Shatter

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

Well you made a very good point there: It's NOT about what one person wants. So if I only want to go for kills but my team wants to play objectives, the team has to come to an agreement. Perhaps I can focus on player kills AT objectives? Assuming it's possible and the team cooperates to fulfill both aims, everyone wins.

Yes, I'm aware PUGs don't work that way. But I'm also aware that many times, if someone takes charge in a collected manner (not demanding or berating the team), most are willing to follow. I led a Maelstrom team of randoms to victory against a group of my friends who I know were strong enough to play both objectives and PKs, by simply calling for sound tactics. Things like, "if they push our rally point, lure them into the choke for a possible pincer. Ranged get to high ground and target the healers in the back." Most listened; a rarity, but that's how we secured victory. If they instead decided "Shatter sucks! I just wanna get kills!" we'd have lost.

Similarly, lately I see teams trying to play it TOO safe. Wait at the rally point until there's ice to attack, go in, attack it, then get out and back to waiting. Based on our score, I advise organized attacks if we're not leading, focusing on single targets to overpower them and push forward. Or if another team is trying to encroach on our position, I tell them to focus and cc/kill any targets that rush in. If that team isn't smart enough to pull back, then it's free points for us. No one HAS to listen to me, but I've been through enough matches now to have a good sense of what to do and how to capitalize on things like player/team behaviors, movements, the map/environment itself, and to a lesser degree, manipulation of both other teams. Hence my statement; Shatter is chess, but most want to play checkers.

[Moonlite]

Well you made a very good point there: It's NOT about what one person wants. So if I only want to go for kills but my team wants to play objectives, the team has to come to an agreement. Perhaps I can focus on player kills AT objectives? Assuming it's possible and the team cooperates to fulfill both aims, everyone wins.

Completely reasonable. Wasn't the start of this because someone could not come to an agreement and play with the other 23 people? If everyone agrees to kill which can happen specially if a Hand of mercy and their pocket healer are calling and marking. But if everyone is saying ice do not engage you have to respect that choice as well. The new free lance allows you to grab 7 other people to play with that like a certain play style.