Largest Zerg

JTorus

Ixtyr wrote: »

_Crow wrote: »

Long term goal before I have even started the guild is to eventually split up the super Zerg and it still his. It will take time to gather enough raid leads! 😉 The end goal as I have stated many many times, is that we will have a 48 man Zerg north, and a 48 man Zerg south fighting both factions at the same time! 😃 That's what is going to happen, and it's just matter of getting consist raid leads and time at this point. We will then only stack more then 2 raids if DC or AD stacks a super zerg of 60+.

This is the plan and we are going to reach it, but like I said, it's going to take a bit of time is all 😉

Why two 48s and not three or four 24s? Why not two to three 24s right now? There's no need for more than 24 organized players in almost any fight, particularly if you're forcing enemy groups to split up to defend multiple objectives.

If there's an issue with not having raid leads yet, start training them now. Let Ahtu call the shots during a faction siege against Omni & AD at Arrius, then pass lead to Protege#1 mid-fight while everyone is focused and already running full steam. Let them call for 5-10 minutes and then pass back. Do that for a few weeks. When your new raid lead's confidence is built up from having had success in big fights, they'll do better when they're on their own and can't rely on you or Ahtu to fall back on. Boom, 4-8 weeks later you have a new raid lead.

Then you can be doing this every night, instead of just stacking everyone and breaking the damn game for everyone else:

Raid 1 at Glademist. Raid 2 at Aleswell. Raid 3 at Sejanus. Raid 4 defending BRK. That's map control, and it avoids server-melting. If you're not total potatoes, you should still win most of those fights.

If the server caps were still 600/faction, I'd understand shooting for 48 as a goal to some extent. Any time post 1.5, though? What's the point, unless you have absolutely zero confidence in the competence and skill of your own players?

_Crow

Ixtyr wrote: »

_Crow wrote: »

Long term goal before I have even started the guild is to eventually split up the super Zerg and it still his. It will take time to gather enough raid leads! 😉 The end goal as I have stated many many times, is that we will have a 48 man Zerg north, and a 48 man Zerg south fighting both factions at the same time! 😃 That's what is going to happen, and it's just matter of getting consist raid leads and time at this point. We will then only stack more then 2 raids if DC or AD stacks a super zerg of 60+.

This is the plan and we are going to reach it, but like I said, it's going to take a bit of time is all 😉

Why two 48s and not three or four 24s? Why not two to three 24s right now? There's no need for more than 24 organized players in almost any fight, particularly if you're forcing enemy groups to split up to defend multiple objectives.

If there's an issue with not having raid leads yet, start training them now. Let Ahtu call the shots during a faction siege against Omni & AD at Arrius, then pass lead to Protege#1 mid-fight while everyone is focused and already running full steam. Let them call for 5-10 minutes and then pass back. Do that for a few weeks. When your new raid lead's confidence is built up from having had success in big fights, they'll do better when they're on their own and can't rely on you or Ahtu to fall back on. Boom, 4-8 weeks later you have a new raid lead.

Then you can be doing this every night, instead of just stacking everyone and breaking the damn game for everyone else:

Raid 1 at Glademist. Raid 2 at Aleswell. Raid 3 at Sejanus. Raid 4 defending BRK. That's map control, and it avoids server-melting. If you're not total potatoes, you should still win most of those fights.

If the server caps were still 600/faction, I'd understand shooting for 48 as a goal to some extent. Any time post 1.5, though? What's the point, unless you have absolutely zero confidence in the competence and skill of your own players?

Ty for the advice! 😊 I know what I am doing though! And after playing since beta and playing in every type of guild there could possibly be, I think I am going to do things my way 😉, and train raid leads at my pace.

And sure! We can even split up the 2 48 man raids occasionally! It really depend on what is going on on the map! Sometimes it will be good to stack 48, and other times it will be good to split up! Main thing is we are going to play how we want to, and have fun doing it. ❤️ Happy Valentine's btw all!

booksmcread

Happy Valentine's Day, everyone!

zyk

It's not really surprising Drac supports AOTP. Though their approach is completely different and they try to win at different things, they both have a win at all cost attitude without regard for the overall health of the campaign.

CyrusArya

Why are people entertaining these pug herders so much. Just regard them like the plague of locusts they are and try your best to exterminate, avoid, or perservere. Clearly there’s no talking sense into this pug horde.

zyk

CyrusArya wrote: »

Why are people entertaining these pug herders so much. Just regard them like the plague of locusts they are and try your best to exterminate, avoid, or perservere. Clearly there’s no talking sense into this pug horde.

A lot of us have seen screenshots from the AOTP echo chamber. These guys are completely delusional.

