PvP Frontline, same old, nothing new

[Valence]

It's something that you can see in modern secure: there is multiple points of action active at the same time (contesting left side, contesting right side, contesting middle when it pops), and even if people wanted to split, which I've tried doing, you can never be sure if you're actually going to get uptime out of it, because sometimes you decide say, to go contest the left side, and you capture points there, and there is nobody in the opposite team to deal with, so it feels like I'm wasting time. But more often it's the opposite, you have 3 people on your side and 10 come you way, so your only option is to get the heck out without doing anything. Only middle is generally invested enough that it will see actionable action to happen no matter what.

All of those mass pvp modes have a very hard time accounting for that when they try to split up forces through diverse mechanics on different locations all happening at the same time. It leaves a little too much freedom to players which ultimately results in choice paralysis in the case of RW, and imbalances in the case of FL.

[Divinemights]

It's something that you can see in modern secure: there is multiple points of action active at the same time (contesting left side, contesting right side, contesting middle when it pops), and even if people wanted to split, which I've tried doing, you can never be sure if you're actually going to get uptime out of it, because sometimes you decide say, to go contest the left side, and you capture points there, and there is nobody in the opposite team to deal with, so it feels like I'm wasting time. But more often it's the opposite, you have 3 people on your side and 10 come you way, so your only option is to get the heck out without doing anything. Only middle is generally invested enough that it will see actionable action to happen no matter what.

All of those mass pvp modes have a very hard time accounting for that when they try to split up forces through diverse mechanics on different locations all happening at the same time. It leaves a little too much freedom to players which ultimately results in choice paralysis in the case of RW, and imbalances in the case of FL.

The new Secure is not Onsal Hakair or Seal Rock; its overall design doesn’t take into account the typical "horde stomp" behavior of NA players.
Secure is intended to create a three-way conflict, with teams contesting control over three separate fronts—left, right, and top.
However, in practice, many NA players treat it like just another Onsal Hakair, mindlessly zerging objectives instead of playing strategically.

You can refer to the video below to see how Japanese alliances approach Secure.
In the JP region, players tend to split up efficiently, follow commands, and coordinate.
Everyone understands their role, and you rarely see the kind of internal resistance to leadership that’s common in NA matches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Oz4PKmSIbU

There’s no way Square Enix intentionally tuned Secure or Shatter to play like another Seal Rock.
These modes were clearly designed with distinct objectives and map structures in mind.
Secure encourages multi-front engagements and coordinated control of outposts, while Shatter is built around burst-objective spawn timing and AoE-focused teamfights.

Yet in the NA data centers, player behavior often reduces these modes to mindless zerg-fests, completely bypassing the strategic depth built into them.
Instead of splitting to contest multiple points or timing engagements properly, teams just blob together and roll from fight to fight; treating every Frontline map like a reskinned Onsal Hakair.

[Atreus]

The new Secure is not Onsal Hakair or Seal Rock; its overall design doesn’t take into account the typical "horde stomp" behavior of NA players.
Secure is intended to create a three-way conflict, with teams contesting control over three separate fronts—left, right, and top.
However, in practice, many NA players treat it like just another Onsal Hakair, mindlessly zerging objectives instead of playing strategically.

You can refer to the video below to see how Japanese alliances approach Secure.
In the JP region, players tend to split up efficiently, follow commands, and coordinate.
Everyone understands their role, and you rarely see the kind of internal resistance to leadership that’s common in NA matches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Oz4PKmSIbU

There’s no way Square Enix intentionally tuned Secure or Shatter to play like another Seal Rock.
These modes were clearly designed with distinct objectives and map structures in mind.
Secure encourages multi-front engagements and coordinated control of outposts, while Shatter is built around burst-objective spawn timing and AoE-focused teamfights.

Yet in the NA data centers, player behavior often reduces these modes to mindless zerg-fests, completely bypassing the strategic depth built into them.
Instead of splitting to contest multiple points or timing engagements properly, teams just blob together and roll from fight to fight; treating every Frontline map like a reskinned Onsal Hakair.

