DUST Search - [Feedback] Why Skirmish is Bad (objective spawning)

Baal Roo wrote:

As many times as I've heard this discussed over and over and over again as a huge flaw by so many different players in game that I've lost count, I only just realized I've never seen anything about it posted here in the feedback section. So here you go.

The Reason Skirmish is Bad: Spawning on Objectives

This seemingly harmless mechanic removes 90% of all tactical play from the game. If the enemies attack you at one objective in a big rush, it does no good to counter attack their objective with some of your forces, because you know that the enemies who die in the rush will simply spawn back at the objective you are counter attacking by the time you get there.

It leaves us with a game mode where the entire strategy is to simply blob rush from objective to objective, and respawn at contested objectives.

The large majority of all deaths my squad sees when attacking an objective come from guys magically appearing and gunning you down while hacking. It's completely ludicrous.

Make the game more strategic, remove the objective spawning and add more CRUs.

EDIT: here's a slightly different way of stating the problem that I wrote in another thread (the one that made me realize this needed to be posted here):

Baal Roo wrote:

Right now, the best strategy in skirmish is ALWAYS to RUSH RUSH RUSH RUSH, because the faster you die the faster you respawn to your objectives and can take care of any enemy attackers. It's why we see so many redline matches. All of the experienced players understand this mechanic and take advantage of it to redline one side or the other within the first 45 seconds of most matches, and why the remaining matches end on clones before the MCCs get to half armor.

Both teams rush each other, attacking with a blob at the enemy held objectives and defending their own with respawns, and the first team to win the initial fights at the objectives wins the match 90% of the time.

It's dull, cheap, and repetitive.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Baal Roo Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 811	Posted - 2013.02.13 20:51:00 - [1] - Quote As many times as I've heard this discussed over and over and over again as a huge flaw by so many different players in game that I've lost count, I only just realized I've never seen anything about it posted here in the feedback section. So here you go. The Reason Skirmish is Bad: Spawning on Objectives This seemingly harmless mechanic removes 90% of all tactical play from the game. If the enemies attack you at one objective in a big rush, it does no good to counter attack their objective with some of your forces, because you know that the enemies who die in the rush will simply spawn back at the objective you are counter attacking by the time you get there. It leaves us with a game mode where the entire strategy is to simply blob rush from objective to objective, and respawn at contested objectives. The large majority of all deaths my squad sees when attacking an objective come from guys magically appearing and gunning you down while hacking. It's completely ludicrous. Make the game more strategic, remove the objective spawning and add more CRUs. EDIT: here's a slightly different way of stating the problem that I wrote in another thread (the one that made me realize this needed to be posted here): Baal Roo wrote: Right now, the best strategy in skirmish is ALWAYS to RUSH RUSH RUSH RUSH, because the faster you die the faster you respawn to your objectives and can take care of any enemy attackers. It's why we see so many redline matches. All of the experienced players understand this mechanic and take advantage of it to redline one side or the other within the first 45 seconds of most matches, and why the remaining matches end on clones before the MCCs get to half armor. Both teams rush each other, attacking with a blob at the enemy held objectives and defending their own with respawns, and the first team to win the initial fights at the objectives wins the match 90% of the time. It's dull, cheap, and repetitive.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 25	Posted - 2013.02.13 21:01:00 - [2] - Quote This should be obvious to both game designers and map designers, but since the game mechanic is still here I guess this needs to be voiced more clearly.
