Slaughterlines - Feedback/suggestions

[Synestra]

You might be a small minority that enjoyed the 48-man Secure.

Really? why would anyone not like 16vs16vs16 that results balanced amount of players in each objectives o.O if anything it was 72man mode that should have been removed due it ending mostly always in zergfest. But yeah 48 and 24 should be imo only sizes for slaughter so you could atleast remotely enjoy it while not rolling with premade.

[Atreus]

Are we talking about the same thing? Secure, ie. classic Frontline.

72-man matches enable each team to go a direction of their own at the start. Any stacking that takes place after that point is merely tactical to either lock down a lead or to put down the leading team. Said stacking was typically temporary, as each team had a key responsibility. I'm not sure how you concluded it as nearly the zergfest that Slaughter is. 48-man made you have to roll the dice on how many players to send where, leaving part of the game to chance. I can't really think of a single person who enjoyed 48-man Secure, at least on my server.

[ZanzhizExaverion]

Are we talking about the same thing? Secure, ie. classic Frontline.

72-man matches enable each team to go a direction of their own at the start. Any stacking that takes place after that point is merely tactical to either lock down a lead or to put down the leading team. Said stacking was typically temporary, as each team had a key responsibility. I'm not sure how you concluded it as nearly the zergfest that Slaughter is. 48-man made you have to roll the dice on how many players to send where, leaving part of the game to chance. I can't really think of a single person who enjoyed 48-man Secure, at least on my server.

I loved 48 man secure. It was large enough to see people all over the map, but not small enough to where it's all about the Nodes.

[Atreus]

Least you have good reasons, lol I always saw a bunch of groaning on Sultansworn when the 48's popped.

[ZanzhizExaverion]

Least you have good reasons, lol I always saw a bunch of groaning on Sultansworn when the 48's popped.

To be fair I think I've only witnessed one 48 man on Aether that IF's lost. They always won 48.

[Fadigre]

I loved 48 man secure. It was large enough to see people all over the map, but not small enough to where it's all about the Nodes.

I also love 48-man Secure. Each Grand Company could have up to 3 flags near their spawn but as each GC only has two teams players need to get creative in how they handle their resources to stay at the top!
72 man games have an abundance of man-power which leads to 10 minute Scholar fights over flags which do have their own set of strategies and gives a purpose to the B alliance but ultimately not as satisyfing.

[Ultimatecalibur]

I have a few ideas have the adds in the middle and further away throw out effects that make bunching up in a 24 person group in the middle near suicidal for the entire group.

• Large AoEs that target a single member of that party and deal a nasty amount of damage. Not enough to kill a dps or healer with a single hit, but will kill a dps if hit by 3 together.
• 3 different transmittable DoT that initially infect only one party each in each alliance and get boosted if a player is infected with multiple different ones. Having one is minor, having two is annoying but can be healed through, all 3 will melt you.

[Synestra]

I also love 48-man Secure. Each Grand Company could have up to 3 flags near their spawn but as each GC only has two teams players need to get creative in how they handle their resources to stay at the top!
72 man games have an abundance of man-power which leads to 10 minute Scholar fights over flags which do have their own set of strategies and gives a purpose to the B alliance but ultimately not as satisyfing.

You kinda naled it. Oh well i hope we see maps in future that are aimed for 16vs16vs16 as best and most intense matches i have had all happened in 48man so thats why im kinda sad SE removed it ;__;