This would turn a lot of close matches into losses.

I think this thread is a good example of how even if you do the right thing, people will always react negatively due to inexperience and fear.


Well whatever. At least Rattati knows whats up.

That's the thing, you can make up for lost time by actually going on the counter attack, claim all three and catch up quicker with this solution as well.

Battlefield has been out for a decade. Pretty sure it hasn't backfired yet.

Again, the people asking for this to not happen aren't being cautious, they are straight-up suggesting it shouldn't happen and their only reason is inexperience with which game design elements work and don't work.

People who don't know what the hell they are talking about really shouldn't offer an opinion, alas....

Battlefield and Skirmish are almost exactly the same game. Skirmish 2.0 was modeled after Battlefield with MCC HP replacing the ticket system and clones staying independent instead of sharing the same HP pool. This change was put into place because someone at CCP began to worry their game was too different than what was already proven to be successful on the market. This is the direct consequence of a game being developed from a business standpoint first and actual game second.

The only other difference is that there is a point that has to be hacked, instead of having someone simply stand in an area and have the place turn over automatically.

Finally, no. You are not entitled to your opinion. Not publicly. That's some elementary school crap they told you when you were a kid so you would feel warm and fuzzy inside.

What you are entitled to is an EDUCATED opinion. If your opinion is not educated than it is irrelevant and no one wants to hear it. You keep that ignorant nonsense to yourself because it pollutes any intelligent discussion actually going on. As you don't even understand the major similarities between Battlefield and Skirmish your opinion is clearly not educated and I would ask you stop talking.