So what is the general consensus for the new mode?

[Domira]

Much better than slaughter, I don't think its better than secure. But I like how each match is unique because of randomly placed nodes, but I also hate how wins are determined by your luck of where nodes are placed.

[EdgyLatinName]

Much better than slaughter,

This isn't aimed directly at you, but for some reason people keep saying "It's better than slaughter." as if that holds any weight. With the amount of complaints and suggestions that were from both us and the JP community, I'd sure as hope anything they put out is better than slaughter.

Slaughter was terrible, there was a million different game types and ideas that are still better than it (and this). Seize shouldn't get points for being not slaughter, people need to stop comparing it to as such. The system of the map itself is awful and you can boil it down to either the placement of the tombs (like a majority of the spawns in caves, good luck taking that shit) or the completely random order they spawn in. Honestly, I don't know how people aren't disgusted by the mechanics of it (or lack of). Want to know strategy for Seize? Pray some invisible roulette system is nice to you, that's it.

[Potatoes]

wow look at this edgy guy

[TheWaywardWind]

To all of the people saying that it's bad, I think we all need to pause and just take a moment to remember the awful, double-teaming, cometeor spamming, frustratingly laggy mode that was 72 man slaughter and be grateful for the new mode.

I still miss secure, but it's still fun. RNG can be pretty annoying, but I can't complain too much because I've played games where I've had several nodes all spawn and re-spawn at my camp, and I've had no nodes spawn anywhere near us. It makes games interesting.

[justinjarjar]

Get to highest level point and zerg then move to next one when it spawns. If you are wining by a lot basically watching paint dry if you are losing bad because of spawns or premades like nails on chalk board. If it is pretty even across the board it can be better but after day one that has not happened again. Overall 72 zergfest are pretty pointless and not that skill focused more about channeling the zerg. Actually PvP you should almost never see on this map if played right which kinda destroys the point of PvP. I would like some smaller PvP like 12 per or 24 per team. I would also like only two teams, but SE loves three teams which only kinda works in zerg fests. (and even thenn turns into 2 teams and one team that trolls a team to let the other win).

[Atreus]

Get to highest level point and zerg then move to next one when it spawns. If you are wining by a lot basically watching paint dry if you are losing bad because of spawns or premades like nails on chalk board. If it is pretty even across the board it can be better but after day one that has not happened again. Overall 72 zergfest are pretty pointless and not that skill focused more about channeling the zerg. Actually PvP you should almost never see on this map if played right which kinda destroys the point of PvP. I would like some smaller PvP like 12 per or 24 per team. I would also like only two teams, but SE loves three teams which only kinda works in zerg fests. (and even thenn turns into 2 teams and one team that trolls a team to let the other win).

Welcome to the reason 72-man Secure ruled.

Well, Sieze certainly guarantees one thing... people can't complain that their GC never wins anymore!

[CGMidlander]

I wish 8v8v8 would happen more often, honestly.

24v24v24 gets disorganized extremely often by comparison, from my experience thus far.

[Soular]

Welcome to the reason 72-man Secure ruled.

Well, Sieze certainly guarantees one thing... people can't complain that their GC never wins anymore!

Can't say I feel the same way really.
(Maelstrom, all from 72-man seize)

[Cidel]

Having played this extensively for the past several days, I have mixed feelings about it.

I notice people praising the Seal Rock map, but once you get over how asymmetrical and new the map is, I noticed that the tomelith/terrain is not constructed fairly, and the GC with their spawn in the caves is at an advantage, while the GC starting in the north might even be at a small disadvantage. The caves have noticeably more advantages due to elevated tomeliths and relative distance from the starting point to any given tomelith in the area.

Also, while people cry foul for the heavy RNG factor, for the most part, its also simply being at the right place at the right time and to increase your odds at being the 1st to a tomelith by simply having your GC preempt the respawns. Unfortunately, many people cling to their tomeliths as an entire alliance like its a Secure base; then they moan "RNGesus" when the other tomeliths spawn far away from them.

This mode requires a lot more coordination and communication than the other 2 modes IMO, which makes it much less friendly to casuals who think they're queueing PvP to zerg rush bases/ expecting to kill people.

[RiceisNice]

...

Having a node spawn "behind" an already claimed one is advantageous, not the fact that they were covering more ground (because really all three teams should be doing this anyway).

Using my crude drawing example, you have these Nodes A----B----C----D. If you had B claimed and the enemy has C claimed, A is much more accessible to you simply because of the less distance needed to travel. Sure they can run the distance to fight you for it, but the matter of fact is, whoever's at B is going to claim A first, and trying to retake a node that's already been claimed is much much more difficult than defending it, let alone claiming it.

The typical strategy is just to take 2 nodes and hold them both; you don't need a full alliance to be able to sucessfully defend a node even against a full alliance rush, typically because by the time they do overtake it, it's already down to 20% or lower and they were already dispersing to claim the next set of nodes.