>>535922593
In part because if it was Seal Rock or Onsal, we'd have been sitting on a pair of random late-game S-ranks while blue and red fought, and we'd have won by a much larger margin.
In general though, it was blue's game to lose. They set up a good ambush on red, but we were there to capitalize since we were in 3rd, and several of us sniped enough kills and cleaned up the mess to make a difference.
Shatter's good because its "RNG" is decided at the start and objectives don't drastically increase in value at the end of the match. Also, 8-point kills/deaths are a good incentive not to screw up a fight like blue did at the end.
>>535922642
>>535922736
We correctly prioritized the real objective (stealing small ice), but we wouldn't have won it without a big win on the last major fight.
>>535922709
That wasn't me! I actually like Shatter in part because it's more deathmatch-oriented than people give it credit for. It took them time, but they finally got the balance of objective points vs. kill points right.
