Frontlines over coordination Issues

[Mawlzy]

"If over coordination is NOT acceptable in Frontlines, I would recommend the removal of placing waymarkers, target markers, and the use of the chat in any capacity while participating in Frontlines, to prevent up to 24 players being directed for the over coordination efforts."

I'll go with "this is bait" for 50 please.

Hmmm. I was edging towards a reductio ad absurdum, but it's often hard to tell on these boards.

[Nubrication]

- If over coordination IS acceptable in Frontlines, I would like to see the return of eight player parties, to hang out with more friends, with the potential of queuing with up to 24 players, seeing that over coordination no longer is considered an issue and becomes the acceptable norm.

8-man premades were the glory days of FL. Good ol seal rock and ol shatter. Unfortunately I don’t think that would work now because of the “new pvp style”. Simply because you’re underestimating the power of 8 really good pvpers coordinating. I’m pretty sure a good solid group of 8 can take a whole alliance (24 people) by themselves. That just leaves the randoms in the opposing alliances to get stomped, utterly stomped. And a 24 man premade? LOL.

- If over coordination is NOT acceptable in Frontlines, I would recommend the removal of placing waymarkers, target markers, and the use of the chat in any capacity while participating in Frontlines, to prevent up to 24 players being directed for the over coordination efforts

Hard pass on communism.

TLDR: it’s fine the way it is.

[Bobby66]

Hmmm. I was edging towards a reductio ad absurdum, but it's often hard to tell on these boards.

I mean dont people who normally bring up absurd points or topics do so as a means of trolling? Why else would they do it?

[Commander_Justitia]

If it is bait or not, I kinda liked 24man frontlines. They were more chill and you had more impact yourself. Though with how the PvP now is, I couldn't see anybody dying fast enough to make it work.

Players will often choose the way of least resistance and least effort to win, and that is playing DRK and be a commander who puts waymarks and calls out salted earth. It is simple and has good enough effect to turn the tide in your favor. It wouldn't be so attractive to lead this way, if DRKs ability wouldn't exist.

JP has played with commanders since eternity and you can expect almost every alliance to have one, players respect it more, they will not run around mindlessly as much. And thus they are harder to play against, even with DRK coordination, because you have coordination too. But if you just want exp and don't care about winning, then see you don't have a drk commander, players give up more easily here..

So why not create an interface for commanders to use in frontline? They could make special pvp related signs on the map, get an extra font or symbols in front of their name. It could show the path to a marked node that was called out by the leader. They can be voted as commanders in the prep up time before the match starts. If people are unhappy with him, they can take away the privilege by clicking their vote off again. A minimum of 10 votes required to lead. If nobody meets the threshold, no commander. Commander can turn off themselves if they don't want to lead. They could have 50% more HP and 20% more dmg output in the area around them. Killing them would net the other team 50 points. So its a trade off, have more dmg where it matters but you risk getting killed. Maybe even give them duty actions that can be used once per game, like something like lb3s.

[Bobby66]

I know it would never pop but ranked team FL would he fun. 8v8v8 of course.

[Mawlzy]

So why not create an interface for commanders to use in frontline? They could make special pvp related signs on the map, get an extra font or symbols in front of their name. It could show the path to a marked node that was called out by the leader. They can be voted as commanders in the prep up time before the match starts. If people are unhappy with him, they can take away the privilege by clicking their vote off again. A minimum of 10 votes required to lead. If nobody meets the threshold, no commander. Commander can turn off themselves if they don't want to lead. They could have 50% more HP and 20% more dmg output in the area around them. Killing them would net the other team 50 points. So its a trade off, have more dmg where it matters but you risk getting killed. Maybe even give them duty actions that can be used once per game, like something like lb3s.

Oh this is interesting. I think one reason commanders get so much push-back is that currently they impose themselves on the match. If the threshold is set as low as ten (I'd prefer 13 for a simple majority), votes from the commander's light party (if any) obviously should not count.

If the team decides they want to be commanded, I'd also suggest GMs should have clear guidelines to penalize players sabotaging the commander's efforts. It would also give time to those who dislike the playstyle to leave.

[Mawlzy]

I mean dont people who normally bring up absurd points or topics do so as a means of trolling? Why else would they do it?

By taking a position/hypothesis and extending it to an allegedly logical conclusion, they attempt to generate an internal inconsistency thereby invalidating the original hypothesis. What we're dealing with here is better described as a false syllogism, since there's no reason the FL rule set should be either 8-man premades and GC stacking or feature a complete ban on all methods of communication.

Only the OP can clarify. I don't like pretending I know the thoughts and motivations of others, unlike the psychic members on these boards.

[Bobby66]

By taking a position/hypothesis and extending it to an allegedly logical conclusion, they attempt to generate an internal inconsistency thereby invalidating the original hypothesis. What we're dealing with here is better described as a false syllogism, since there's no reason the FL rule set should be either 8-man premades and GC stacking or feature a complete ban on all methods of communication.

Only the OP can clarify. I don't like pretending I know the thoughts and motivations of others, unlike the psychic members on these boards.

I mean arguing based on a false presumption is honestly a form of trolling. At that point they are arguing in bad faith which is also not only trolling but BM.

[Mawlzy]

I mean arguing based on a false presumption is honestly a form of trolling. At that point they are arguing in bad faith which is also not only trolling but BM.

As I said, I'm not going to presume to know the mind of the OP.

If I was going to expand their argument, however, I'd note that voice chat is a massive aid to coordination. Thus in a coordinated FL, SQEX should introduce a bespoke VC option (since a third-party tool like Discord chat currently lives in a ToS grey zone), and players would be compelled to use it or be barred from playing FL.

Obviously I don't believe that. There must be a middle path.

[Menriq]

As I said, I'm not going to presume to know the mind of the OP.

If I was going to expand their argument, however, I'd note that voice chat is a massive aid to coordination. Thus in a coordinated FL, SQEX should introduce a bespoke VC option (since a third-party tool like Discord chat currently lives in a ToS grey zone), and players would be compelled to use it or be barred from playing FL.

Obviously I don't believe that. There must be a middle path.

Just going to chime in that Discord is absolutely not a ToS gray zone. It does not interact with the game in any manner.