Reduce the size of Frontlines

[Martynek]

The game's netcode/servers quite obviously cannot handle PVP combat of Frontline's scale. Even with an extremely stable connection and low ping, you will frequently find issues such as being CC'd under purify, getting hit while covered by a paladin, and heals taking so long to go off that the target has already died by the time they trigger.

Why not adjust it to a smaller scale? A few possible examples:

8v8v8: Simple enough, 3 teams of 8.
12v12v12: Each team is made up of 3 light parties.
10v10v10: Following Crystal Conflict's example of 5 player parties, each team has 2 of these groups. Alternatively 15v15v15 with the same rationale, but that might be pushing it.

[Reinhardt_Azureheim]

Lovely suggestion! Fills me nostalgia, we had small-scale Frontline before patch 5.1, the enforced 72-man came after that. It was implemented to keep Frontlines going even in off-hours and was fairly enjoyable for the crowd who wanted their individual performance matter more than sheer numbers.

The only problem is that *maybe* the maps might need slight redesign, since their size was meant to accomodate 72 players. Where it did struggle as well was keeping deathballing / zerging in check, something Rival Wings does well with the multi-lane system and multiple active objectives.

Short: Love it, want it, but would need tuning.

[Towa-Musa]

The game's netcode/servers quite obviously cannot handle PVP combat of Frontline's scale. Even with an extremely stable connection and low ping, you will frequently find issues such as being CC'd under purify, getting hit while covered by a paladin, and heals taking so long to go off that the target has already died by the time they trigger.

Why not adjust it to a smaller scale? A few possible examples:

8v8v8: Simple enough, 3 teams of 8.
12v12v12: Each team is made up of 3 light parties.
10v10v10: Following Crystal Conflict's example of 5 player parties, each team has 2 of these groups. Alternatively 15v15v15 with the same rationale, but that might be pushing it.

yer not the only one out there that wants this lol

[UnrealTai]

Always hated 72s

Not even for netcode reasons but its another one.

24s were fine.

[Elfidan]

The question is, do any of us not want this?

[Ransu]

We used to get scaled down maps with 8v8v8 when there wasn't enough players to fill a 72 player match...which back then was basically always. 8v8v8 was pretty fun and way more tolerable than 72 players.

[Reinhardt_Azureheim]

The question is, do any of us not want this?

Considering the commander-style strategy making JP does, very likely JP as a whole. Though I don't think they have massive qualms over smaller scale either, so I may be projecting by accident.

[Llynethil]

As its own set of maps and its own roulette, don't mind, but don't touch the current maps, outside of borderland ruins and the rediculous melee dr, frontlines are good as they are, it has its ups and down but the big frantic battles are fun to have.

[Reinhardt_Azureheim]

As its own set of maps and its own roulette, don't mind, but don't touch the current maps, outside of borderland ruins and the rediculous melee dr, frontlines are good as they are, it has its ups and down but the big frantic battles are fun to have.

Eeeeeeeeeh...

Seal Rock while favoured by some has actually some fairly unbalanced map layout, which at least in the past made it awful if you got the Crystal base vs Cave/Beach. There is absolutely minimal cover with no home advantages, while Cave enjoys several highgrounds and Beach gets some relevant rock partitions early on.

I like myself irregular map design, but Crystal base is really awful in my opinion.

[Towa-Musa]

i miss 8v8v8 it was such a simpler time...