»Unfair Annihilation Objectives

Guys,
I have seen that most of my games have the third objective as a class specific one. eg- Deal 30 nexus damage using CAT class. (or something like that)
I want to point out that this is really unfair to new players who are trying to learn anni as well as those who have been playing the game for some time. Not only is it time consuming and exhausting to get xp in anni, but choosing the right kit is also a dilemma for some.

My suggestion would be to change these kinds of objectives so that the playing field is level. It isnt fair for someone to unlock a kit and complete that objective when they barely have any xp to do so. Hope you consider my suggestion for next week's update.

@Jonodonozym @TheCatsKing

 

you dont always get those kind of objectives, they are RANDOM! sometimes there's no specific kit to get the objective, sometimes there is. so dont complain about it.

 

The type of objectives you get for each game are fixed.
1) A global, non-kit, non-team objective which every player gets
2) Another non-kit, non team objective which only you get
3) A kit objective, which can only be done while using a completely random kit, including ones you don't own.
4) A team objective

You always have the chance to complete 3 out of the 4 objectives. The more kits you unlock, the more objectives you can complete. It's a small reward for the players who buy lots of kits instead of upgrading them to max one-by-one.

Objectives are more like challenges; you don't have to do them and can ignore them. They are not required to win the game, and sometimes lessen your odds of winning (what is your team going to do with 800 gold ores, while other teams enchanted their gear?). So I don't really see it as unfair (multipliers are way more unfair), just something that's out of reach for new players, but can be ignored.

 

lmao. get the facts right mate, jono clearly said that you always get those kinds of objectives.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 26, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 26, 2018 ---

nice answer, I agree. Thanks for the quick response.