Frontlines is nothing but one sided stomps

58 129
  • 6 Aug '19

Balance in frontline maps has gone from bad to irredeemably bad because all of the experienced players stack the advantaged team. 90% of the time when I matchmake for frontline, I get put into a losing team that has 5 fewer players than the enemy team and is losing by more than 500 tickets.

Playing one sided stomps all day is the antithesis of fun, no matter which side of the stomp you're on. We desperately need team balancing. Oh, and stop letting people pick teams. Just auto-assign teams at the start of a match while keeping parties together. This game's community will never grow if every newbie's first experience is getting spawn trapped and/or having to fight groups of 5 or more superstar players at any given time because the rest of their team couldn't care less.

46 17
  • 6 Aug '19

In my opinion it needs to be easier to do a comeback in frontline. Once you lose an objective it's pretty much "whelp thats it". I haven't noticed any exaggerated stacking personally, except crossroads which is a complete shitshow anyway.

3 11
  • 6 Aug '19

1) Player designed maps need to exist. Dev-made maps will never outdo player-made maps. This is a universal truth.
2) A comeback mechanic would be a fantastic added solution

If one side is up 200 tickets then why should they risk pushing the final objective? There are no substantial rewards for doing so outside of the sense of accomplishment.

One great answer to this is a comeback mechanic for the losing side which is on their last leg. What if you had a new objective open up when your side is near defeat that instantly awards your team a massive ticket gain? A high risk objective that can sway the outcome of the game and actually win it for your side. At least then you would have something to fight for at the end, even if it is a long shot.

1317 2007

I don't think this would be such a problem if TO style maps were used and teams had lore to them. Right now best players pick which ever side has even the slightest advantage because there's no reason to be loyal to a color and both teams share offense/defense anyways.

Defending Grad's castle is so unsatisfying because you're losing the whole time and your goal is to take back the smithy NOT to hold the castle for x amount of time or defend the NPCs to win.

With linear TO style maps, players pick the side with the most appealing lore and/or the side (offense/defense) with the most interesting objectives (burning the village, playing as king, camping a catapult or storming a castle.) In TO we saw the best defense players playing defense and best offense players playing offense.

Everyone was having a grand ole slam win or lose and there wasn't much spawn rape. You simply moved on to the next checkmark/spawn point and there was a chance to win even when you were losing.

1317 2007

The teams need interesting lore and Frontline should become TO.

247 149
  • 7 Aug '19

the fact either team has to be constantly on the offense to win is a bad thing.
defensive tactics are pretty much completely useless if the enemy team controls 1 controlpoint more than yours - this is something that should be looked at.

957 310
  • 7 Aug '19

tbh i say screw the tickets either you take all or your in a constant stalemate

Knight 499 956
  • 1
  • 7 Aug '19

Hold on I just got an idea maybe it's retarded.

So most FL maps have 5 points right? Suppose we're on Grad and Red has the Smithy and more tickets than Blu right now.
Afaik Blu gets some kind of ticket bleed at that point. Seems kinda boring that Red can now just play defensively and wait Blu out while Blu is the one in the castle. Ticket bleed seems to exacerbate the roflstomps because often the "winning" team just kills off the "losing" team without having to do the objective, as the "losing" team just loses tickets over time even when fortifying and fighting defensively

Here's my possibly stupid suggestion: remove ticket bleed for mid point (so this part wouldn't affect Mountainpeak) and reverse the ticket bleed on penultimate points.
So Red has the Smithy and is slowly losing tickets due to "overextension" or some shit. They now have to play more aggressively and Blu has to defend their fort.
Now Blu may have lost some incentive to recapture the smithy, but if Red is not aggressive enough, Blu might just end up assaulting them to deal a blow to their ticket count and recapture the Smithy in the process. But if Blu overextends and Red is just better, they might end up losing their tickets before Red even needs to complete their final objective.

This way Frontline becomes a mode in 2 stages

  • "tug-of-war" gameplay is now centered around midpoint. Most "2nd" points have 2 parts to them: for example on Grad Red has to destroy the barricades then cap the Smithy or Blu has to free the serfs then cap the farm. There would be no ticket bleed between destroying the barricades and freeing the serfs.

