Slaughterlines - Feedback/suggestions

[DividedSky]

I'm a big fan of waiting at least a week before passing judgement. New strategies will evolve. Like all melee teams rushing into zerg spamming aoe completely shutting down all loltrollblms and preventing them from casting. I'll be trying this soon. Melee aoe is pretty nice in big groups of casters. It makes them scatter and prevents them from casting/killing you. Use to do this all the Time on flags to prevent heal stackers on flags and it works wonders.

[Red_Wolf]

I think Wolves' Den is a better option than changing Slaughter to 8v8v8.

[Hiruke]

Other than tanks/healers not being able to get Battle Highs very often because they aren't really killing much (well, tanks probably way more than healers), I really like Slaughter. I wouldn't want any big changes to the format. I like how focused it is on the center and fighting each other in a grand melee.

If you just wandered the map, the weaknesses of a lot of jobs would show through heavily, which is what I was worried about when I first read the patch notes.

Tanks/healers should get bonuses for something other than just kills, that's all I would change.

[Shake0615]

My suggestion: don't be lazy and make a new map that is actually conducive to deathmatch-style PvP. There's almost no reason to leave mid so 90% of the map is completely wasted.

[Mutemutt]

Yep, my thoughts exactly. 72 is way too much to have fighting up at the middle. We need a smaller number of people per match or more reason to spread out across the map.

[Ophie-Mio]

I'm not actually a fan of how the battle high system works. To me, when I first heard about it, I figured that it would be better off as the direct opposite.

Instead of the people who were already doing good getting the battle high and continuing to slaughter the opposing teams, it would have been more interesting to me if the opposing teams got it instead. Giving the boost to the weaker teams would then make the #1 team a target.

This sort of strategy happened in Assassin's Creed multiplayer where the first person to come out ahead and get a kill got more people targeted to them and they had to survive against more people. Once they died, they were balanced again.

It just seemed to me that it was just a kind of death fest with no real strategy besides the whole "Don't cross the line" thing where all melee got hosed. I would prefer a system where if the ranged dps are dominating, it turns the tables against them. If they still win out, they get the ego boost and if they lose, the buff goes to them next.

[Fadigre]

This sort of strategy happened in Assassin's Creed multiplayer where the first person to come out ahead and get a kill got more people targeted to them and they had to survive against more people. Once they died, they were balanced again.

I'd appreciate at least bonus points for shutting down somebody with Battle High or Battle Frenzy, it'd add another layer of strategy to both the offending and defending teams!

[Nalien]

I'd appreciate at least bonus points for shutting down somebody with Battle High or Battle Frenzy, it'd add another layer of strategy to both the offending and defending teams!

I was saying as much the moment the preliminary patch notes were released. Couple that with people being spread out and the team which is better at scouting and communicating has a far bigger advantage than Battle Fever could ever give.

[Mutemutt]

This sort of strategy happened in Assassin's Creed multiplayer where the first person to come out ahead and get a kill got more people targeted to them and they had to survive against more people. Once they died, they were balanced again.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Assassin's Creed's multiplayer also give a bonus for killstreaks? So both games helped the winning players keep winning in a way. It's worth mentioning that slaughter does have a comeback mechanic in the fact that the losing teams build their adrenaline faster. So, I suppose that any of the melee could take advantage of their adrenaline boost to quickly kill the people on a battle high and erase their buff. Well, at least I think that idea wrecking that buff is enough put that particular enemy at the top of the kill list.

[Ophie-Mio]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Assassin's Creed's multiplayer also give a bonus for killstreaks? So both games helped the winning players keep winning in a way.

It did, but with 3-4 more people hunting just you, it was really hard to keep the streak. The issue I'm seeing in Slaughter is that it gives the winners more to keep winning and it literally allows them to keep slaughtering people. Adrenaline just didn't seem enough to really break the battle high or battle frenzy. To me, personally, it just seems like it should be switched.