Frontline General

[Kelenae]

Calling a spade a spade. I gotta agree with this. Why is anyone wasting time talking about "winning strats" when pre-made is included in 90% of these posts?

It is obviously both assumed and inferred that anyone running a pre-made is winning the majority of their matches. What do any of these nonsensical statements have to do with the original thread topic? How is any of this "informative" to the average player? Its dick-waving at this point.

Shit, we don't even have premade vs. premade. Can people stuff their cocks back into their pants and zipper up until we have an established way to premade vs. premade so we can settle these Machismo-infused grudges?

But.... Drama....

[Seravi Edalborez]

You can replace the word "premade" with "semi-competent group" and most things still apply. None of what I said applies exclusive to premades. I guess it does require at least your own party to not be retarded but it's rather difficult to win if that's true anyways.

Even you later said that you think the threshold is really around 3/5 VIT acc (if you haven't respec'ed).

Because more never hurts, right? You wanted an arbitrary baseline, I gave you one that didn't run solely on the basis of surviving a LB.

[Seravi Edalborez]

It is obviously both assumed and inferred that anyone running a pre-made is winning the majority of their matches. What do any of these nonsensical statements have to do with the original thread topic? How is any of this "informative" to the average player? Its dick-waving at this point.

I would hope an average player is taking bits and pieces of value and not just hearing "huehuehue go premade or go home".

The stuff about camping a ramp as BRD and knocking people off? You don't need anybody to help you with that. If you're B and you kind of don't suck at BRD, it's a thing you can do and be successful with and sprint back to the rest of your party.

Ninjaing OPs? Don't need a whole party for that, don't even need your party to care. They might yell at you for it but if you capped a unoccupied flag and they weren't going to anyways (I concede this specific point is a personal dickwaving argument), who wasted their time where? That's people another team has to send to take the flag back.

VIT healers, VIT traits? There's nothing else to say about it. You either believe it works or you don't. If you don't agree with where people say to spend your points, spend them where you want to. That's why I don't put point expenditures in OP; because people have opinions.

"How is any of this "informative" to the average player?" I dunno, if everyone in general tends to do the same thing over and over, wouldn't knowing that give you a bit of an advantage by doing something that exploits weaknesses?

[Spider-Dan]

You can replace the word "premade" with "semi-competent group" and most things still apply. None of what I said applies exclusive to premades.

The "we completely deny mid to everyone else" strategy almost certainly does require premade. Otherwise, by setting 3 DPS on ramp deny, the third group that files in the back has damage output advantage over your remaining crew.

Because more never hurts, right? You wanted an arbitrary baseline, I gave you one that didn't run solely on the basis of surviving a LB.

When talking about melee LB, there is obviously a minimum necessary HP total. But when talking about general survival, there are always decisions to be made about gear/abilities/traits/specs.

I'm in favor of VIT on healers; I'm just not in favor of losing all of my right-side secondary stats and all of my ability upgrades to get every scrap of VIT I can.

[kisada]

just started smn today in frontlines. how do i stop losing my pet so often?

[Kaisha]

how do i stop losing my pet so often?

Mash Heel a lot when running to piss off people who slept/bound your pet, because SE doesn't Q&A anything.

[Judai]

Being a pre-made skews our ideas but being a solo queue doesn't skew yours? If you just solo queue, you don't really work together all the time, sometimes you just get those shit parties who do w/e, sometimes you get a decent party, sometimes you get wrecked by a pre-made, sometimes you get wrecked by other scrubs. Sometimes we face other pre-mades, sometimes we face quality groups who just work well together (even though they aren't pre-made), sometimes we face trash that we roll over and forget about because you can't take any good data away from a beatdown.

Split B to Flanks. Min flags held after first skirmish:0 Max flags held after first skirmish: 2
Split B to OPs. Min flags held after first skirmish:3 Max flags held after first skirmish: 5

Seems like Elementary math to me but what do we know.

[Spider-Dan]

Split B to Flanks. Min flags held after first skirmish:0 Max flags held after first skirmish: 2

Presuming reasonably equal skill, I don't see how you would have any less than 1 flag (the one you sent B to). You could argue that another team sent their B to the same flank, but then why/how would you have lost your OP?

Split B to OPs. Min flags held after first skirmish:3 Max flags held after first skirmish: 5

...unless you run into another B doing the same thing, at which point you're forced to choose between the following:

- fight the other B for this OP, which eats up valuable time and resources
- immediately disengage, handing the flag to the other B and potentially taking casualties in your escape

Meanwhile, the flanking B has a pretty good shot at a short, conclusive 2v1 outcome (with minimal resources spent) and can leave their A or C in good position to hold that flag.

It shouldn't be any sort of a shock to say that if everyone is using one known strategy, the team that uses a different one will probably have an advantage. Back in early FL days when everyone was flanking, I would always do an OP run as B and frequently cap all 3 OPs without getting off my mount. That worked until other teams also started doing it.

