ZOS, this should not be able to happen.

CameraBeardThePirate

In this match, our team not only got more kills, but got more medal score than the winning team, and yet we still lost. Why? Because the winning team ran away from our team every time we approached them to an empty flag. Our team wasn't trying to DM; we were going for flags and killing those who were defending. We earned more medal score, and were more successful in PvPing but yet we still lost the match. The objective modes need a rework if this kind of thing can happen. The most efficient and most successful strategy as they stand are to completely avoid fights - even fights over the objective - to run away to unguarded objectives. That means there are too many objectives. If there is always going to be an unguarded objective, reduce the number of objectives so that teams actually have to fight over them. What happened in this match is unacceptable.

Not sure if the scoreboard posted correctly, so here's the url: https://imgur.com/a/BLVSrMr

gariondavey

Amen

Arcanasx

Looks like you totally got outplayed by some big brained plays there. I'm sure the I-only-play-BGs-for-the-daily-reward crowd will agree as well.

RealLoveBVB

You can play PvP with weapons and with brain. Looks like the winning team used the last one.

CameraBeardThePirate

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

You can play PvP with weapons and with brain. Looks like the winning team used the last one.

Except they didn't play PvP at all. They didn't defend any objectives or kill any defenders on objectives. If those two things are what get you medal score, they should be what win you games.

Our team played the objective better. We earned more points by playing the objective, but we still lost. That's not ok.

RealLoveBVB

Player scores and medals are just personal stuff that have zero influence on the team score.

If you defend 20 players on a single flag, while the enemy got 2 active flags, then of course the opponent will win.

Killing players and defend flags is one thing and reacting and rotating another.
Sometimes it is even bad to kill players in this modes, because they can respawn on a empty flag at their base.

You need a strategy for that, not just slayings.

CameraBeardThePirate

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Player scores and medals are just personal stuff that have zero influence on the team score.

If you defend 20 players on a single flag, while the enemy got 2 active flags, then of course the opponent will win.

Killing players and defend flags is one thing and reacting and rotating another.
Sometimes it is even bad to kill players in this modes, because they can respawn on a empty flag at their base.

You need a strategy for that, not just slayings.

If it is more beneficial to leave and let an enemy team capture your flag so that you can just run away to a different flag, the mode is poorly designed. Name 1 other objective based PvP game where it's beneficial (and in fact, the best strategy) to NOT defend the objective you've captured. You can't win an Overwatch king of the hill by letting the opponent take your hill.

ZOS gives medal score for defending the objective, which means they want you to defend the objective; fighting over the flag is how the game is intended to be won. It doesn't take any sort of strategy to run from every fight the entire match.

Sylosi

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

If it is more beneficial to leave and let an enemy team capture your flag so that you can just run away to a different flag, the mode is poorly designed. Name 1 other objective based PvP game where it's beneficial (and in fact, the best strategy) to NOT defend the objective you've captured.

Erm, its beneficial (at times) in lots of conquest type modes and in fact is part of what raises the skill cap through rotations, team splits, etc, but the difference is they are all based on 2 teams so there is a trade off.

For example take GW2, you have 5v5 with 3 capture points, sometimes it is beneficial to leave a point you have captured (or not even bother to capture, just decap it to a neutral state) knowing you will lose it shortly. Because it is better you head to the team fight on the difficult to win mid point and give your team the advantage by changing it from a 3v3 to 4v3 fight there.

But of course this relies on there only being 2 teams and the map / mode being reasonably well designed, because if the opposing team has someone capturing an empty capture point, then that directly translates to them being at a 4v3 disadvantage over the rest of the map. But with 3 teams much of that advantage may in fact go to the third team instead or you have 2 teams fighting and the third team capping an empty point without any trade-off for that. It breaks the most fundamental rule of PvP - risk vs reward.

Which is why every mode including DM in BG is pretty dismal. And why PvP games, sports, etc are 2 teams (outside of a race format). And why most of us go do our PvP elsewhere.

Dem_kitkats1

Yes this is exactly what is wrong with the design of the objective modes. Yes PvP does not need to fully focus on killing, but players do need to be engaged and rewarded for their efforts; not their lack of it. Objective modes are a part of PvP, and therefore should encourage playing with and against one another, not to completely avoid it. As someone who enjoys PvP I also do not want to spend the majority of the match chasing objectives and chasing people around the map. It's neither strategic nor engaging play.

