I very much like the objective aspects of pvp, in either IC, BGs, or Cyrodiil. They have the element of the unexpected, and of course fighting/killing other players is apart of the scene. I have the same sort of view with things like trials, arenas, and dungeons. I love doing mechanics (very scary thought for parse monkeys). DPS burns are all fine and dandy, and I can carry my weight. But I love keeping the mind active with both dps and mechanics.

I consider "a win" as actually winning the game per the parameters of the game mode, whether that's Deathmatch through killing, or objective modes through mostly avoiding combat and focusing on objectives. I don't really see this as an option in your poll.

I always play to win, but what I enjoy, is player versus player combat, so I strongly prefer a deathmatch.

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

I consider "a win" as actually winning the game per the parameters of the game mode, whether that's Deathmatch through killing, or objective modes through mostly avoiding combat and focusing on objectives. I don't really see this as an option in your poll.

I always play to win, but what I enjoy, is player versus player combat, so I strongly prefer a deathmatch.

I agree with you here. Whatever the game mode asks for is what I focus on. I also always play to win for sure.

Every games have objectives i don't get that thing about killing only maybe only battle royals but at them you start with nothing not with dark converege at start and try to get gear and do better. Getting strong gear from 0 changes everything ,you still weak at start of game.Battle royals are only balanced death match mode you die you leave.

I like objective mode and killing while doing objective.

I play objectives when I am in them, but I am PVPing for good fights. If I wanted a non-combat player verse player challenge I'll go play a game of chess, or a board game.

I play pvp in this game to be pitted against other players, and I expect that if I try to take a objective, whether it be a flag or a relic, there to be some for of contestation for it. It's why I think the 3 team relic, and multi-capture spot domination is poorly designed. Those capture points and flags should be hotly contested at all times. You should not be able to sneak over and take an objective while the other two teams are actually engaging one another in pvp combat.

It's why more often than not, I will not go find undefended flags or relics, I will go fight at the defended ones. If we lose, so be it, but my goal is to take the actual challenging objective rather than waste my time avoiding other players.

The objective is core to what is required for a win. In DM killing is the objective so in that case kills are paramount. In the other matches killing is secondary, preventing, taking, and defending is paramount though that will end up leading to some kills but it is less important.

I did not answer since this does not really fit into one of the choices as killing is sometimes most important.

moleculardrugs wrote: »

In an actual battle, the losers are captured and killed. So I play by objective, because you can be the best soldier on the losing side’s team and you’re still going to be executed 😔

In an actual battle, who wins and loses is largely determined by who has the greater combat capabilities. In most actual battles throughout history, that meant inflicting enough harm to the enemies so that they give up.

Very few battles in history have had “objectives” that so largely outweighed actual combat capabilities that a weaker side won solely by objective alone. Even in such victories, as long as the stronger side retains their military force, they are not going to be “captured” by the weaker side. In reality, the stronger side usually retreats and comes back next season and utterly destroys the weaker side.

When the two air planes successfully brought down the world trade towers in 2001, the weaker side accomplished their objective. American military did not get captured and executed, they went in to parts of the Middle East and pretty much laid waste to it.

Hope that helps clear up misunderstandings about actual battles.

Winning good, competitive fights with a positive kd ratio is winning in my opinion. Objectives add flavour to the sport. Good fights while securing objectives is fun. Making modes that reward people avoiding conflict is anti pvp. Being able to go 0 and 8 and high scoring by rushing empty flags shouldn't be a thing.

jaws343 wrote: »

I play objectives when I am in them, but I am PVPing for good fights. If I wanted a non-combat player verse player challenge I'll go play a game of chess, or a board game.

I play pvp in this game to be pitted against other players, and I expect that if I try to take a objective, whether it be a flag or a relic, there to be some for of contestation for it. It's why I think the 3 team relic, and multi-capture spot domination is poorly designed. Those capture points and flags should be hotly contested at all times. You should not be able to sneak over and take an objective while the other two teams are actually engaging one another in pvp combat.

It's why more often than not, I will not go find undefended flags or relics, I will go fight at the defended ones. If we lose, so be it, but my goal is to take the actual challenging objective rather than waste my time avoiding other players.

Yes I am of the similar opinion as this. Playing for objectives can be fantastic for challenging and competitive play. Especially when there's a good skirmish between teams in capturing flags (I can't stand capture the relic). It's also nice to have a mode that can break up the monotony that can happen when playing a lot of DMs.

However, it's player vs player for a reason and this is why pvpers get annoyed when playing objectives sometimes. It doesn't make sense that a player can be rewarded 1st or 2nd place in a match without even engaging in any kind of combat. There were times when you would be fighting another team and your teammate would just run away to sneak to another flag. So you would be left to defend yourself and they would get the extra points. Or one team would just sneak around taking points without even having to engage with you at all.

Or in the case of chaos ball, you would just have an unkillable tank or a swift, uncatchable toon just running around in circles with the ball, so the match would just become a DM anyway. So I also agree that the objective modes need some reworking in making all capture points and other objectives to be more pvp engaging. You should have to fight a little for your points.

As for DM, that is true pvp right there. And for pvpers there's nothing better than getting into some good fights with other players and getting some kills.

Lmao we're all so split on this. I didn't think this poll would be this interesting.

(IMO I thought that middle option was a no brainer. Of course I want the most kills, AND win the objective. Right? I'm not out here to lose but have fun. I'm out for blood and my name on the top of the standings.)

The majority of people who play Greyhost are there for the strategy/tactics involved in WINNING the campaign. It is a game that is NOT about the rewards at the end, (we are all millionaires and have all the best golded gear already), it is entirely about winning via the score. If we didn’t care about the score we would be playing the other campaigns where the score doesn’t matter.

