Gyrok, on 22 September 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:
I have never complained about match times, waiting or any of that.
I prefer skirmish because it is more dynamic, once you reach a certain level of play, then the game basically revolves around 1 or 2 points on cap based maps. The fight always occurs at one of perhaps 2 locations, and it is boring. Skirmish, you can take the fight to parts of the map many players do not even know exists and make the match interesting.
That is why I hate the predictable conquest and assault.
NeoCodex, on 22 September 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:
Not always. Well, at least much less than the 90%. From what I've played with Gyrok's squad, we often took the battle to new, interesting locations on the map, where in a 1000 games I've never fought before that day (obviously you can't do that on all maps but you can do it on some larger ones, for sure you won't see us fighting on Alpine's hill). While in objective game modes, you are pretty much guaranteed 100% on some maps and maybe you have 2 possibilities on others.
I see where he's making the point, it's just that it doesn't happen often that somebody takes the fight to a new location, that's where the group "skirmish is boring" comes in, cause you don't see many of those advanced skirmishers that take the battle to the new level, and new grounds. It really is the objectives that tie you in certain spots, while in skirmish nothing keeps you from making your own unique tactics (as long as you have a complete team fully comitted and following the orders), but as I said, this very rarely happens so you can't really understand until you see it or try it. I am however still at that point where I didnt' get bored of any of that, all game modes make interesting challenge and twist for me, objectives or not, at least it's not always the same.
Skirmish isn’t boring. It’s not dynamic, either. It’s
toxic. It is a mistake I consider to be an even worse addition to the game than consumables or the third-person camera.
When I had Skirmish enabled in my drop queue, fully half the Skirmish matches I played were functionally no different than Assault would have been on the same maps. The vast majority of the rest were ten-minute Indecision Shuffles where two teams each shot angry looks rather than munitions or DE at each other for ten minutes…before ending the game’s last five minutes in the same fight that would’ve occurred in Assault mode on the same map, usually eight-odd minutes earlier.
And then there’s those delightful handful of outright horrific games where one team manages to secure an early advantage and then use it to play Camp Knoxx or Gingerbread Man, running out the timer rather than playing the game as intended and slinging insults and vitriol the whole while. The twisted monstrosities that finally made me disable Skirmish in my drop queue, and which are the thing holding me back from accepting Russ’ mode vote proposal.
If you two want to force me to play Skirmish mode, then I have the right to try and advocate for an option to ditch the match without moderator troubles or losing what rewards I may have earned – or being snarled at by my own team for
daring to try and organize an effective counterblow – to counteract the fact that I will go from dropping in Skirmish mode 0% of the time, which is ideal, to doubtlessly dropping in Skirmish mode nine times out of ten because nobody in this godforsaken community has any interest in fair and decent play, or any mode that might require more flexibility and strategic planning than “SHOOT
ALL DA DIAH WHAILS”.
I would much rather see improvements made to both Conquest and Assault to make them more popular and meatier game modes and watch Skirmish be excised from the public queues altogether, banished to private match lobbies where it belongs. Since that’s not an option, I’m pursuing what few options are left to me in the scant handful of days I have left before I get thrown to the trolls again.
Edited by 1453 R, 22 September 2014 - 02:50 PM.
4
