After playing Iron Banner once again , this time back to control. I noticed that 90% of the players do not play for the objective
And there is one reason for this .... The bounty that requires you to attain the top score.
In control of you stop to capture a zone then you are definitely going to loose kills and therefore points, so it turns people away from actually playing towards the objective.
I would personally like to see it return back to clash (people run around like chickens with their heads cut off anyway, and clash fits that playstyle better)
What do the rest of you guys think for the next Iron Banner?
-
Should just be Mayhem
-
Inferno Clash. Or if it's Inferno Control, at least have bounties To support that play style. Somehow having to obtain over 100 kills in all the bounties in a Control playlist seems counter productive.
-
2 RespostasI disagree. The best way to get the bounty is to play it the "right" way. I got the bounty from capturing B and holding it throughout. When the other team rushed B, I killed them. I'm not even a good PVP player. It's pretty simple actually.
-
I want IB rumble.
-
It would be fun to play Rumble, all 6 competitors should gain rep though. Bottom 3 gain less rep than top 3. Keep bounties similar, except eliminate 2500 pt bounty and replace with a kill streak bounty!
-
Control! I 'm rubbish at PvP and struggled through the Clash IB - but control I totally get. I tend to spend most of my time around zone B anticipating, trying to 2nd guess the enemies' movements, watching the radar and the zones controlled, and then setting tripmine traps and picking off stragglers. Every zone has its grenade friendly wall and doorway and whole teams can be suckered by a seemingly unskilled spray of Mida bullets into charging into a web of tripmines. My Kd for this IB was about 1.2 - with all bounties completed and (my persononally favourite) a triple down knife headshot kill spree - my overall kd avg has jumped from .4 to .6 - so bring on more control! Rewards were crap this time mind you!
-
I had so much fun holding B with a fusion rifle, I could taste my opponents agony and it was delicious.
-
I like clash because if you are super good you can carry a team which is what I usually end up doing. It is impossible to carry when your idiot team just caps A and C the whole game
-
1 ResponderClash is dumb bc if you get a bad team you lose bc it's based on who scores more pts. The better team kd will almost always win clash. So if your team sucks then you are screwed, you don't even have the chance of evening the tides by playing the objective well yourself. I'd much rather have control but then again Idgaf really because it's all a sweaty lag fest so I don't play IB anymore
-
Death to Control in Iron Banner For cereals.
-
-
Clash please. No one knows how to play control properly, resulting in many disappointing losses.
-
Where is the both opinion?
-
Control is always better you can make some epic comebacks and super kills
-
Editado por boff: 1/7/2016 2:27:36 PMPeople don't run around like headless chickens when playing clash, it's the opposite....they usually stand still like chicken's with their head attached. Slow camp fest. People do play objectively playing control, problem I usually see is that they are not playing objectively together like hitting b at different times, no point running to b one person at a time, easy to pick off, need 3 to go all at the same time. Defending home flag shouldn't be underestimated either one it can protect spawn advantage and stop the opposition flanking. All I read is control point capture specialist thinking that capturing the zone is the only role to win a game of control....it isn't....
-
Agreed. I didn't think I was going to like Clash, but actually goes [i]better[/i] with the general playstyle of most randoms. And, since the team score is half as much as Control, matches are so much quicker. The only difficult bounty seemed to be 2500 points in a Iron Banner match. Even as a below average PvPer, I managed it once or twice [i]each day[/i] during the event.
-
Have both game modes in the mix! :)
-
Editado por Jack 1892 YNWA: 1/7/2016 2:23:47 PMHate clash. I'll skip next one if its clash I reckon. Why not have both?
-
I think control is better. Clash promotes more camping. In control there is an actual objective instead of the other team sitting in one spot waiting for you to run in front of them. I don't believe clash would be as fun at least not for me because I don't use sniper rifles.
-
1 ResponderI get top score because i am playing the objective lol. Its called Control for a reason. It means you have to be in control of the zones. That means keeping them and capture if you lost a zone. So instead of capping like B and run away, hold the zone. Kill those that are trying to take it from you. The crybaby's will say that you are camping B even tho you are moving around and using every weapon you have to control the area. But just for those i will also explain what camping is. Camping is sitting in the same spot the entire time. Not moving around so you can shoot people that come from every direction. Camping is when you reach your spot and park your ass in that spot.
-
1 ResponderUm, no, if you're capturing a zone while killing people in and around said zone, you actually get the most points.
-
If you capture and defend B.... Enemies will come to you! Bring lots of nades!
-
Most play Control like Clash. They should make the option available when you select IB, which type you want to play. Sucks when folk run around playing clash and lose for there is no control happening. Control has been available for a year, and is self explanatory: Control means Control, not, run and shoot!
-
Mayhem. Yes.
-
Ya ive been pushed from being tied with someone for first, to being first simply because I captured more zones
-
You don't lose out on kill potential if u can manage to hold down and defend b on most maps. However, I did enjoy clash more as a primarily solo player and would like to see its return for the banner.