  • Once Red captures the Smithy, ticket bleed activates for them and the gameplay shifts from "TDM but not really" to "Attack/Defend TO", where the ticket bleed functions as a sort of timer. Red could go for kills but that won't be easy as Blu has defensive terrain, so they should go for the final objective. If Blu retakes the smithy, ticket bleed stops and we go back to kill-centered gameplay. Vice versa for Blu taking the farm (if they redesign the forest to be more defendable).

Finally, in order to maintain incentive to actually cap 2nd points and not just stick around midpoint every match, I'd suggest giving a instant flat ticket bonus for (re)capturing a 2nd point. So Red would get a bonus for not just sitting on the Stables and taking the Smithy, and Blu would get the same bonus for retaking the Smithy if possible.

Of course some changes would need to happen to the actual map design for the sake of balance, which is more the topic of this thread sorry.


  • remove ticket bleed for midpoint
  • after a team captures their enemies "2nd" point, give them a ticket bleed
  • instant ticket bonus (don't know how big yet) for (re)capturing a "2nd" point
  • sorry for going a bit off-topic

What do you people think, is it worth making a topic in F&S?

181 165
  • 1
  • 7 Aug '19

I agree with auto-assigning everyone.

Seems to me that it would be consistently fun if:

  • You don't know what the enemy is going to try next.
  • Teamwork is rewarded.
  • Losing teams are able to stage a comeback.

All of those are arguments for unlocking the objectives, and making it possible to hit them in any order. Company of Heroes has maps with this quality: there are three objectives, each more or less the same distance from your base, you can hit any of them at any time, your points start to bleed when the enemy has more objectives than you.

177 259
  • 7 Aug '19

Frontline is probably going to get much better maps in the future anyway (and Invasion will hopefully be good enough to be pushed as the new "main mode" and take FL's place in the matchmaking screen).

So for now I'm actually okay with one-sided stomps.
Yeah, it sucks when you know you don't stand a chance after only three minutes, but I'd rather have quick losses than super balanced FL matches where you just keep losing and recapturing the same farm at the center of the map.

1390 1051
  • 7 Aug '19

I find the whole idea of fixed red/blue sides on a map and choosing teams before every match pretty stupid anyway.

Join a server, choose a team. And from then on, you should stay with that team until you either leave or switch sides. Staying together with a (team-)player you just met is pretty complicated...

182 110
  • 1
  • 7 Aug '19

They seem clueless how to balance their maps.

They edited Taiga which was probably 60/70% in favor of reds, their edited made the map 70/80% in favor of blues.

I wont be sticking around for long if they don't do a better job with balancing maps, matches are tedious and experiences always the same, to the point where 1 match is enough.

29 16

Frontline simply doesn't work, we need Invasion to replace it

367 341
  • 8 Aug '19

Or another game.

29 8
  • 9 Aug '19

I don't understand when you say that the map favors red/blue by %x.

1390 1051
  • 9 Aug '19

@Khashius said:
I don't understand when you say that the map favors red/blue by %x.

When you say that a map favors a certain team by 70%, it means that, on average and with somewhat balanced teams, that certain team will win on that map in 7 out of 10 cases.

166 206
  • 2
  • 9 Aug '19

@bobbydigital said:
They edited Taiga which was probably 60/70% in favor of reds, their edited made the map 70/80% in favor of blues.

It's more that, before, it was easy for Red to get mid and win by finishing the objectives. The change only made it obvious how easy is it to Red to get rolled once Blue got control of mid.

Taiga have a big problem of "you get rolled once you lose control of the mid point", and who wins depends on how balanced the map is toward the mid-point. Here, it's easy for Blue to get and keep it, so they win most of the time.

It's not as much of a stomp as Crossroad tho.

201 402
  • 1
  • 9 Aug '19

i have an extra retarded idea that might actually turn out fun, as a come-back mechanic, the top player of the losing team could have the option to respawn as Seymour, and lead the charge back in to the center of the map. Of course if they are really shit at the game they will still die, but itll be fun for them atleast.

we have to face facts, frontline will never qualify as a competitive mode due to the nature of the map design. so why not go a bit crazy with it and have some fun

1390 1051
  • 9 Aug '19

@SherbershLemel said:
i have an extra retarded idea

You are trying to fix a problem without touching the actual problem. Those need to get fixed first, THEN you can think about those bonus mechanics that might or might not enrich the overall gameplay.

In other words - might be a fun idea, but its WAY too early for that kind of stuff.

157 85
  • 9 Aug '19

Winning doesn’t matter guyz! What matters is having fun!