CRAZY KING & DOMINATION - There are too many flags which allows players to freely run around and capture, without contest. Because of the sheer amount of flags that spawn the best strategy to win matches is to literally avoid each other, and steal the other team's flags while they are also running around. There is very little need to engage in combat because players do not need to defend the flags they have won, as they have many others to chose from. This rewards avoidant and low effort play.

CHAOSBALL - Usually turns into a chaotic DM anyway. In order to win the objective you must hold on to the ball. So holders of the ball usually just run around or exploit hard to reach areas of the maps. Again, to achieve the objective is to avoid combat. It's either DM or avoid combat, nothing in between. At that point, I would rather just DM, because then I would actually be rewarded for my efforts in combat.

CAPTURE THE RELIC - I feel like this mode would be better served with only 2 teams. In my experience this mode usually descends into two teams taking advantage of the weakest team. And again, players can easily avoid combat by scouting out uncontested relics and be rewarded for avoiding other players.

Aside from the modes themselves, I also think that the maps are too big. Often teams will attempt to defend their flags on the other side of a map, only to find that the other team has already left by the time they get there. This leads to matches being a game of chase more than anything. Also if people want to sneak around as a strategy, it should be difficult and require some tactical thinking like a Dark Brotherhood daily. Now whole teams are just running around openly avoiding people, no strategy necessary.

alberichtano

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Player scores and medals are just personal stuff that have zero influence on the team score.

If you defend 20 players on a single flag, while the enemy got 2 active flags, then of course the opponent will win.

Killing players and defend flags is one thing and reacting and rotating another.
Sometimes it is even bad to kill players in this modes, because they can respawn on a empty flag at their base.

You need a strategy for that, not just slayings.

If it is more beneficial to leave and let an enemy team capture your flag so that you can just run away to a different flag, the mode is poorly designed. Name 1 other objective based PvP game where it's beneficial (and in fact, the best strategy) to NOT defend the objective you've captured. You can't win an Overwatch king of the hill by letting the opponent take your hill.

ZOS gives medal score for defending the objective, which means they want you to defend the objective; fighting over the flag is how the game is intended to be won. It doesn't take any sort of strategy to run from every fight the entire match.

It is not poorly designed. It is designed very well. It rewards initiative, daring and making good tactical decisions.

CameraBeardThePirate

alberichtano wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Player scores and medals are just personal stuff that have zero influence on the team score.

If you defend 20 players on a single flag, while the enemy got 2 active flags, then of course the opponent will win.

Killing players and defend flags is one thing and reacting and rotating another.
Sometimes it is even bad to kill players in this modes, because they can respawn on a empty flag at their base.

You need a strategy for that, not just slayings.

If it is more beneficial to leave and let an enemy team capture your flag so that you can just run away to a different flag, the mode is poorly designed. Name 1 other objective based PvP game where it's beneficial (and in fact, the best strategy) to NOT defend the objective you've captured. You can't win an Overwatch king of the hill by letting the opponent take your hill.

ZOS gives medal score for defending the objective, which means they want you to defend the objective; fighting over the flag is how the game is intended to be won. It doesn't take any sort of strategy to run from every fight the entire match.

It is not poorly designed. It is designed very well. It rewards initiative, daring and making good tactical decisions.

There is no tactic. It would be one thing if it was beneficial some of the time to run away, but the best decision 100% of the time is to never fight. That's not tactic, that's poorly designed objective PvP.

CameraBeardThePirate

There are a lot of people in here not understanding that our team was punished For staying on the flags. We were punished For defending our flags, which, by the way, is what ZOS intends for teams to do as evidenced by the fact that it's how you earn medal score in these modes. We lost the game because we tried to defend our objectives. That's not ok.

CameraBeardThePirate

Sylosi wrote: »

Erm, its beneficial (at times) in lots of conquest type modes and in fact is part of what raises the skill cap through rotations, team splits, etc, but the difference is they are all based on 2 teams so there is a trade off.

For example take GW2, you have 5v5 with 3 capture points, sometimes it is beneficial to leave a point you have captured (or not even bother to capture, just decap it to a neutral state) knowing you will lose it shortly. Because it is better you head to the team fight on the difficult to win mid point and give your team the advantage by changing it from a 3v3 to 4v3 fight there.