Metatron Celestias Dangerously Designed 9	Posted - 2013.02.13 21:06:00 - [3] - Quote I've never actually put a thought to this problem specifically but knew something was off. I agree we need more CRUs instead of objective spawning.
Jack Sharkey42 Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 18	Posted - 2013.02.13 21:24:00 - [4] - Quote LOL This is the flip side of the complaint , "People just spawn camp!" You got bullets in my spawn point You got spawn in my bullet points
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 3064	Posted - 2013.02.13 21:27:00 - [5] - Quote +1 I must agree. This would make CRU dropships, and drop uplinks more useful.
Baal Roo Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 811	Posted - 2013.02.13 21:31:00 - [6] - Quote Jack Sharkey42 wrote: LOL This is the flip side of the complaint , "People just spawn camp!" You got bullets in my spawn point You got spawn in my bullet points I understand why you would see the two as related, but they really are very different problems. People do spawn camp, but that's a problem of one team playing strategically and the other team playing poorly. Spawn camp someone in my squad once, shame on you. Spawn camp someone in my squad twice, shame on us. This problem, OTOH, has to do with a mechanic that REMOVES strategic play and the need for communication. There is no need to coordinate, and no need to think ahead. Just rush and spawn, rush and spawn, and you win. The team that loses is almost always the team that tries to use a "strategy" and "defend and hold" objectives, because the game mechanics puts any strategy other than FULL ON ATTACK at a huge disadvantage.
Terry Webber Gothic Wars Consortium 35	Posted - 2013.02.13 21:46:00 - [7] - Quote I agree with this thread.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 369	Posted - 2013.02.13 21:53:00 - [8] - Quote I've actually said this many times in IRC in the last couple of months. Spawning on objectives should be removed. That was yet another reason why Craterlake was such a good map. You couldn't spawn on the objectives there and it actually made for a good experience. I made these a while ago (I haven't gotten around to actually make a thread for it, partly because I don't feel like CCP is using any of our feedback anyway): http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8320/manuspeakmapchanges.png http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/3790/ashlandmapchanges.png http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/7961/lineharvestmapchanges.png http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/62/skimjunctionmapchanges.png This is made with the idea of removing spawning on objectives. Do note that this is just something done really quickly and might not be optimal, but that's how I want it to be in general. I still think we should have actual defender vs attacker game modes instead of this boring mode we have now, but I feel like this could do for a start.
trollsroyce Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 165	Posted - 2013.02.13 21:56:00 - [9] - Quote This could reinforce the strategic importance of sniping, so I like it.
Skihids Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising 970	Posted - 2013.02.13 22:10:00 - [10] - Quote Not only does spawning on objectives hurt game play, it makes no sense in the lore. Where the hell are you coming from? Not a CRU. You don't drop from the sky. Not via a wormhole to a drop uplink. You just teleport in when there is no such technology in New Eden. It really kills immersion to watch players materialize out of thin air. It just screams "this is a game!"

Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2013.02.13 23:05:00 - [11] - Quote Support But for the record: skirmish is good, ambush is terrible
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 369	Posted - 2013.02.13 23:08:00 - [12] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Support But for the record: skirmish is bad, ambush is worse Fixed. Spawning on objectives is so lame.
Zin Suddu DUST University Ivy League 3	Posted - 2013.02.14 01:47:00 - [13] - Quote Disagree. -1 Not sure about this one guys. On the one hand yes it makes absolutely no sense lore wise for players to be able to appear from thin air at the site of a Null Canon which has - as far as I know - no wormhole technology encorporated into it's design. As far as I know. Yes it is annoying to be within inches of cap'ing a NC only to have an enemy player spawn on the capture point and riddle you with bullets. And yes the tactic of spamming cap spawn to drive the opposing team back into the red is a pain, though not an insurmountable obstacle in the least. Conversely, however, without the ability to cap spawn travel times over the sometimes massive maps would become a problem in and of itself. Though you could argue that the use of CRU's and LAV's would mitigate this, the problem still remains. After all CRU's are not indestructible - at least they weren't the last time I played - and even if they were you would still end up with the blob/rush mechanic with clusters of players fighting over CRU's instead of NC's. Also keep in mind that you can only spawn on CRU's that you currently hold so having more CRU's neither adresses the issue of Redlining or Cap Rushing. In a worst case scenario an enemy team suitably organized could force there opponents into a tight spawn camp and destroy any remaining CRU's on the play field leaving no possible way for the opposition to spawn from anywhere outside of the MCC. One could try to use vehicles to escape that predicament but it only takes a handful of players with swarm launchers to ruin that plan, and even if they did manage to escape without the ability to spawn on capture points and with all available CRU's out of commission the only hope the escapees would have for victory would be strategically placed Drop Uplinks. So the argument then becomes a question, what's the answer? I think the long and short of it is that Cap Spawns are ugly but a necessary evil to keep the game balanced and fun. Yes all of the issues that come with it are irksome but without it the game might become less fun. Nobody wants to run a marathon to get to the fight only to get shot in the first few seconds, or so, after getting there and have to do it all over again. Nobody wants to be four bars away from a cap just to have an enemy battalion spawn right next to them and steal away victory. What's the answer? For my part I might recommend that instead of just popping out of thin air at NC's players have to que up in the MCC and take an RDV from there to the cap point. I know it could be argued that that's what Dropships are for but you can't always guarantee that one will be available in the field. Well not at least without making them free, or very inexpensive, and once you do that...oh shenanigans! I can see drop ships falling from the sky everywhere shenanigans! Besides the RDV idea is more sound, a small troop carrier peels off from the MCC flies through the combat zone through hails of missiles and bullet fire - all which can effect the ship, even blow it up - before it stops a short distance away from the NC and deposits ground forces ready to assault or defend the selected position. Of course it might be best to only allow these transports to carry troops to allied NC's only as such a system could be quickly and easily abused, and allowing them to fly to any point would render the use of player owned dropships null. But you could rectify that by treating RDV troop deployments as the poor mans drop ship. I.E. RDV's cannot be equipped with weapons, only fly to NC's held by friendly forces, are vulnerable to attack, can only carry X amount of troops (less than a drop ship, perhaps only a squad), do not deliver forces directly to capture points, only nearby. A system somwhat to this nature may help allieviate some stress caused by cap spawning by giving infiltrators a little time to see the enemy coming as opposed to the enemy just suddenly being there. Add in the ability to RDV to a pre determined set of randomly selected LZ's on the battlefield and you can even allieviate much of the stress of redlining by providing another means of "Access" to the combat zone beyond red zone itself. Include the option for players to debark/evacuate in case of emergency and you lessen the chances of people feeling cheated if the opposition shoots down their RDV. This solution also adresses the lore hole felt by some players by illustrating that, no players aren't spawning from thin air, they are arriving via transports, although this is a minor consideration at best. A simpler solution is to disable an enemies ability to spawn at an NC as soon as an opposing player begins to hack it. That alone would eliminate the cap rush tactic and force players to actually plan a legitimate defense of cap points. Thus some players on the enemy team need to stay behind and defend thereby removing combat personel from the front lines and reduce the chance that any one team can effectively spawn camp it's opposition. Case in point. Sheesh that was a mouthful! Cheers!
KalOfTheRathi CowTek 168	Posted - 2013.02.14 02:10:00 - [14] - Quote Disagree. -1 The CRU allows an alternate attack vector into the battle but a captured letter allows for a defensive response. If the battle is stabilized, even momentarily, two hackers can get a letter capped quickly enough. Three allows someone covering their backs. The problems you state are mostly based on Vets versus NewB interacting. That is always going to be a problem in pub matches. Until we get a Battle Finder that has enough filter options to make a difference in the groupings. A level balance criteria of some sort. Currently only running in Corp battles I suppose would be another solution. How would one train recruits then? The Red Line issue is something I see sometimes but in pub matches it is definitely not the default situation. Even one Dropship, a LAV or a stealth Scout Shotty can turn the tide. Not to mention hiding an Uplink if the situation is looking dire. Those actions are learned and take longer in some NewBs than others.