Man this is exactly how NA (at least Aether) used to do it in 2.0 when Secure came out lol. Every little change over the years to points, battle high, mount speed, and even premades elimination slowly devolved our Frontline culture to what it is now.


edit: clarified a word, so people understand my stance that limiting premades has hurt the mode.

[Valence]

The new Secure is not Onsal Hakair or Seal Rock; its overall design doesn’t take into account the typical "horde stomp" behavior of NA players.
Secure is intended to create a three-way conflict, with teams contesting control over three separate fronts—left, right, and top.
However, in practice, many NA players treat it like just another Onsal Hakair, mindlessly zerging objectives instead of playing strategically.

You can refer to the video below to see how Japanese alliances approach Secure.
In the JP region, players tend to split up efficiently, follow commands, and coordinate.
Everyone understands their role, and you rarely see the kind of internal resistance to leadership that’s common in NA matches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Oz4PKmSIbU

There’s no way Square Enix intentionally tuned Secure or Shatter to play like another Seal Rock.
These modes were clearly designed with distinct objectives and map structures in mind.
Secure encourages multi-front engagements and coordinated control of outposts, while Shatter is built around burst-objective spawn timing and AoE-focused teamfights.

Yet in the NA data centers, player behavior often reduces these modes to mindless zerg-fests, completely bypassing the strategic depth built into them.
Instead of splitting to contest multiple points or timing engagements properly, teams just blob together and roll from fight to fight; treating every Frontline map like a reskinned Onsal Hakair.

(why do you keep assuming I play on NA I don't even)

If you refer to the opening of the video, perhaps they look a bit more organized or better split than we have on EU, but skip to 3min and beyond and it turns into the exact same meta with blobs and DRK sinkholes with the same doritos above the head and similar burst macros. All in all, that's what I assumed, people fancy thinking JP is different, but not that much. Even more so, at 6min the whole alliance is a single blob in the middle, even on EU I've not seen that happen on Secure.

As for resistance to leadership, again, I'll just say that if it happens on NA, it doesn't on EU, so this makes from what I see EU play very similarly to JP, and it's a blob fiesta steamrolling over a scattered opposition. All of what you explained is nice and probably the intent behind the design of the map, but all I'm seeing on that video is people specifically only following the principle for less than 3min at the beginning.

Thanks for someone finally providing a video example though, props for that.

[Divinemights]

(why do you keep assuming I play on NA I don't even)

If you refer to the opening of the video, perhaps they look a bit more organized or better split than we have on EU, but skip to 3min and beyond and it turns into the exact same meta with blobs and DRK sinkholes with the same doritos above the head and similar burst macros. All in all, that's what I assumed, people fancy thinking JP is different, but not that much. Even more so, at 6min the whole alliance is a single blob in the middle, even on EU I've not seen that happen on Secure.

As for resistance to leadership, again, I'll just say that if it happens on NA, it doesn't on EU, so this makes from what I see EU play very similarly to JP, and it's a blob fiesta steamrolling over a scattered opposition. All of what you explained is nice and probably the intent behind the design of the map, but all I'm seeing on that video is people specifically only following the principle for less than 3min at the beginning.

Thanks for someone finally providing a video example though, props for that.

Is that what matters to you?
I don’t care where you play.
My feedback is based on my long experience playing on Primal, which is in NA.
I certainly could have just typed NA/EU, but does that even impact what I’m trying to say?

You strongly emphasize DRK this and DRK that, but that’s just the current meta—and metas change.
Considering how coordinated Japanese players are, you’re definitely going to see it.
They also know how to counter DRK play—so why do you ignore that?

You also seem to complain about premades a lot, but I fail to see the reason—other than that you don’t want to face coordinated play
Not everyone will share the same opinion, especially since videos from Japanese players have already shown that even randoms can coordinate effectively.
You choose to ignore that and instead pick irrelevant clips to support your narrative about DRK.
Why is that?