I agree with your point completely. In a well designed objective-based PvP mode, it can be beneficial to leave your objective to go fight over a different objective. But again, that's not the case here. The team that won never left to fight somewhere else, they just didn't fight anyone at all the entire match.

Tommy_The_Gun

Playing for objectives =/= Player vs Player...

I mean BGs is a PvP activitiy, but game mode & objective does not "require" you to be better in PvP. Game does not look at kills / deaths / assists but rather at points. So for example if we have a classic "Capture the flag" game mode, you can die 100 times, but it is irrelevant as your objective is to capture enemy flag as many times as possible.

"Fleeing" or avoiding fight is a perfectly valid tactics. Not just in video games. Even in Soccer / football it is a way to win.

I remember that something similar also happened to me once or twice in BGs. After it happened I adjusted my build to be faster & more flexible since you don't know what objective awaits in the next BG match.

As for the reducing number of objectives... I think this would make things much worse as you will end up with players camping between 2 objectives & auto-winning every BG... It would be kinda senseless tbh...

CameraBeardThePirate

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

Playing for objectives =/= Player vs Player...

Game does not look at kills / deaths / assists but rather at points.

Except my team earned more medal score than the winning team. I.e., we were playing the objectives as ZOS intended better and still lost.

_adhyffbjjjf12

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

Playing for objectives =/= Player vs Player...

Game does not look at kills / deaths / assists but rather at points.

Except my team earned more medal score than the winning team. I.e., we were playing the objectives as ZOS intended better and still lost.

they obviously out played your team, learn from it, that's what great players do and why that team beat you. Worth noting medals are not a sign you were the best team, its simply a reward to keep gameplay interesting regardless of whether you win or not.

CameraBeardThePirate

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

Playing for objectives =/= Player vs Player...

Game does not look at kills / deaths / assists but rather at points.

Except my team earned more medal score than the winning team. I.e., we were playing the objectives as ZOS intended better and still lost.

they obviously out played your team, learn from it, that's what great players do and why that team beat you. Worth noting medals are not a sign you were the best team, its simply a reward to keep gameplay interesting regardless of whether you win or not.

If you honestly think that the winning team in that match outplayed us (or even played us at all) and were "great players" by running away the entire match, I'm not even sure how to hold a productive discussion on PvP with you.

Dem_kitkats1

Diddly_D_Potatoes wrote: »

The only place to could find the particulars for BG medals was in the in game help menu. I've basically just copy pasted it here so that you can see from where your points are coming.

Deathmatch
Bruiser: Deal at least 5k damage 50 points
Fearsome fighter: Deal at least 25k damage 100 points
Gladiator: Deal at least 50k damage 200 points
Champion: Deal at least 500k damage 400 points
Heavy Hitter: Score a 10k damage hit (repeatable)
Crushing blow: Score a 11.75k damage hit (repeatable)
Minor mender: Heal for at least 5k damage 50 points
Heroic healer: Heal for at least 25k damage 100 points
Medic: Heal for at least 50k damage 200 points
Fearless physician: Heal for at least 375k damage
Critical heal: Score a 7.5k healing hit (repeatable)
Rapid recovery: Score a 15k healing hit (repeatable)
Assist: Help a team mate kill an enemy player (repeatable) 100 points
First strike: Earn the 1st killing blow 111 points
Killing blow: Earn a killing blow (repeatable) 100 points
Double Kill: Kill a within 10 seconds of a prior kill (repeatable) 222 points
Triple kill: Kill a player within 10 seconds of earning a double kill (repeatable)
Quadruple kill: Kill a player within 10 seconds of earning a triple kill (repeatable)

Capture the Relic
First relic: Capture the first relic of the match 111points
Relic runner: Capture a relic (repeatable) 500 points
Relic hunter: Kill a relic carrier (repeatable) 100 points
Relic bruiser: Deal 5k damage to a relic carrier 50 points
Relic fearsome fighter: Deal 25k damage to a relic carriers 100 points
Relic gladiator: Deal 50k damage to relic carriers 200 points
Relic champion: Deal 375k damage to a relic carriers
Relic crushing blow: Score an 11.75k damage hit to a relic carrier (repeatable)
Humble protection: Do 5k healing on a relic carrier 100 points
Devoted protection: Do 7.5 healing on a relic carrier
Relic protector: Do 37.5k healing on a relic carrier
Divine guardian: Do 375k healing on relic carriers
Critical healer: Score a 7.5k healing hit on a relic carrier (repeatable)
Assist: Help a team mate kill a relic carrier (repeatable) 100 points