But the idea that an OP run is somehow an Inherently Superior Strategy is just absurd. If two teams are doing OP runs and the third is flanking, I'd say the flanking team has a minor-to-potentially-overwhelming advantage (depending on if the other two Bs engage, and how long). And if A/C were to follow the previously stated advice of bailing as soon as they saw a double-team, that's pretty much giving away the first third of the match. A/C's role against a double team should be to consume as much enemy time and resources as possible, not hand over a flag and be chased back to their own OP.

[Raldo]

Mash Heel a lot when running to piss off people who slept/bound your pet, because SE doesn't Q&A anything.

Hahaha, what?! Are you serious? I didn't know that.

I think I'll stop binding peoples' pets now.

[Seravi Edalborez]

You can still cheese their unsummons if they are stupid. Have yet to see a SMN take their pet off Sic. I love getting hit by a no effect Contagion.

[Judai]

Presuming reasonably equal skill, I don't see how you would have any less than 1 flag (the one you sent B to). You could argue that another team sent their B to the same flank, but then why/how would you have lost your OP?

...unless you run into another B doing the same thing, at which point you're forced to choose between the following:

- fight the other B for this OP, which eats up valuable time and resources
- immediately disengage, handing the flag to the other B and potentially taking casualties in your escape

Meanwhile, the flanking B has a pretty good shot at a short, conclusive 2v1 outcome (with minimal resources spent) and can leave their A or C in good position to hold that flag.

But the idea that an OP run is somehow an Inherently Superior Strategy is just absurd. If two teams are doing OP runs and the third is flanking, I'd say the flanking team has a minor-to-potentially-overwhelming advantage (depending on if the other two Bs engage, and how long). And if A/C were to follow the previously stated advice of bailing as soon as they saw a double-team, that's pretty much giving away the first third of the match. A/C's role against a double team should be to consume as much enemy time and resources as possible, not hand over a flag and be chased back to their own OP.

Man you dumb. Obviously the context of my Min/Max is our strat vs the normal B to flanks strat, meaning you sent your entire B to the flanks, which is why our strat works so well currently. Most groups also Split B up here, 4 to one side, 4 to the other, meaning 12v8 which guess what, isn't invincible. You also bail to the ramp and either wait a moment to kill anyone dumb enough to chase or for B to leave in 15s and then push the flag or swing around to defend the OP we capped. It's not like you bail and just run and hide in a corner and weep like babies. Regardless, you have 1 flag, and we have 3.

...unless you run into another B doing the same thing, at which point you're forced to choose between the following:

So now, the counter to our strat is you doing the same thing, even though you guys keep saying how splitting B to flanks is better and everyone does it.

Also, if someone does happen to push to our OP, that means our Flank is now even against theirs, because we have forced them to stop sending B players there and actually defend/push OPs. So now we can either fight that team, which the few times we see someone do it, we are ready for it and kill them, or we can fall back and group up to move top. You are also now saying that fighting another B, near an OP, is a waste of time when you claim B has time to run to a flank, fight for it, and still make it to top easily. Wat. If we lose to the B team we run into, it is just as bad or maybe actually less so(because it probably took less time to run into them) then a B team that pushed a flank and wasted time/suffered causalities there, so that argument is stupid.

It shouldn't be any sort of a shock to say that if everyone is using one known strategy, the team that uses a different one will probably have an advantage

Then clearly, since we are the only ones changing it up, we have the advantage. Thank you. Minimum 3 and Ramp control vs Maximum 2 and late mid. Sounds like an advantage to me. I never said it was a perfect strat but it's the counter to the strat EVERYONE uses atm and it works very well. Yes, if people start wising up and actually defending against it, it won't work as well but that also means that our flanks are now evenly matched against the enemy, because we forced teams to fight for or defend OPs.

[Spider-Dan]

So basically, your advanced strategy is that "everyone else always uses the same opening tactic" and you've figured out the counter when you know exactly what they are going to do? Should probably lead with that next time, Sun Tzu.

Do you seriously think you're the only one in this thread who has figured out that you can send B to OPs at start? We also have other tactical gems like this:

Also, if someone does happen to push to our OP, that means our Flank is now even against theirs, because we have forced them to stop sending B players there and actually defend/push OPs. So now we can either fight that team, which the few times we see someone do it, we are ready for it and kill them, or we can fall back and group up to move top.

I guess it's a good thing the other B isn't ready for it, then! It's like you two continually build in "also, we win because we are smarter and more prepared" to every scenario.

You are also now saying that fighting another B, near an OP, is a waste of time when you claim B has time to run to a flank, fight for it, and still make it to top easily. Wat. If we lose to the B team we run into, it is just as bad or maybe actually less so(because it probably took less time to run into them) then a B team that pushed a flank and wasted time/suffered causalities there, so that argument is stupid.

- Which fight is likely to end faster, 16v8 or 8v8?
- Which skirmish is likely to occur first, two Bs meeting at a third OP, or the direct line race to flank that happens at gate open?

The best thing about your strategy posts is you telling people that they are morons for not using your clearly superior strategy, right before you admit that if other people are also doing it, it doesn't work.