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

I play objectives when I am in them, but I am PVPing for good fights. If I wanted a non-combat player verse player challenge I'll go play a game of chess, or a board game.

I play pvp in this game to be pitted against other players, and I expect that if I try to take a objective, whether it be a flag or a relic, there to be some for of contestation for it. It's why I think the 3 team relic, and multi-capture spot domination is poorly designed. Those capture points and flags should be hotly contested at all times. You should not be able to sneak over and take an objective while the other two teams are actually engaging one another in pvp combat.

It's why more often than not, I will not go find undefended flags or relics, I will go fight at the defended ones. If we lose, so be it, but my goal is to take the actual challenging objective rather than waste my time avoiding other players.

Yes I am of the similar opinion as this. Playing for objectives can be fantastic for challenging and competitive play. Especially when there's a good skirmish between teams in capturing flags (I can't stand capture the relic). It's also nice to have a mode that can break up the monotony that can happen when playing a lot of DMs.

However, it's player vs player for a reason and this is why pvpers get annoyed when playing objectives sometimes. It doesn't make sense that a player can be rewarded 1st or 2nd place in a match without even engaging in any kind of combat. There were times when you would be fighting another team and your teammate would just run away to sneak to another flag. So you would be left to defend yourself and they would get the extra points. Or one team would just sneak around taking points without even having to engage with you at all.

Or in the case of chaos ball, you would just have an unkillable tank or a swift, uncatchable toon just running around in circles with the ball, so the match would just become a DM anyway. So I also agree that the objective modes need some reworking in making all capture points and other objectives to be more pvp engaging. You should have to fight a little for your points.

As for DM, that is true pvp right there. And for pvpers there's nothing better than getting into some good fights with other players and getting some kills.

I mean... you say that as if tanking requires no confrontation, or if sneaking to steal points isn't an effective tactic, it's not their fault that people who just want to kill players are focused on what they have. And people who sneak and steal your points WOULD have to confront other players if you paid attention to them.
Player vs player doesn't denote direct confrontation.
Ball sports are player vs player, you barely ever see them fighting each other to death. Chess is player vs player, and I don't think I've ever seen a match where both players get up and beat each other up with their chairs (admittedly, that would be fun to watch lol), and a player having to sneak away from other players to capture a relic and make it back, IS player vs player.
Your obstacles in terms of sneaking aren't AI controlled bots or traps, your obstacles are other players.
They deserve the points they get from successfully sneaking from you, or successfully tanking you

drsalvation wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

I play objectives when I am in them, but I am PVPing for good fights. If I wanted a non-combat player verse player challenge I'll go play a game of chess, or a board game.

I play pvp in this game to be pitted against other players, and I expect that if I try to take a objective, whether it be a flag or a relic, there to be some for of contestation for it. It's why I think the 3 team relic, and multi-capture spot domination is poorly designed. Those capture points and flags should be hotly contested at all times. You should not be able to sneak over and take an objective while the other two teams are actually engaging one another in pvp combat.

It's why more often than not, I will not go find undefended flags or relics, I will go fight at the defended ones. If we lose, so be it, but my goal is to take the actual challenging objective rather than waste my time avoiding other players.

Yes I am of the similar opinion as this. Playing for objectives can be fantastic for challenging and competitive play. Especially when there's a good skirmish between teams in capturing flags (I can't stand capture the relic). It's also nice to have a mode that can break up the monotony that can happen when playing a lot of DMs.

However, it's player vs player for a reason and this is why pvpers get annoyed when playing objectives sometimes. It doesn't make sense that a player can be rewarded 1st or 2nd place in a match without even engaging in any kind of combat. There were times when you would be fighting another team and your teammate would just run away to sneak to another flag. So you would be left to defend yourself and they would get the extra points. Or one team would just sneak around taking points without even having to engage with you at all.

Or in the case of chaos ball, you would just have an unkillable tank or a swift, uncatchable toon just running around in circles with the ball, so the match would just become a DM anyway. So I also agree that the objective modes need some reworking in making all capture points and other objectives to be more pvp engaging. You should have to fight a little for your points.

As for DM, that is true pvp right there. And for pvpers there's nothing better than getting into some good fights with other players and getting some kills.

I mean... you say that as if tanking requires no confrontation, or if sneaking to steal points isn't an effective tactic, it's not their fault that people who just want to kill players are focused on what they have. And people who sneak and steal your points WOULD have to confront other players if you paid attention to them.
Player vs player doesn't denote direct confrontation.
Ball sports are player vs player, you barely ever see them fighting each other to death. Chess is player vs player, and I don't think I've ever seen a match where both players get up and beat each other up with their chairs (admittedly, that would be fun to watch lol), and a player having to sneak away from other players to capture a relic and make it back, IS player vs player.
Your obstacles in terms of sneaking aren't AI controlled bots or traps, your obstacles are other players.
They deserve the points they get from successfully sneaking from you, or successfully tanking you

I didn't mean to insinuate that tanking takes no skill. I am a believer that support roles should have more meaning and value in PvP than they do now. However, I was speaking more to the amount of engagement in the design of the modes. I just don't understand the point of the design of chaosball. If the point of the mode is just to burst down a tank or team I would rather just que for DM all day. I think tank builds could have so many better uses and be more interesting for players if the design of the modes were different and they had access to more useful skills in PvP.

Yes you're right that sneaking is a valid tactic, but the way the modes are designed right now it doesn't take much skill to do it. Because for the number of players on teams the maps are quite large and there are so many flags that spawn, that even without sneaking I could run around and get points without running into anyone. For causals and or first time PvPers this may be fun, but it definitely becomes considerably less challenging and engaging for those who PvP everyday.