Domination / Crazy Kings (Have the same medals)
Vigilant defender: Earn 500 defence points at a capture point (repeatable) 1000 points
Offensive execution: Kill a defender at a capture point (repeatable) 10 points
Defensive execution: Kill an attacker while defending a capture point (repeatable) 5 points
Gleaming guardian: Take 15k damage 50 points
Dauntless defender: Take 30k damage 100 points
Valiant Vanguard: Take 60k damage 200 points
Steady Centurion: Take 250k damage 400 points
Iron Soul: Survive a 10k damage hit (repeatable)
Steel skin: Survive an 11.75k damage hit (repeatable)
Dominator: Capture a capture point (repeatable) 100 points
Helping hand: Score a 10k healing hit on an ally defender
Humble protector: Do 5k healing while defending a capture point 100 points
Devoted Protector: Do 25k healing while defending a capture point 200 points
Sublime Protector: Do 57.5k healing while defending a capture point
Divine protector: DO 375k healing while defending a capture point

Chaosball
Ball buster: Score a 11.75k hit on a chaosball carrier
Chaos hunter: Kill a chaosball carrier (repeatable) 100 points
Chaos mender: Score a 5k healing hit on a chaosball carrier (repeatable) 100 points
Chaos bruiser: Deal 5k damage to chaosball carriers 50 points
Choas devastator: Deal 25k damage to chaosball carriers 100 points
Chaos destroyer: Deal 50k damage to chaosball carriers 200 points
Chaos champion: Deal 500k damage to chaosball carriers
Assist: Help kill a carrier 100 points
Chaos protector: Do 5k healing to chaosball carriers 100 points


I'm not sure on the points received for some of the medals. Feel free to chime in with how many they give.

I found this in an older thread, so I'm not sure if any of this has changed. I doubt it as BGs haven't been touched all that much in regards to the actual modes themselves. But according to this info, medal score should very much count for the team standings in a match as they greatly pertain to the objectives themselves. OP's team clearly achieved the most of these medals by playing for the objective more than the other teams, which means that they should have won. So if these medals have little meaning, and it's only about the number of objectives you collect, than call the modes "collection modes", and not PvP. Again if that is the case, then the scoring system is also encouraging avoidant play, and is completely counter to a PvP experience. This should also be rectified IMO.

CameraBeardThePirate

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

I found this in an older thread, so I'm not sure if any of this has changed. I doubt it as BGs haven't been touched all that much in regards to the actual modes themselves. But according to this info, medal score should very much count for the team standings in a match as they greatly pertain to the objectives themselves. OP's team clearly achieved the most of these medals by playing for the objective more than the other teams, which means that should have won. So if these medals have little meaning, and it's only about the number of objectives you collect, than call the modes "collection modes", and not PvP. Again if that is the case, then the scoring system is also encouraging avoidant play, and is completely counter to a PvP experience. This should also be rectified IMO.

Excellent comment. This is exactly the point I'm trying to get across. People keep saying "medal score means nothing" but you get medal score for playing the objective.

Urzigurumash

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

That means there are too many objectives

Except the mode with only one - Chaosball.

If I can paste part of my comment here from the other thread: one mode only: Chaosball, with a 90% snare on the ball, maybe increased DoT, and the Dungeon Finder Role system applied. One mode, one queue.

In my opinion this would fix every problem we've ever had with Battlegrounds.

Or, make this revised Dungeon Finder-enabled Chaosball the Ranked Mode we all want. It would be the best suited for it out of the five modes.

Necrotech_Master

the only thing ive ever seen the medals really do is A) tell your performance in the match and B ) some count towards achievements

the way i see "playing the objective" is what actually wins the match, and in the case of domination this means holding more flags at a time (if there are 5 flags, you need to regularly be holding 3 of them to build score faster than opponents), this usually means splitting up your team to maintain multiple flags

a team of 4 that sticks together will be hard to kill, and probably get the most kills, as well as capture each individual flag the fastest, there are usually 4 or 5 flags on the map which basically means 4 flags are undefended or being capped by the other team, and you accrue more points the more flags you control, even if its just a few ticks worth, that will add up over the course of the game

i do think some of the maps for this type of BG are way too big (the one with the lava is a good size, you can see the whole map from almost any other point of the map), but the other one with the colosseum in the middle that is large enough you have to almost mount up to get to each flag, this one has a lot more running around and occasional skirmishes on or between flags which is where i can understand people coming from saying this is a bad game mode, too much area means more running less fighting, but too small and it would be too easy to control the flags (i would reference the map names, but even with how much time i have spent in BGs in the past i still dont really know the name of the map just what its load screen looks like lol)

Kory

What was the third team doing? Much easier for them to capture flags if you, the aggressive team, is steam rolling the other team.

gariondavey

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

Playing for objectives =/= Player vs Player...

