SUGGESTION: Change cadence of FL map rotation

[Valence]

I have literally zero clue where this idea that people prefer shatter and secure. In my experience, shatter is almost universally despised and has always been. Secure has been so and so in its previous iteration.

[Cidel]

You may hear people claiming Seize and Onsal Hakir are better PvP mode, but it is just like flat earth theory, a myth.

I have yet to hear more people praise the new Shatter than the other modes; it arguably has the most criticism since its rework that I've seen across most active FFXIV discussion hubs. In my opinion, I would find the exact opposite to be true where it's a "myth" to think Shatter is in any way a better PvP mode than Onsal and Seize.

The fact is Shatter has been the most popular mode
Before they put in rotation restriction, Shatter is always you will get when you enter via roulette and Secure with 24 men

That was largely because the original Shatter was the newest mode, and people who already had Secure and Seize's achievement rewards wanted to farm the white ADS achievement mount. If it always popped, it was because it was the newest shiny toy and everyone was bored of the other 2 maps by then (and Slaughter was removed not too long later). It's been a long while but I also seem to recall that the map rotation was implemented because people complained that they couldn't reliably pop the map they wanted to play to earn their achievement wins.

Also, that was the original Shatter map; the one we have now is a shadow of it's former self and you can ask most people who were around for it and they would say they preferred the old map too, so talking about Shatter's popularity from years ago is a moot point. I enjoyed Seize, old Shatter and Onsal roughly equally (Seize being the least by a small margin because the map is still unbalanced and favors caves and shafts North), Secure was largely the unfavorite.

When they introducing Onsal Hakir, they force blocked all other modes and made everyone played this mode only for almost 6 months

This was because they wanted people to enjoy the new Frontlines mode and not have it where people would need to catch it only popping once every 4 days and have a chance to grind out the achievement mount without interruption of the rotation. I don't think it makes Onsal any less popular for it.

I do realize you dislike Secure and Shatter but you assume too much that everyone shared same opinion

Current rotation is fine as it is

True. We can't assume everyone has that same opinion, but new Shatter has arguably had the most noticeable negative reception, and needed one or two sizeable adjustments right after it launched just to fix ice spawning behavior and point systems to make it tolerable. New Secure still needs a little bit more time to have everybody get used to it, but compared to new Shatter, the feedback appears to narrowly tilt towards "positive" compared to the largely negative opinion of Shatter. It also has the benefit of launching with the new role actions.

But yes, the current rotation is fine. I suspect it's done this way so people can plan out their days if they want to play or not and (probably more importantly to the devs) so that achievement rewards on each map have equal chances to be worked on at reasonable intervals.

[ThreeBeastSmile]

Old Shatter was the one I could barely bring myself to queue on in the past. The middle section was just so bland and open and most of the time was spent shiffly-shuffling awkwardly making lukewarm pokes (not to say that this doesn't happen in the current day). For me the lack of good cover was what clinched it as the worst. It may not have been a big deal to many, but let's just say I'm rather often marked. I don't lead or anything btw. So yeah, lack of meaningful cover was the pits. Also the peripheral large crystals where it was super easy to pull out from? Wasn't a fan of that either.

On the other hand the small crystals at the edges were where I could have a bit more fun, or the bases itself. Nobody to fake-rely on, numbers of enemies wherein I can more easily track who is doing what, and yeah, I'd have some fun there. Going 1vs2+ is something I enjoy, that's where the new Shatter fails. I'd like small crystal spawns to be random and more frequent again. I'm a very niche case though, so doubt that would happen.

That's also why I happen to have always enjoyed Borderland Ruins. It's a soloer's haven in comparison. Though again I'm going to have to say, the revised ground level has less effective cover in some corners of the map than before... Anyway. Thus my map preference has almost always run in reverse to the majority.

As for the proposition at hand, I'm indifferent. Despite what I've said I'll queue all maps. I have more hatred directed at certain CC maps than FL maps. Tbh I think I'd be more for this suggestion than against, but for no particular reason... well, other than I prefer change vs static in a lot of cases.

[Divinemights]

I have literally zero clue where this idea that people prefer shatter and secure. In my experience, shatter is almost universally despised and has always been. Secure has been so and so in its previous iteration.