J'Jor Da'Wg KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 648	Posted - 2013.02.14 02:52:00 - [15] - Quote Spawning on objecives is lame in every gameplay mechanic. In fact, I hate slawning c from thin air in general, especially in front of enemies. It is very immersiveness-breaking in general. I have always liked protected spawn buildings or bunkers that allow you to spawn, get your bearings, and push out, protected at least inside the building from your enemies. Planetside 2's spawn buildings are a great example. Multiple exits, but they keep the focus on controlling the objective because otherwise the protection and spawn point changes over. Now, the spawn buildings are a little bit large for DUST's purposes, so I would instead propose that the spawning mechanism for CRUs is this: Instead of appearing randomly outside the CRU, you spawn INTO the CRU viewing the surroundings through third person, much like the bunkers in MAG worked. Then, you spawn outside by pressing X and viewing a certain direction. (Almost entirely copied from MAG.) In the future when the maps are larger and the objectives more spread out, I think dedicated spawn buildings like in Planetside would be best. Now, don't poo pooh that down just because "Dust isn't PS2." It works very well to avoid spawn trapping, and since it is still tied to the objective makes it much more interesting to capture. I have always held that complaints about "buh buh buh getting redlined is unfaaaaiiirrr" are carebear in nature. You should make an effective offense to capture spawn points, and if you don't, shame on you. The null cannons are objectives, not spawn points, and good game design empasizes that objectives should not be close to where players spawn, otherwise imbalance occurs. The answer, as I said before, is to make certain CRUs / spawns tied to the objective, but not be placed on the objective itself. Anyways, spawning directly on anything out of thin air is just lame. Its a lazy mechanic that works well in CoD but not in DUST. Also, the null cannon model could be cooler. Its not very "cannon" looking. At least it could be more militay looking. It just looks like a computer console at this point.
Imp Smash On The Brink 51	Posted - 2013.02.14 07:05:00 - [16] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: Disagree. -1 The CRU allows an alternate attack vector into the battle but a captured letter allows for a defensive response. If the battle is stabilized, even momentarily, two hackers can get a letter capped quickly enough. Three allows someone covering their backs. The problems you state are mostly based on Vets versus NewB interacting. That is always going to be a problem in pub matches. Until we get a Battle Finder that has enough filter options to make a difference in the groupings. A level balance criteria of some sort. Currently only running in Corp battles I suppose would be another solution. How would one train recruits then? The Red Line issue is something I see sometimes but in pub matches it is definitely not the default situation. Even one Dropship, a LAV or a stealth Scout Shotty can turn the tide. Not to mention hiding an Uplink if the situation is looking dire. Those actions are learned and take longer in some NewBs than others. I agree with this post.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 369	Posted - 2013.02.14 08:09:00 - [17] - Quote Being able to defend an objective as easy as you can right now by just spawning on the objective is so lame. When killed you should be pushed back in the battlefield quite a bit (unless revived), and not just be able to spawn right back at the objective about to get attacked by the other team. Instead of being able to spawn on objectives there should be more CRUs. Make them indestructible for pub matches if you have to. Again, I made this really quickly a while back to give a general idea of how it should be: http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8320/manuspeakmapchanges.png http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/3790/ashlandmapchanges.png http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/7961/lineharvestmapchanges.png http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/62/skimjunctionmapchanges.png Not only would it lead to less spawncamping on the objectives (yes, I know most of it will just move to the CRUs instead, but there are ways to limit/prevent that), but it would also promote using alternate spawnpoints as well. I'm talking about Uplinks, Dropships with CRU (once they give pilots WP opportunities at least) and ground vehicles with CRUs as well (and in my opinion the CRU shouldn't be inactivated if there's no driver). It would be much more valuable to have a Scout run for the CRU farthest away or even use a Dropship to get people there. It would be much more valuable to actually revive people at objectives and support them in general at objectives.
Heinz Doofenshertz BetaMax. 360	Posted - 2013.02.14 08:21:00 - [18] - Quote I'd comment on the maps if they were say 10 times larger so I could see what your talking about.
Oxskull Duncarino Shadow Company HQ 165	Posted - 2013.02.14 09:07:00 - [19] - Quote +1. As soon as the maps get bigger this would make dropships and drop uplinks extremely relevant.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 3064	Posted - 2013.02.16 02:47:00 - [20] - Quote I fully support replacing objective spawning with more CRUs on the map, would add a layer of tactics beyond controlling the cannons, and necessitate holding CRUs as well to defend them.