Game does not look at kills / deaths / assists but rather at points.

Except my team earned more medal score than the winning team. I.e., we were playing the objectives as ZOS intended better and still lost.

they obviously out played your team, learn from it, that's what great players do and why that team beat you. Worth noting medals are not a sign you were the best team, its simply a reward to keep gameplay interesting regardless of whether you win or not.

If you honestly think that the winning team in that match outplayed us (or even played us at all) and were "great players" by running away the entire match, I'm not even sure how to hold a productive discussion on PvP with you.

So much this ^^^^

_adhyffbjjjf12

gariondavey wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

Playing for objectives =/= Player vs Player...

Game does not look at kills / deaths / assists but rather at points.

Except my team earned more medal score than the winning team. I.e., we were playing the objectives as ZOS intended better and still lost.

they obviously out played your team, learn from it, that's what great players do and why that team beat you. Worth noting medals are not a sign you were the best team, its simply a reward to keep gameplay interesting regardless of whether you win or not.

If you honestly think that the winning team in that match outplayed us (or even played us at all) and were "great players" by running away the entire match, I'm not even sure how to hold a productive discussion on PvP with you.

So much this ^^^^

Clearly a team doesn't win by 'running away' that's just a passive aggressive attack on the integrity of the other team to somehow justify why they lost. The op is tilted and evidently does not understand how the opponents outplayed them, and if he doesn't want to learn it will keep happening.

CameraBeardThePirate

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

Clearly a team doesn't win by 'running away' that's just a passive aggressive attack on the integrity of the other team to somehow justify why they lost. The op is tilted and evidently does not understand how the opponents outplayed them, and if he doesn't want to learn it will keep happening.

The winning team DID just run away the entire match. You can see that quite clearly on the scoreboard by their kills, deaths, damage, and healing numbers. They didn't ever engage in any fights.

RealLoveBVB

Points are given for active flags on the map. I don't think you earn points with running away

If you are to slow to recapture them, then yes- the opponents outplayed you with a better rotating.

_adhyffbjjjf12

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

Clearly a team doesn't win by 'running away' that's just a passive aggressive attack on the integrity of the other team to somehow justify why they lost. The op is tilted and evidently does not understand how the opponents outplayed them, and if he doesn't want to learn it will keep happening.

The winning team DID just run away the entire match. You can see that quite clearly on the scoreboard by their kills, deaths, damage, and healing numbers. They didn't ever engage in any fights.

Edit, look at the score, the pit daemons were tunnel versioned onto killing the weak team, in the mean time they got outflanked and outplayed. A skilful team would have realised this, ignored the weak drakes and adapted to outplay their real competition in that fight, which is basically what happened, whereas OPs team were stuck feeding at the kill trough and could not change their own behaviour even though they could see what was happening.

Miracle19

Arcanasx wrote: »

Looks like you totally got outplayed by some big brained plays there. I'm sure the I-only-play-BGs-for-the-daily-reward crowd will agree as well.

o u t p l a y e d

xDeusEJRx

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

Clearly a team doesn't win by 'running away' that's just a passive aggressive attack on the integrity of the other team to somehow justify why they lost. The op is tilted and evidently does not understand how the opponents outplayed them, and if he doesn't want to learn it will keep happening.

The winning team DID just run away the entire match. You can see that quite clearly on the scoreboard by their kills, deaths, damage, and healing numbers. They didn't ever engage in any fights.

Edit, look at the score, the pit daemons were tunnel versioned onto killing the weak team, in the mean time they got outflanked and outplayed. A skilful team would have realised this, ignored the weak drakes and adapted to outplay their real competition in that fight, which is basically what happened, whereas OPs team were stuck feeding at the kill trough and could not change their own behaviour even though they could see what was happening.

