integ3r wrote:It's easy to rationalize and defend destruction because one enjoys it... but clearly a game that is actually about attacking and not camping has the higher skill ceiling and is where you want people to strive to get to, as it is a more dynamic and interesting game rather than the slower paced destruction mode. Rather than give up the "legitimacy" of attributing wins and floating numbers in destruction to skill and genius as opposed to the employment of simple low effort tactics one will instead rationalize it as "well in conquest you can just spam units because losses don't matter!" thus ones ego is protected.
This is the main argument against destruction: "destruction player sucks at the game."
Aren't you comparing apples and oranges ? Destruction is a slower game that require a different skill sets.
If I kill superheavies with ATACMS, it's not because they are camping, or that I have spotted them, but because I can deduce their location. If I snipe CV with SAS, it's because I can identify holes in a recon net that is invisible to me.
Destruction players are not noobs, experienced destruction players are just different, insulting us isn't an argument.