SUGGESTION: Change cadence of FL map rotation

[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.

[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.

[AmiableApkallu]

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.

Unless you also disable or restrict chat, à la Crystaline Conflict, anyone and everyone will still be able to try their hand at calling shots and directing the troops. The ability to place markers might be helpful, but it's hardly a requirement.

[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.

[Mawlzy]

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

Yup, exactly.

And as Perly notes, I doubt there'd be a lot of competition anyway. Most of the shot-callers from 18 months ago on Aether have gone into hiding (running silent alts with premades?).