I personally prefer old shatter but I don't see new shatter is any bad
As long as spawn timer being manipulated until small and those pve oriented can go hit ice when those can fight actually go for kill.
Also, since solo kill right now is possible with new role action, have a tank and a melee harass the spawn area would be very effective (cutting the enemy supply)
The mode isn't that bad as people thinks

Also, for Secure, if you understand the mode and how it works, you will have a great time
I played total of 25 games yesterday and walk with 58% first place.
Based on the fact a solo joined with random team mate as variable, I find Secure > Shatter > Onsal Hakir > Seize for first place rate
Both Onsal Hakir and Seize has series issue of once casuals seeing an objective spawn, they immediately abandon teammates in combat and ran for it right away
Difficult to control compares Secure/Shatter in which has clear timing for casuals of when to PvE and when to PvP

[Valence]

Harassing bases and spawns on NA and EU is the best way to get ganked by a blob. Provided it even works since one just has to mount up and run away taking advantage of the invulnerability timer anyway.

I've never hated secure in its older iteration, and I cannot judge of the new one because I haven't played it much yet (maybe next moogle event). I liked that you could split up but that lasted unfortunately until early shb with their pvp rework and mount speed upgrade, which shifted the meta radically toward blobs moving back and forth, which removed the only fun side the mode had for me, and the lack of rng objectives with goals being followed on a script to the millisecond felt really tedious, boring and always the same past a few games with little variations.

[Mawlzy]

Harassing bases and spawns on NA and EU is the best way to get ganked by a blob. Provided it even works since one just has to mount up and run away taking advantage of the invulnerability timer anyway.

I've never hated secure in its older iteration, and I cannot judge of the new one because I haven't played it much yet (maybe next moogle event). I liked that you could split up but that lasted unfortunately until early shb with their pvp rework and mount speed upgrade, which shifted the meta radically toward blobs moving back and forth, which removed the only fun side the mode had for me, and the lack of rng objectives with goals being followed on a script to the millisecond felt really tedious, boring and always the same past a few games with little variations.

I think the new Secure might be interesting if each alliance had a competent commander (three per team) who knew what they were doing. This would also require some convention as to what each alliance does, as is the case in some alliance raids.

Since there isn't even an informal way of producing such a situation, and to-date I haven't been in a single match in which any kind of useful input was provided, I think it's doomed to be an unmitigated disaster.

The only organized play I've seen to date is through padding premades who prefer not to to tell their "team-mates" what they are doing. And why would they? They're not there to win.

[Commander_Justitia]

might be interesting if each alliance had a competent commander (three per team) who knew what they were doing

I would like to see a system in place, that enables players to apply for being such a commander at the start of a match, like signing up for it, they will appear in a list that gets displayed in the warmup time - all other players can then vote their leader for their alliance.
This would give them privileges to use map tools like placing symbols like waymarks where to attack (a sword symbol) and to defend (a shield symbol) or placing arrows on where to go. You could also give them unique markings over their characters so everyone will recognize they are leading, or simply increase their size by 50% base model (might be useless for lalafell - similar to Dohn Mheg 2nd boss mechanic 'Growth' lol). These symbols would also appear on the map and minimap.

Could also give them a battle cry ability once a match, that gives players 30y around them full LB. This can be used super tactically if you think its a match deciding moment. Can be placed as another special ability like the role action we have now.

This would also prevent people from trolling leaders, by removing their markings that they places on themselves. Chat still doesn't show when a player removes a marking, it will only show that it was placed sadly. Which enables them to grief while not being able to be punished.

There shouldn't be any achievements tied to this, or any item rewards, it is purely cosmetically for 1 round of frontline or rival wings. Just for strategy.

If a leader trolls, he is sure to not be voted again, could also be an option to change one mid match I guess if his approval rating goes below a threshold.

If one enemy alliance doesn't have a player applying for a leader. None of the three alliances will get one. So there is no unfair advantage.

[Mawlzy]

I would like to see a system in place, that enables players to apply for being such a commander at the start of a match, like signing up for it, they will appear in a list that gets displayed in the warmup time - all other players can then vote their leader for their alliance.

I think this is an interesting idea that I believe has cropped up before here.

Much of the friction between commanders and the foot soldiers is that the current system requires the commander to appoint themselves. A formal voting system would remove that issue, and perhaps also communicate the idea that FL is a serious strategy mode.

It would also allow those who prefer matches without a single shot-caller to have input on whether or not they got one.

[PGuin]

I would be surprised if the majority of players (once a day rouletters) even recognize people who play a lot of frontline, which makes me think such a system would randomly appoint people. Though to be fair, I don't think there would be many applications for leader to start with.

[Commander_Justitia]

If people don't want a leader, they can either pass or vote for "no leader" I guess.