Zero Harpuia Maverick Conflict Solutions 422	Posted - 2013.02.16 06:51:00 - [21] - Quote +1. I'm a Logi with a Laser Rifle, so I can't follow my squad to a point to assist with the hack (a Logi specialty) or heal (another Logi specialty) because a heavy may spawn out of thin air five feet from me and instagib me because random BS. In Planetside, the objectives are a decent distance from the spawns. In MAG, the objectives are a decent distance from the bunkers. In CoD, the points are not where you spawn into, if there are any points at all. There is a reason for this, as many people before me have pointed out. Anyone with long range weapons or a lower HP suit gets screwed royally for attempting to hack an objective because some random dood will spawn in and just slap you off the point. the CRUs we have are a bit too close to the points IMO, but if we solely spawned to them instead of the points themselves, then the game would be just that much better. And on the subject of spawning, make a Drop Uplink a bit more noticeable, being able to spawn in ~8 people to an almost invisible point (completely invisible if the damn thing decides to not be rendered) is a tad broken. If they did the Planetside thing where there is a hugeass flare where the drop-in points are placed, then maybe that'd balance it out...
ImperfectFan514 IMPSwarm Negative-Feedback 51	Posted - 2013.02.16 07:30:00 - [22] - Quote The ability to spawn in on an objective has absolutely nothing to do with skirmish being bad. People that spawn in on points as they are being hacked in most cases are a free kill. If you are getting killed, while your hacking and OBJ your obviously doing it wrong, or your buddy covering your back is a terrible shot. The current ability to spawn on an objective has nothing to do with skirmish being bad. Skirmish is bad, because CCP decided to emulate COD and Battlefield. (Domination/Conquest) This domination/conquest mode we now know as Skirmish just doesn't really work for a game like this. It caters to players that know how to set up kill farms and just stomp all over people. Newer players just roam around the map not really knowing what they are doing. The original skirmish was much more accessible for a variety of player skills.
Psi R IT'S NO USE 23	Posted - 2013.02.16 07:35:00 - [23] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: +1 I must agree. This would make CRU dropships, and drop uplinks more useful.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 369	Posted - 2013.02.16 08:43:00 - [24] - Quote ImperfectFan514 wrote: The ability to spawn in on an objective has absolutely nothing to do with skirmish being bad. People that spawn in on points as they are being hacked in most cases are a free kill. If you are getting killed, while your hacking and OBJ your obviously doing it wrong, or your buddy covering your back is a terrible shot. The current ability to spawn on an objective has nothing to do with skirmish being bad. Skirmish is bad, because CCP decided to emulate COD and Battlefield. (Domination/Conquest) This domination/conquest mode we now know as Skirmish just doesn't really work for a game like this. It caters to players that know how to set up kill farms and just stomp all over people. Newer players just roam around the map not really knowing what they are doing. The original skirmish was much more accessible for a variety of player skills. It's a huge reason for Skirmish being as bad as it is. I never said Skirmish wouldn't still be bad even without spawning on objectives. I've been wanting actual defender vs attackers game modes since they took out Skirmish v1, but this is just a suggestion to make the current Skirmish a little less bad. When killed you absolutely should be pushed back and not just be able to spawn back at an objective about to get hacked. Spawning on objectives almost entirely neglects the need for Drop Uplinks and Dropships and other vehicles with CRUs. Spawning on objectives is just so seriously lame. Can you imagine being able to spawn at the objectives in MAG?
Baal Roo Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 811	Posted - 2013.02.16 12:42:00 - [25] - Quote ImperfectFan514 wrote: The ability to spawn in on an objective has absolutely nothing to do with skirmish being bad. People that spawn in on points as they are being hacked in most cases are a free kill. If you are getting killed, while your hacking and OBJ your obviously doing it wrong, or your buddy covering your back is a terrible shot. I don't think it's fair to say "you're doing it wrong" here. I can't count how many times my squad has rolled up on an undefended objective, only to have 3 or 4 heavies/shotgun scouts spawn right on top of us, or how many times I've done the same to someone else. And just forget "stealth" hacking with a single sneaky scout, that's just asking to get ganked by a lucky raspberry who just happens to be spawning in at the right time. The whole mechanic of it just makes playing defense almost entirely unnecessary.
Coleman Gray Coalition Of Goverments 47	Posted - 2013.02.16 13:01:00 - [26] - Quote But it takes longer to respawn than to hack so if you just died and tr to respawn at that objective and they hack it, your repsan timer resets, taking you out the game for even longer so it does have it's risks.
