{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/2/2019 2:24:03 AM
9
It shoulda been clash. Control is the wrong mode for this style of pvp.
English
-
No ...Control is the best. It force you to expose yourself or your location when you capture the zone. Clash will just make people camp. Supremacy is probably another alternative. But Totally NOT Clash.
-
Control at least makes people move around the map if they want to win. If it's clash, no reason for anyone to not camp in the darkest corners of the map.
-
The opposite side of this is as soon a team controls B the game is over. 4 people camp their spawn lanes and 2 cover b and the middle spawn lane. Clash would have been a better mode for this overall, as it would have functioned like a normal swat variant in Halo, but since the spawns are geared toward control the mode gets stale. Oh, and everyone is camping those lanes with a jade rabbit or an equivalent so you barely get to peek around the corner before you get dropped.
-
Yeah, but the losing team can circle around and grab A and C. Then retake B. Or if they are skilled, shoot the team off of B.
-
The issue, at least on PC, is that aim botting or just really adept players just instant headshot you if you show your face. I'm not sure how the mode plays on console, but PC it's real tough to get out of a 2-1 control.
-
I think the reason it isnt is because it would be a ranged weapon camp fest with no objectives to push.
-
I think rumble would be better IMO
-
Not really, without radar you have no idea most of the time where the enemy is. They'd have to introduce a new mechanic if they get rid of the flags.
-
Good old Quake and UT times where you had to listen to the foot steps and such to know where the enemy is.
