Total Destruction FTW

[Schrö]

Why could possibly someone prefer Points To Achieve?

[Brother Pedro]

Because the game would take forever if even remotely equally matched. And on large map the losing side can hide the comm vehicle in a forest somewhere and waste everyone's time.

[Drang]

Because Total Destruction is grossly biased towards older players. Newer players can at least achieve a victory/draw in a points battle by clever use of their inferior units. Total Destruction just encourages deathstarring.

[ŊЏ | Shifu]

Just look at this screen and you'll know it: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=86487967

[Chimpyang]

Total destruction can be ok if you apply a time limit to it - most games have been decided by 30-40 mins in. As already mentioned, points to achieve helps newer players, giving them an incentive to hang on and play well with what they have.

[caparo]

Why would anyone prefer total destruction over other game modes? With total destruction, the end is nowhere in sight and victory is assured only if your team has a unit in every location on the map to hunt for the last enemy command vehicle.

[ŊЏ | Shifu]

Well, I think you need to decide between pure total destruction and total destruction with time limit - playin' with such a timelimit can be nice indeed ;)
Points to Achieve have the advantage that you needn't camp until time is over ...

[lotuspulse]

having control points in the middle of the map like the relic games prevents turtling and makes for intersting open battles, not just base harrassing