The "Casual PvP Problem" (For Tomes and Exp) and Possible Fixes

[Hamayumi]

If RNG is favoring your spawn point, kills are not as important as it is for the other two teams. Often times though, those said two other teams are busy killing each other, while the RNG favored team is sitting peacefully and accumulating points for free lol.

[Iagainsti]

Whether or not kills are as important or not, players should still receive instant pvp xp for kills.

[Kyani]

''Kills are important in Seize.''

Yes, kills are important in Seize:




These are just two that I have available to me, from full pickup groups. Kills win games that are 100% unwinnable by Tomeliths alone, even in the face of horrible spawns. In either of those games, Maelstrom would have won had they been even slightly more aware of how many points they were losing from deaths, but they continued to zerg-fight rather than regroup, and lost for it.

[Cidel]

In either of those games, Maelstrom would have won had they been even slightly more aware of how many points they were losing from deaths, but they continued to zerg-fight rather than regroup, and lost for it.

I dunno, based on that I would argue kills are important in Seize only if the leading team is dumb enough to feed kills and the other team is content to twiddle their thumbs and watch and be content with 3rd.

[Atreus]

I dunno, based on that I would argue kills are important in Seize only if the leading team is dumb enough to feed kills and the other team is content to twiddle their thumbs and watch and be content with 3rd.

It's not so black and white. Getting your team wiped out isn't always because they were "dumb and feeding kills." First place teams getting crushed while turtling their node(s) happens a lot. Defense isn't as safe as people think when the other teams have better PvP'ers.

[Februs]

''Kills are important in Seize.''

That screenshot made my day lol. I just burst out laughing in the middle of my office XD.

[Februs]

Snip.

That just tells me that NOT dying is important in seize. The flames died the absolute least in that match. Having a good kill to death is what makes the difference, not necessarily just killing.
I do get your point, though. I'm not saying that kills aren't important. My point is that allowing exp gains off of kills in an objective based game can hurt the gameplay. I've seen teams win because the other two GC's were so intensely focused on killing each other that they ignored the tomes. The results vary with skill, obviously, but I would go so far as to say that holding two B ranks is better than getting into a giant death match that can potentially bleed you more points than it gains you. Given how many casual pvp'ers there are already, giving killbonuses in seize would only encourage the sub par players to bring down their teams by mindlessly zerging, as you said.

[kensatsu]

Not dying is important,
Defend when you got A rank and b rank, i would say defend when you have advantage no matter what.
When you have no control and have to attack, there a crucial choice. you try to read the enemy move, and choose the more easy tomelight to get.
It's not easy with random players.
I think it's the less casual of the 3 mod
you enter 72 players tri faction with random players, there maybe premade group sometimes, but a lot of times it's only random players.
It make think 72 players tri faction pvp is make to be a casual content. Or to try to got someone who don't usualy pvp into it.
you will got a lot players who don't care about pvp because it's a way to cap and glamour.
The game still need a ranked pvp where people can challenge themself with premade group

[Cidel]

It's not so black and white. Getting your team wiped out isn't always because they were "dumb and feeding kills." First place teams getting crushed while turtling their node(s) happens a lot. Defense isn't as safe as people think when the other teams have better PvP'ers.

I'm aware of that. I was responding to "killing people is more important to holding B rank tomeliths" as if its the end-all strategy in Seize. The person I quoted even said that those scores ended up that way because the winning team "wasn't aware" of how much they were feeding the other teams.

You see, the thing about this mode is that there are too many variables to pick out a "this strategy works best." This mode is more reactionary than anything and the third GC can make this mode rather unpredictable and at best; you can prepare for the worst (sandwich) and hope for the best (ignored/easy-to-claim+hold respawns). Someone made a topic about this game being an example of "prisoner's dilemma," and it is; that 3rd GC may or may not perform in a way that benefits your team or even mutually benefits theirs and yours.

In terms of your last comment though, if the other team has better PvP'ers- offense is probably an even worse option ('feeding').

[kensatsu]

Turtling the node especialy on the cliff is the worst idea, there others way to defend, turtling is not the only way.
Defend is yes the worst idea if you encounter better pvp'er, but attack too, it's simple against better pvp'er you loose. it's how it should work. It's not rare also when one GC is the better, at the end the same GC get sandwitched.
There is not perfect strategy, you make your plan , in the paper it's seem fine, it get worst when what you expected don't happen, you can't be right everytimes, but it's like all of the mistake, you learn from them.