GreyGriffin, on 22 April 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:
That is exactly what I did not say.
Right now Skirmish is the best game mode because you use more than 30% of the map, rather than line up in your WW1 building-sized trenches. It is more fun to play because it is dynamic and in motion, even if that motion is just brownian PUGs. Maps are approached from different angles, and engagements often run the length and breadth of the map without crashing into a wall of turrets or grinding to a halt because of an awkwardly paced point counter.
What I want to explore is really why this happens and if the positive gameplay experience can be rolled forwards into new game modes.
Don't get me wrong, Skirmish is a bad game mode. The inevitable foxhunt is frustrating for both teams, with no victory or defeat valves. The lack of objectives can often make it seem listless, and it lacks any lateral strategic element that can turn the game aside from the broad strategy of maneuver. But, to me, the poorly executed mechanics of the other mode seem to chain the game down rather than elevate it, and that is a problem I'd like to see resolved.
I frankly didn't expect to be taking the side of the argument that Skirmish outplayed Assault or Conquest. But that's my feeling on the matter.
So what are the problems and how could they be addressed?
Well, Conquest is bad because you're not actually conquering anything. Taking a node provides you with nothing and it prevents nothing. Most people treat it like Skirmish with an additional game mode. Assault is just Skirmish for people that dont' want to chase down the lone Spider on the other team (it is always a Spider). So, that leaves us with Skirmish which SHOULD use all of the map but doesn't because every map has the given "come here and let's fight" spot.