I hope this thread has brought its leaders back down to earth a bit: The only people who think they are strategic geniuses are the players who feel entitled to a group by typing an invite string in zone chat.

I think pug groups are essential to a game like this, but guilds like CN, PM and AOTP toxify them and use them to break the game to achieve their ends: which is 100% ego driven.

KhajiitFelix

Wow what a boring thread

marlonbrando

zyk wrote: »

It's not really surprising Drac supports AOTP. Though their approach is completely different and they try to win at different things, they both have a win at all cost attitude without regard for the overall health of the campaign.

i.e., they are playing the way they enjoy without worrying about other people telling them they're doing it wrong.

zyk

marlonbrando wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

It's not really surprising Drac supports AOTP. Though their approach is completely different and they try to win at different things, they both have a win at all cost attitude without regard for the overall health of the campaign.

i.e., they are playing the way they enjoy without worrying about other people telling them they're doing it wrong.

Every venture involving other people requires some degree of good citizenship. No society can function if everyone acts only in their self interests against the greater good.

There is an obvious greater good here: server performance.

ScruffyWhiskers

zyk wrote: »

Every venture involving other people requires some degree of good citizenship. No society can function if everyone acts only in their self interests against the greater good.

There is an obvious greater good here: server performance.

Free Riders. Tragedy of the Commons. Eat me last. I could go on and on. But I don't think you can lay all this on AotP. AD and DC have faction events at various keeps too.

The real is is that Wheeler needs to sit down and take a serious look at the geography and keep layout of Cyrodiil. I know every rock and tree between chal and ales and brk and alessia. I could probably get a passing grade on the rest of the loop. They need to reinvent Cyrodiil. Find ways to encourage more spread out fights. They have talked about that and it became a joke but it really would help given the current server architecture.

Elong

Splitting into two groups of 48! Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I'm glad my timezone doesn't involve these potatoes anymore.

Edirt_seliv

zyk wrote: »

marlonbrando wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

It's not really surprising Drac supports AOTP. Though their approach is completely different and they try to win at different things, they both have a win at all cost attitude without regard for the overall health of the campaign.

i.e., they are playing the way they enjoy without worrying about other people telling them they're doing it wrong.

Every venture involving other people requires some degree of good citizenship. No society can function if everyone acts only in their self interests against the greater good.

There is an obvious greater good here: server performance.

Yeah you're right, and is this case that degree is the terms of service, none of which are being broken and therefore AoTP are by definition doing nothing wrong. That's not something you get an opinion on, they are literally doing nothing wrong.

Where you are wrong however is operating under the assumption that there is some kind of code of ethics that other players have to behave in accordance with other than those ToS. Such a standard does not exist. In fact, for many including myself, it is exactly this lack of superimposed standards that is so attractive about gaming.
I might have to behave the way my boss wants me to but zyk wants me to not stack 3 raids? and also not faction hop? And also not play in organised raids of 12-16? Well fiik that guy. T bags for him. This is why online gaming is so great. We literally have 0 obligation to anyone else. I have to agree with Steve here but that obligation is on zos.

To comment further on your attitude towards this games playatyles, what are you even still doing here? Serious question, not an attack. You've quit before and since 'coming back' all your remarks are basically whiny complaints, you seem to hate everything about this game, and yet...

zyk

ScruffyWhiskers wrote: »

Free Riders. Tragedy of the Commons. Eat me last. I could go on and on. But I don't think you can lay all this on AotP. AD and DC have faction events at various keeps too.

Ultimately, ZOS owns this issue and through one means of another only they can ultimately solve it. I hope someone at ZOS is reading this thread or at least seeing the interesting snippets by AOTP leadership.

And though server lag will and faction stacks will happen organically without any overt coordination by players, it is made much worse when one group regularly coordinates it. Not only through their actions, but by how others will react to them. When CN was doing the same thing as AOTP, it prompted other guilds to run larger as a result. It's like an arms race. Every AOTP stack is tempting an AD or DC guild to do the same.

arondean wrote: »

Yeah you're right, and is this case that degree is the terms of service, none of which are being broken and therefore AoTP are by definition doing nothing wrong. That's not something you get an opinion on, they are literally doing nothing wrong.

Where you are wrong however is operating under the assumption that there is some kind of code of ethics that other players have to behave in accordance with other than those ToS. Such a standard does not exist.

I disagree completely. Human society is primarily dictated by ethics and morals that are not explicitly enforced and constantly evolve on a daily basis according to need.

I might have to behave the way my boss wants me to but zyk wants me to not stack 3 raids? and also not faction hop? And also not play in organised raids of 12-16? Well fiik that guy. T bags for him.

