The Value of Fighting and Killing in PvP.

[Beckett]

I don't think Offense or Defense is always right. You have to be able to read the map and react accordingly. I had two back to back matches (one 24, one 72) where the other two GCs fought each other the entire time while we sat on 2-3 nodes completely uncontested. Yeah, it was kind of boring to just sit there doing nothing the whole time, but I'll not say no to free victories.

Now, in those matches the other two GCs were evenly matched, so they both hovered around the same low score while our score just got higher and higher. I've also seen many matches where we've held two or more nodes and the other two GCs are fighting each other, but one of them is utterly dominating the other. In those cases, even if the dominating GC isn't catching up to us in points, they're still building Battle High/Fevers, and later in the match when we have to face them we will get our asses kicked. If you're in a defensive situation and one of your rival GCs is dominating the other, the only smart play is to help the losing GC sandwich the dominating GC. Yes, you risk losing the nodes you currently have, but if you let the dominating GC build up their kills, it will spell disaster for you late match.

[Februs]

Snip.

Oh, it's definitely not a "one size fits all" kind of issue; however, I do find that the way most people play tends to overwhelmingly favour a passive defense over aggressive tactics, and almost everyone I see in matches severely discounts the value of kill credits.

You're right about the time to defend. I'd say that the only time I've been totally okay with camping on a node is in a situation like the one you described, where your team has the majority of nodes in their possession, but the other two GC's are too focused on one another to pay attention. Meaning, you're uncontested...

The problem is that, that is a super RARE occurrence. Especially in Flames. This is probably just positional bias (as it likely seems the exact same way for both Adders and Mael), but it seems like every time we get a positional advantage we have to keep our eyes open for an inevitable sandwich. It doesn't matter how intent Adders and Mael are on killing one another, as soon as Flames take the lead, they're both heading our way. So, why wait for them to get to us? The logical solution would be to charge out and meet them in the field, a safe distance away from our nodes, so we can keep the fighting elsewhere. It might leave our backs exposed to back caps, but I'd rather lose a node to a back cap than get totally obliterated by fighting on two fronts. Especially because the amount of points we stand to lose is severely lessened if we can successfully snipe kills off of another GC. The odds of us winning a 2 on 1 fight are slim, but the odds of us winning in a fight that we started and caught only 1 enemy by surprise are a lot higher.

You're still gonna lose points in a sandwich, obviously, but the amount you stand to lose is much lower. It's about damage control at that point.

[Beckett]

snip

I'll definitely agree with you on that one. People have definitely learned that starting the match with 2 nodes or the only A or S means you're guaranteed to get sandwiched by the other two GCs, but they haven't yet learned that just sitting there and waiting for it to happen isn't the best solution. Probably the best option in that case would be to swing around one of the enemy armies and cap their point from behind, then catch them in the pincer instead, but convincing an entire alliance to abandon two points is like pulling teeth.

[Februs]

I'll definitely agree with you on that one. People have definitely learned that starting the match with 2 nodes or the only A or S means you're guaranteed to get sandwiched by the other two GCs, but they haven't yet learned that just sitting there and waiting for it to happen isn't the best solution. Probably the best option in that case would be to swing around one of the enemy armies and cap their point from behind, then catch them in the pincer instead, but convincing an entire alliance to abandon two points is like pulling teeth.

Definitely. It's not about waiting for the inevitable. It's only inevitable if you sit and wait for it.

This is one of the reasons I almost prefer 24 man Seize over 72 man seize. It's a lot easier to convince a small group of people that waiting is a bad call. If you're in a situation that is unfavorable, act. Even if you make the wrong call when you act, you're still in a better position than being dead.