if you don’t want to play objectives que for deathmatch

Nobody out there with a radar gun measuring speed though. I think speed was the culprit, and also organization is possible.

After a while you can counter speedy teams with no dps by waiting for the next available flag and holding it. Can you 1vX or 2vX the speedy players? They sound like good practice based on those stats.

I do think there may be an over emphasis on capturing flags vs holding them points wise. Trading flags instead of digging in seems to be the method of choice for max points, and that's on game design.

Sounds like you hit the BG team equivalent of Ender's Game. "The enemy's gate is down."

With Domination, it's intended that the objectives generate PVP fights, and there was PVP...the winning team died a bunch and took the respawn penalty for dying. They just had a laser focus on the objective, which is the only win condition.

To change that how you want, ZOS would have to change the win condition to include kills. But presumably ZOS would like players to actually play the objective in their game modes rather than simply play everything like a deathmatch, so I don't expect anything to change. The Flag matches favor different builds than deathmatches, like speed and CC builds, for example, so it helps bring variety to BGs. Adding kills to the win conditions changes the dynamic of Domination a lot, and makes it less distinct from Deathmatch. Which for ZOS, more variety is a good thing. Like Cyrodiil campaigns, Domination is all about how many objectives you hold for how long, not how many players you kill or don't while doing so, and that makes it very distinct from games where you want to kill a particular target (scroll runner/emperor for Cyrodiil) or just kill everyone who's not on your side.

So I don't expect ZOS to change the win conditions to include enemy kills.

IMO they should just delete Domination. Crazy King is the same but better because it does force PvP.

Question: what gives points in objective based matches, performing objectives or killing targets?

Best they could probably do is make it like Battlefield Conquest mode. Holding the flags drains the enemy tickets (here would add points to your team) while eliminating a player would also result in a singular ticket loss.

In objective based games though, objectives should always trump people playing deathmatch style. People who focus objectives should win even if getting their behinds kicked, because the game isn't about killing in those modes.

So we're right back to square one.

Nvm, i made the thread out of impulse anyways.

Kel wrote: »

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

Irfind wrote: »

I dont know ... PVP = Player vs Player not PK ?

So even chess is PVP in its own way.

You want only to kill other players ? Go deathmatch !

Another one that doesn't know how to read. Lovely!

People are reading just fine, I just don't think you like the answers.

Objective matches are about the objective. The idea is flawed because of the 3 team system, not that it discourages PvP.
I see this often in BG's where two teams want to play deathmatch, leaving the 3rd team to just focus on objectives. Happens in chaos ball just as much as in dominion.

The idea is actually fighting over the objective. The actual problem is when two teams engage, it leaves the 3rd team free. And that in turn is hurt by the "let's all stick together" mentality, in flag games especially.

It's a pvp game mode, or it's supposed to. They didn't do any pvp. They spent the whole game running and dying, didn't even bother to fight back.