[Judai]

The best part is you still not getting it and adding random shit that doesn't apply to help your argument.

We pretty clearly stated multiple times that our strat is a counter to the split B to flanks strat everyone uses and it leaves us with a lead, even if we lose both flanks, which imo, means it is better. It's not perfect, because if both flanks are pathetic, you chance having no flags quickly if your group can't even regroup to hold OP or push back but, by pushing both flanks only, you HAVE to win the flanks or you risk having nothing right off the bat.

16v8 isn't the normal, most groups I see split B to the flanks, meaning 12 at each, not 16. 12 you can stall against and even beat. 16 you fall back slowly and hope B leaves or people over extend, which can let your pick people off and weaken their group so you can push back as B leaves.

Two B's don't meet at an OP if both are splitting to OPs. It means two groups of 4 meet halfway between OPs, which also happens at the start but again, you don't seem to get the idea. Which battle is faster, 12v8 or 4v4 that meet at the same time? It depends on the players obviously, as 12v8 isn't an instant win.

When another team uses the same strat we do, it doesn't work in one fashion, we don't get two free OPs, and we either fight for them or back off. HOWEVER, it means our flank is on even terms and has a better chance. This is called evening the field, which means now it's a test of skill instead of simply pushing more numbers into a fight to brute force it.. It's the same thing if two teams send 12 or 16 to one flank, the brute force doesn't work and instead you have 24-32 people fighting for one flag which leaves everything else open to the team that isn't involved in that fight. The only reason I bring up the fact that we are ready to run into people and kill them is because we do this all the time and are used to it and have experience with it. Most groups who try it, don't expect to run into us and it takes them a moment to decide on what to do.

You don't get that though. Our idea is one that lets us have a lead, even if we lose both flanks. The normal strat relies on brute forcing and rolling over the flanks quickly with numbers and the longer they take to claim the flag or push past the flank and get back to middle or claim OPs, the more they are losing by. We spread out and attack 5 flags, where most groups attack 2.

[Spider-Dan]

Our idea is one that lets us have a lead, even if we lose both flanks.

...unless the other groups are also using it, in which case your B is fighting in two separate groups of 4 before they have to go to mid. But I'm sure this is a totally reasonable outcome for people not on voicechat in a premade!

[Seravi Edalborez]

Do you seriously think you're the only one in this thread who has figured out that you can send B to OPs at start?

The best thing about your strategy posts is you telling people that they are morons for not using your clearly superior strategy, right before you admit that if other people are also doing it, it doesn't work.

"Seriously" no, but it sure feels like we're the only ones discussing it. Are you saying people in your data center do this? If so grats, your randoms are smarter than Primal's.

Not saying it "doesn't work" when other people do it. It does work when everyone keeps on keeping on with their usual game plan.

...unless the other groups are also using it, in which case your B is fighting in two separate groups of 4 before they have to go to mid. But I'm sure this is a totally reasonable outcome for people not on voicechat in a premade!

"X people go here, Y people go here, meet at middle at (time)" and after drones "Go X, go top at (time)". Doesn't require comms or premades, just requires people willing to listen.

"Why would anyone discuss tactics in Randomlines: Will My Party Listen Today" is the only thing I ever seem to hear when premade is even hinted at. Which, in spite of what Judai is saying, I'm not even talking about anymore. I'm talking about stuff people can do, premade or not, that improves their play and their team's (either in the sense of your sole A/B/C party or your whole team) odds of winning. If your whole party goes along with it, by virtue of just listening or being premade, then all the better.

[Judai]

...unless the other groups are also using it, in which case your B is fighting in two separate groups of 4 before they have to go to mid. But I'm sure this is a totally reasonable outcome for people not on voicechat in a premade!

uh, I already said and answered that?

Also, why do you keep bringing up pre-mades? Are you saying people are too stupid to work together or use any strat other then SMASH GROUPS TOGETHER CAUSE IDK WHAT IM DOING!!!1! Any party can split and work together with only a little communication. Call out who goes where, one person mark focus targets. Obviously, if your group is stupid and has people who are too dense to think outside the box, like you it seems, you can just do whatever because people don't give a shit.

I didn't realize this was going to be the, "Casual Frontlines for people who follow the pack cause nobody will listen to me" thread.

[Kirbyprime]

So a question, how do spell interrupts work. Are they just % based on you hitting the person? Or is it a set amount of damage? Does it need to be a skill or can it be auto attacks?

[kisada]

just gotta hit early enough in the cast. but it's kind of hard to tell when cause of netcode.

[Kirbyprime]

just gotta hit early enough in the cast. but it's kind of hard to tell when cause of netcode.

Humm, yeah, kind of curious whether monks and sword oath plds would have an advantage on interruptions based on auto-attacks.

[kisada]

if you're just standing (which you are a lot in frontlines) i don't think it matters. getting a constant stream of attacks will prevent close to all casts made. in den it's definitely different but i still wouldn't say mnk has any substantial edge, let alone a pld.