Originally posted by lyfe
Depends really, a lot of the people who have prestiged on the game are normally useless objective players as they just go off looking for kills where as unprestiged players tend to wanna play the objectives a lot more
This is entirely untrue. I don't know where this perception of getting kills on an objective based games being a bad thing comes from. Realistically, if nobody purely went for kills, then the game would be so fucking boring.
You might as well just make an agreement with the other team to have no shooting or kills and just stay at opposite ends of the map, taking A and C respectively (Domination as example) and then both teams run down their respective right hand flanks, completely avoiding each other, to the opposite objective to capture it and then repeat the process.
As far as I am concerned, if my team has 2 objectives, then my objective based part of the game is over and my job becomes trying to defend those 2 objectives and the easiest way to do that is to keep you away from them and the best way to do that is to continuously kill you.
I will ONLY try and capture an objective when I have to. It is foolish to try and hold all 3 objectives because it is not possible to defend them all.
My tactic is perfect because;
Say for example my team has A and B
I can run between A and B (on most maps anyway) and expect to get there in time for the defend. If an opposition player is running down one of the flanks to A and I intercept and kill them, great. If I die, never mind, I will spawn near A and still manage to intercept them, thus defending the objective anyway.
Therefore, even though I will rack up a load of kills (and I usually get at least 30 in Domination), I more often than not either also end up with either most Defends or most Captures. If my team is poor, I have to take objectives back more, but I have a half decent team, I can stick to the above tactic of preventing you from even reaching those objectives and by doing this, I am doing the objective.