{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/14/2015 5:05:02 PM
21
The objective of Control is to cap 2 zones.
Why oh why do people always get greedy and go after the 3rd zone when you already have 2 and are comfortably in the lead? It makes zero sense. All you are doing is spreading your team thinner, wasting resources that could be better spent defending, and giving the enemy free kills by rushing into their spawn.
Almost without exception, every map has 2 zones which are the best to hold. They are closer togther, have better routes between the two, have less exits to defend or whatever. Your objective as a team should be to get these two zones and then stay there, defending them from enemy attacks. The enemy WILL come at you, because they know that they will need one of the zones if they want to win, so there is no need to go out there looking for them.
I've seen many games where a team several thousand points ahead ends up losing because they pushed for zone A on Blind Watch or whatever, spawns switched, and they end up on the back foot with the worse zone under their control. Please people, don't be that guy.
-
5 RepliesWrong. The objective of control is to get more points than your opponents. Kills give points. Kills with modifiers give more points than a basic kill. Modifiers include number of points controlled, proximity of kill to a control point, use of heavy weapon, multiple kills, etc... Yes, two zone kills give more points than single zone kills. Making it more efficient and easier to win. But single zone kills still give points. So... a team with only one point but with significantly more kills can still win. If team a defends one zone and team b walks into a controlled death trap repeatedly and dies repeatedly, team a wins based on kills and defensive modifier bonuses.
