage more players to take the easy, high-profit, minimal effort premade option, which would push more regular and new players away from FLs

2. To reward by damage/kills would give some classes an advantage over others. For example, SCH is huge damage numbers for very little effort.

3. How are other contributions going to be judged? For example, a MNK using their LB and knockbacks to try to stop a particularly troublesome enemy DRK. They would be contributing to the team immensely, but that might not be reflected in the statistics at the end of the game.
Whether it is possible somehow to measure such contributions, we have no real way of knowing.

I am just about out of ideas. I'm not sure how to get others to care about winning without turning the atmosphere tryhard if such an option exist in the first place.

[Mawlzy]

I am just about out of ideas. I'm not sure how to get others to care about winning without turning the atmosphere tryhard if such an option exist in the first place.

I think the bigger picture is that the current situation encourages churn, and that in itself ensures that the overall skill level doesn't increase. Specifically, new players tend to get driven out by despondency and the miserable experience they have, to be replaced by other new players and the cycle repeats. Meanwhile, many of the more experienced players who enjoy the mode, but who play solo, reduce their participation or quit entirely. In such an environment, the only people who play the mode consistently are members of premades, some of which are asymptoting to skill cap. The average skill cannot rise under those conditions.

[OliviaLugria]

Not sure why I didn't think of this until now. I know that very few people has brought that up. I just don't know when. (I sure feel really dumb now. facepalms)

Instead of reducing rewards why don't some of the rewards be tied to in game performance? No, I'm not talking about win/kill amounts being tied to mounts and titles. I'm talking about experience points being tied to the performance themselves. The additional experience points would be thrown on top of participation and team placement. If you've earned slightly more experience points for killing, healing/shielding, and battle high shut downs, and personal objectives acquired to name a few maybe some will naturally improve by pushing for certain extras. I can't say how much this would help though.

Yes, it has been suggested. It might even be more reasonable to say it could happen if they're trying to make the game "more stressful" or whatever. But unless you know a pvp dev we've reached the logical end of that discussion ;-;

[OliviaLugria]

Focus on what we agree on? We'd like the average skill level to increase. We'll get nowhere if we focus on the speed of improvement, since I think premades are partially responsible for the fact it is stuck in neutral.

I do not understand why we are having to go back to this.

-Premades are a problem*
-They are a problem because the average skill level is to low.
-if the average skill level increased, premades would be less* of a problem.
-the faster the average skill level rises, the faster premades are less of a problem.

Did you not agree with these points?