semperfi1999 Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 317	Posted - 2013.02.16 14:56:00 - [27] - Quote I agree that this could lead to spawn trapping more but it would be more strategic as well. I think this should be implemented once we have the abilities to call down our own CRUs. Right now it would be too easy to spawn trap the other team however once CRUs can be called down now you have the ability to get behind the enemy line and place a spawn point that everyone can use until its either hacked or destroyed.
Malefactor 00420 Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 24	Posted - 2013.02.16 17:39:00 - [28] - Quote I support this idea. I also think that seeing an equipment item that blocks spawning in a certain radius for a set duration would be cool. It should be destructible and such like a nanohive or uplink.
Baal Roo Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 811	Posted - 2013.02.16 23:01:00 - [29] - Quote Zero Harpuia wrote: +1. I'm a Logi with a Laser Rifle, so I can't follow my squad to a point to assist with the hack (a Logi specialty) or heal (another Logi specialty) because a heavy may spawn out of thin air five feet from me and instagib me because random BS. In Planetside, the objectives are a decent distance from the spawns. In MAG, the objectives are a decent distance from the bunkers. In CoD, the points are not where you spawn into, if there are any points at all. There is a reason for this, as many people before me have pointed out. Anyone with long range weapons or a lower HP suit gets screwed royally for attempting to hack an objective because some random dood will spawn in and just slap you off the point. the CRUs we have are a bit too close to the points IMO, but if we solely spawned to them instead of the points themselves, then the game would be just that much better. And on the subject of spawning, make a Drop Uplink a bit more noticeable, being able to spawn in ~8 people to an almost invisible point (completely invisible if the damn thing decides to not be rendered) is a tad broken. If they did the Planetside thing where there is a hugeass flare where the drop-in points are placed, then maybe that'd balance it out... I like everything you said here, except the bit about making uplinks more noticeable. I agree that the graphical glitch where deployed equipment often can't be seen is annoying, but assuming they fix that, I like the visibility uplinks currently have. They audibly hum, and glow enough that they can be seen from a fair distance. I like having to search a bit in the direction the enemies are streaming in from. And the clever play that is encouraged by being able to sneak behind enemy lines and drop a good upllink for your squad.
xXl DeathDealer lXx Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2	Posted - 2013.02.17 18:11:00 - [30] - Quote Baal Roo wrote: As many times as I've heard this discussed over and over and over again as a huge flaw by so many different players in game that I've lost count, I only just realized I've never seen anything about it posted here in the feedback section. So here you go. The Reason Skirmish is Bad: Spawning on Objectives This seemingly harmless mechanic removes 90% of all tactical play from the game. If the enemies attack you at one objective in a big rush, it does no good to counter attack their objective with some of your forces, because you know that the enemies who die in the rush will simply spawn back at the objective you are counter attacking by the time you get there. It leaves us with a game mode where the entire strategy is to simply blob rush from objective to objective, and respawn at contested objectives. The large majority of all deaths my squad sees when attacking an objective come from guys magically appearing and gunning you down while hacking. It's completely ludicrous. Make the game more strategic, remove the objective spawning and add more CRUs. EDIT: here's a slightly different way of stating the problem that I wrote in another thread (the one that made me realize this needed to be posted here): Baal Roo wrote: Right now, the best strategy in skirmish is ALWAYS to RUSH RUSH RUSH RUSH, because the faster you die the faster you respawn to your objectives and can take care of any enemy attackers. It's why we see so many redline matches. All of the experienced players understand this mechanic and take advantage of it to redline one side or the other within the first 45 seconds of most matches, and why the remaining matches end on clones before the MCCs get to half armor. Both teams rush each other, attacking with a blob at the enemy held objectives and defending their own with respawns, and the first team to win the initial fights at the objectives wins the match 90% of the time. It's dull, cheap, and repetitive. I think that a good fix to this is to remove having to manually hack something. Make it so that you automatically hack when within a few yards of an objective when no enemies are there. This would solve everyone's problems. You can stay alert so you don't get spawned on and mowed down and protect yourself from objective campers especially snipers. Everyone wins.



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page