SE needs to either amend Seize, sync Secure to 60, or make WD relevant.

[Jubez187]

I just won a Seize match and I kept my weapon sheathed for 99% of the match. My total damage dealt was 732. Why? Because if you do ANYTHING but camp the points that RNG gives you, you'll be screamed at by alliance chat.
This is not how it was in Secure, people fought for king, coin, country, e-peen, everything. There's a few key factors to why Seize is just meh sauce.

Big fights. Slaughter showed us that big fights are stupid. And they're especially stupid for people who play melee. If you as to come 1 inch over the line of scrimmage you'll be brought to 25% by MCH, BRD, and the new SMN (who somehow has the best DPS and burst in PvP. That arcanist job path is just a GOLDMINE for PvP classes, huh?).

Elevation and verticality also favors range immensely.
All points in secure were worth the same amount (as opposed to S,B,A ranks) and you got more on the margin when you received more points. Having 3 areas didn't give you as much points as 1 area X3.

Bigger map, had to spread out. The small skirmishes worked a lot better in this games PvP. Games that do big boy PvP have garrisons and catapults and other cool stuff. This is just the small fights..but overcrammed.

Secure had adds which added some flavor and variety to the play.

I think that's pretty much it. Is there anyone who was a big fan of Secure actually liking Seize? Or are you just playing it cause it's the only queue that's somewhat active? I actually remember the thrill of having a nice coordinated 8 man group and tactically taking out the other 8 people. It seems that time is long long.
However, one thing I will say is that adrenaline and battle high are good additions to PvP and should be used in all modes.


I know this was copy pasta'd from Reddit.

[Risvertasashi]

When two teams actually do fight in Seize, the winner of that fight will ALWAYS be the 3rd team This was not so much the case in Secure because of point 3. Also, kills only subtract points, not gain points. So if 2 teams in Seize fight...they're just subtracting each other's points.

I think it's this that really does it. This sort of feature can add a lot of depth to organized play, a lot of risk/reward consideration... but for randoms, well, I just don't think it should be there. I've even seen someone kicked over it.

[Domira]

The 3rd team definitely doesn't always win. I've seen matches where the team that started strong stayed strong the entire match and won. I believe the key is being able to adapt and not falling into tunnel vision. Seize is interesting because the strategy constantly changes. So for those teams who can't adapt within a moments notice, they will find themselves falling behind quickly.

[Sanghelios]

Yea, secure was much better than sieze. I already kinda stopped to play sieze and its not even a week old. Why? Because its boring as fuck. A match can easily take 17 minutes and half of that time i am just camping on a node. As you said fighting just lowers your overall score in the end so there is no point to search the battle. If your group avoids the battlefield you will be just fine.

Secure -> You needed to fight for points and you had to be good to hold flags. Addicted pvp players were able to really contribute something with their skill.

Sieze -> You have to avoid as much fights as possible to win, wich doesnt make sense in pvp. This game mode is so deeply rng based you dont even need skill for win. Just be lucky that the nodes do spawn on your side and you can win the match. PvP players cant contribute here, because fighting needs to be avoided and its way to much rng based. Square Enix really needs to sort their shit on pvp and idk just let another team develop the pvp content.

[Ortamus]

This is where people have it wrong. You gain 5 pts for a kill in Seize. For some reason Maelstrom on Moogle Server doesn't know that.

[CeveArthu]

Also, kills only subtract points, not gain points..

yeaaaaah thats wrong, you might want to consult the score break down next time

[Jubez187]

yeaaaaah thats wrong, you might want to consult the score break down next time

I stand corrected, be that as it may it doesn't really take away from my overall argument and integrity of the post.

@rest of thread:

The argument of "there's an objective" isn't a very strong argument seeing as I'm arguing Secure vs Seize. The lack of combat leads there to be very little "tactics" (and definitely not more than Secure had). I think that the points should either only, or also, increase the points given from kills. So if we're saying +5, maybe +2/3/4 for every B/A/S rank. Something like that. Right now it's just not even worth it to fight just because people will scream at you.

The proof is in the pudding. The queues are already 30+ (whereas Secure I got less than 5 minutes until hunts returned in 2.5). There's not even good PvE content out right now to keep people busy. Alex is 1 drop a week and Savage is really of limits unless you're a top .0001% static.

[RiceisNice]

...

As it stands right now, fighting is never worth it unless you're at a severe deficit and you don't have anything to lose to begin with. A team that's disorganized is a liability to lose their lead as just as much as an organized team that can prevent point loss at a lead.

[Sanghelios]

This is where people have it wrong. You gain 5 pts for a kill in Seize. For some reason Maelstrom on Moogle Server doesn't know that.

Yea, but theres the problem. Let me explain it a bit.

Say, we playing slaughter and every team does have 100/150 points. Now alliance A goes forward and gets 25 points from killing other people. Now A does have 125, while the other two still sitting on 100. Alliance A searched the fight and the system benefits them for that with 1st place.

In sieze, however, it works different. For example, when all three do have 400/800 points and there are no nodes up. Now, there spawns a node and alliance A can capture it and they are going to defend it. Alliance B now goes forward and attacks A. What now happens is, that they just decrease/increase each others points. Alliance A will get out of this with probably 450 points, because they holding the node the whole fight. Alliance B still does have 400, because they didnt had the node. Alliance C meanwhile avoided this battle and is surely already sitting on the next node and is also around 450 points. The looser here is alliance B, even if they searched the fight. So the way i see it, the best you can do is to avoid battles.

Now lets say they would have made this mode without the ability to decrease points. Given the same circumstances as above, Team A would be at 500, because they holding the node and get additional points from kills during the fight with B. Alliance B would be at 450 instead of 400, because they got kills (but no node ofc). Team C still sits lonely on their node and is at 450 aswell. Now you can say its worth it to fight, because there are no disadvantages of doing so.

[RiceisNice]

...

This is where everything becomes circumstantial. If you have no nodes and you're severely behind in points, something needs to break. Alliance B in that situation has no revenue for points other than to bleed another team out of it and hope that the next set of spawns are in their favor. If things go well for them, they can get around 300 or so points from kills alone (which bleeds from the other teams), though they'll still need nodes in the end to win out anything.

We're in a mode that the primary objective (the nodes) are more often than not, dedicated by RNGjeesus. If there was no penalty for deaths such as the transfer of points, alliance A can very well be carried onto victory because the nodes spawned next to their previous nodes. Even if you were to fight to contest it, taking a node is much much more demanding than simply claiming it because it requires a complete wipeout of the opposition, not GC presence. This sort of thing practically requires a side objective (or change the point distribution of nodes) to make up for when the nodes are uncooperative with spawns.