Frontline Should Be 1v1 not 2v1

[TofuLove]

Why not just make it so the losing team grants less battle high points when killed by a team ahead of them in points.

Will dis-incentivize "farming" the losing team for BH.


So a knockout against the losing team grants 2 points towards BH, instead of 10.

Assists will no longer grant battle high if against a member of the team with the lowest points.

Not sure that would work, even though I see the thinking.

Let's say you get s rank in spawn in the beginning of the game.
Both teams come try to get you - you successfully defend and kill them.
Some of your team will die, but overall your team will have more points and you have less BH because enemies don't give you as much BH even if you defeated them. So all of a sudden next encounter you have more points, but enemy has higher BH despite performing poorly.


Personally, I've advocated for cutting rewards for 2nd and 3rd place.

[SalamanderIX]

Frontlines is a 1v1v1 gamemode. Maybe they should remake and expand upon Rival Wings? That's the 1v1 gamemode. And well, you got CC.

[YumieYumiki]

It wouldn't improve anything about frontline. The gameplay would still be "be wherever the zerg is and mash buttons".

[Moonlite]

It wouldn't improve anything about frontline. The gameplay would still be "be wherever the zerg is and mash buttons".

All games are mash buttons. But the zerg was way less before movement increase. Because you had to spread out and do objectives and couldn't reach others objectives. SE likes the zerg because now no matter where you are on the map you can reach an objective.

[YumieYumiki]

All games are mash buttons.

No, they're not. Try just mashing buttons when playing for instance a rogue in wow pvp and see how far you go.

[Infindox]

Personally, I've advocated for cutting rewards for 2nd and 3rd place.

3rd place sure.
Not second. Frontlines has too much RNG with some of the maps that you can get screwed over even if your team works together well. Having an incentive to not be last I think would be good enough to get people to at least try a little bit.

[TofuLove]

3rd place sure.

you underestimate how easy it is to farm 2nd place...just farm 3rd place = done
being 2nd isn't an achievement that should be rewarded over 3rd

[Infindox]

you underestimate how easy it is to farm 2nd place...just farm 3rd place = done
being 2nd isn't an achievement that should be rewarded over 3rd

I mean at much as it sucks that people only do FL for exp and make matches worse for those of us who actually enjoy the mode and want to play to win, making the rewards only for 1st place is still not very viable in the long run. Getting less rewards is fine.

[Esmoire]

To be honest, while people know about the daily FL bonus, a lot of the playerbase doesn't know about the reward scaling. First place gets 100%, second place 75%, third place 50%. Think if it had a results screen saying you got "2x" or "+100%" rewards for first, or if you really want to freak people out, phrase it as "50%" for third like it is, would goad more people into participation.

[Stasya]

People who say that 1v1v1 should stay are the ones who like unfair games and probably premade abusers (who benefit even more from turning game into 2v1).

I mean at much as it sucks that people only do FL for exp and make matches worse for those of us who actually enjoy the mode and want to play to win, making the rewards only for 1st place is still not very viable in the long run. Getting less rewards is fine.

Also, rewards should be not flat 100% 75% 50%, there should be minimum that scales with the amount of your team's score (because why punish 2/3 place if score lets say 700 650 620 and 2/3 just get unlucky rng tower spawn?).