That's a lot of assumptions you make. In bg's there are times where you CAN'T just disengage from a fight. If I left a fight, the team is just gonna beat on me from me behind and if I die then I can do nothing about pushing objective.

What if I get caught in a fight I can't just disengage from, a NB trying to gank me, a full team trying to 4v1 me? I cannot simply disengage from those encounters. So I should be punished because I'm not being "skillful" even though I can't control the fact a 4 man team wants to kill me.
That argument doesn't work in BG's, it's not a behavioral thing. There are just times in PVP where you cannot just disengage from a fight.

BG's punish you for wasting your time fighting people, why commit to a fight for 1 minute when game punishes you for not being on objectiv?. The tactic is to very much run away from enemies because then you can earn points that way.
If I'm in chaosball and enemy team choose to attack me, and I defend and win a 4v1 that's meaningless in the grand scheme, I'll still lose because I didn't choose to just run from them. Same can be applied to Capture the relic, if I waste my time fighting enemies, I can neither defend my relic or capture an enemy relic. Which gives enemies time to capture ours while I can do nothing about, most BGS punish you for PVP.

The are glorified run simulators, that's what he's trying to say. There's really no "skill" involved is there, it's either you fight people in PVP and cost yourself the match or avoid PVP and win the objective because the enemies will waste their own time committing to fights. It's just gaming the system, it has nothing to do with "skill"

_adhyffbjjjf12

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

Clearly a team doesn't win by 'running away' that's just a passive aggressive attack on the integrity of the other team to somehow justify why they lost. The op is tilted and evidently does not understand how the opponents outplayed them, and if he doesn't want to learn it will keep happening.

The winning team DID just run away the entire match. You can see that quite clearly on the scoreboard by their kills, deaths, damage, and healing numbers. They didn't ever engage in any fights.

Edit, look at the score, the pit daemons were tunnel versioned onto killing the weak team, in the mean time they got outflanked and outplayed. A skilful team would have realised this, ignored the weak drakes and adapted to outplay their real competition in that fight, which is basically what happened, whereas OPs team were stuck feeding at the kill trough and could not change their own behaviour even though they could see what was happening.

That's a lot of assumptions you make. In bg's there are times where you CAN'T just disengage from a fight. If I left a fight, the team is just gonna beat on me from me behind and if I die then I can do nothing about pushing objective.

What if I get caught in a fight I can't just disengage from, a NB trying to gank me, a full team trying to 4v1 me? I cannot simply disengage from those encounters. So I should be punished because I'm not being "skillful" even though I can't control the fact a 4 man team wants to kill me.
That argument doesn't work in BG's, it's not a behavioral thing. There are just times in PVP where you cannot just disengage from a fight.

BG's punish you for wasting your time fighting people, why commit to a fight for 1 minute when game punishes you for not being on objectiv?. The tactic is to very much run away from enemies because then you can earn points that way.
If I'm in chaosball and enemy team choose to attack me, and I defend and win a 4v1 that's meaningless in the grand scheme, I'll still lose because I didn't choose to just run from them. Same can be applied to Capture the relic, if I waste my time fighting enemies, I can neither defend my relic or capture an enemy relic. Which gives enemies time to capture ours while I can do nothing about, most BGS punish you for PVP.

The are glorified run simulators, that's what he's trying to say. There's really no "skill" involved is there, it's either you fight people in PVP and cost yourself the match or avoid PVP and win the objective because the enemies will waste their own time committing to fights. It's just gaming the system, it has nothing to do with "skill"

lol interesting logic, PVPers who enter objective based BG and lose are skilled because they are incapable of disengaging from a fight where they were farming the weak team whereas the team that did manage to ignore farming the weak team won.
There is more to PVP than playing who can gank the other fastest.

2 armies in a war, one outflanks the other and captures the city and wins the war ultimately. The other side cannot believe they lost because their entire army stood in the field and fought hand to hand for the full length of the war and killed lots of people. Awesomesauce general?

propertyOfUndefined

The problem I see with a lot of teams in some of these matches is they refuse to split up. They need to move together as a group of 4. That works best for some match types, but not all of them — especially not relic and domination. Part of the fun, imho, is to learn what works best and change strategies depending on the match type, who your pugs are, and who you’re up against.

And yeah… “winning the battles but losing the war” is a common saying tor a reason