That sounds objectionable for the sake of objectionable. But in any case, the rational argument made by any poster when expressing their opinions isn't usually, "don't do this thing because I don't like it," but rather, "we shouldn't do this thing because it causes problems." Which is the case here.

Welcome to the forums where players come to discuss the things they dislike and, occasionally, like about the game.

To comment further on your attitude towards this games playatyles, what are you even still doing here? Serious question, not an attack. You've quit before and since 'coming back' all your remarks are basically whiny complaints, you seem to hate everything about this game, and yet...

It's definitely an attack and not relevant at all. But to correct you, I haven't quit. I take breaks when the game's issues become intolerable.

Edirt_seliv

zyk wrote: »

I disagree completely. Human society is primarily dictated by ethics and morals that are not explicitly enforced and constantly evolve on a daily basis according to need.

Human society is, good thing video games take those ambiguous ethics, write them down and re-define them in a terms of service and from there, nothing else is relevant. One of the primary motivations for PVPing is to shxt on other people, not share a 'greater good' experience with them. We're all consumers here. Whether the experience of other consumers is positive or negative is indifferent to me. if this game eventually has PvP removed because it's simply no longer a profitable business venture, then it's just a matter of moving to the next game.

That sounds objectionable for the sake of objectionable. But in any case, the rational argument made by any poster when expressing their opinions isn't usually, "don't do this thing because I don't like it," but rather, "we shouldn't do this thing because it causes problems." Which is the case here.

Good thing we're under no obligation to solve the problems of others. Welcome to the forums where people like crow come in and trigger entertaining threads like this one.

TBois

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

I disagree completely. Human society is primarily dictated by ethics and morals that are not explicitly enforced and constantly evolve on a daily basis according to need.

Human society is, good thing video games take those ambiguous ethics, write them down and re-define them in a terms of service and from there, nothing else is relevant. One of the primary motivations for PVPing is to shxt on other people, not share a 'greater good' experience with them. We're all consumers here. Whether the experience of other consumers is positive or negative is indifferent to me. if this game eventually has PvP removed because it's simply no longer a profitable business venture, then it's just a matter of moving to the next game.

That sounds objectionable for the sake of objectionable. But in any case, the rational argument made by any poster when expressing their opinions isn't usually, "don't do this thing because I don't like it," but rather, "we shouldn't do this thing because it causes problems." Which is the case here.

Good thing we're under no obligation to solve the problems of others. Welcome to the forums where people like crow come in and trigger entertaining threads like this one.

Good thing we are also under no obligation to refrain from developing a system of ethics within the player base or within subsets of the player base.

Edirt_seliv

TBois wrote: »

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

I disagree completely. Human society is primarily dictated by ethics and morals that are not explicitly enforced and constantly evolve on a daily basis according to need.

Human society is, good thing video games take those ambiguous ethics, write them down and re-define them in a terms of service and from there, nothing else is relevant. One of the primary motivations for PVPing is to shxt on other people, not share a 'greater good' experience with them. We're all consumers here. Whether the experience of other consumers is positive or negative is indifferent to me. if this game eventually has PvP removed because it's simply no longer a profitable business venture, then it's just a matter of moving to the next game.

That sounds objectionable for the sake of objectionable. But in any case, the rational argument made by any poster when expressing their opinions isn't usually, "don't do this thing because I don't like it," but rather, "we shouldn't do this thing because it causes problems." Which is the case here.

Good thing we're under no obligation to solve the problems of others. Welcome to the forums where people like crow come in and trigger entertaining threads like this one.

Good thing we are also under no obligation to refrain from developing a system of ethics within the player base or within subsets of the player base.

Good thing right. See. Free to do whatever you want despite what other players think you should or should not do. As I said, no obligation.

TBois

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

I disagree completely. Human society is primarily dictated by ethics and morals that are not explicitly enforced and constantly evolve on a daily basis according to need.

Human society is, good thing video games take those ambiguous ethics, write them down and re-define them in a terms of service and from there, nothing else is relevant. One of the primary motivations for PVPing is to shxt on other people, not share a 'greater good' experience with them. We're all consumers here. Whether the experience of other consumers is positive or negative is indifferent to me. if this game eventually has PvP removed because it's simply no longer a profitable business venture, then it's just a matter of moving to the next game.

That sounds objectionable for the sake of objectionable. But in any case, the rational argument made by any poster when expressing their opinions isn't usually, "don't do this thing because I don't like it," but rather, "we shouldn't do this thing because it causes problems." Which is the case here.

Good thing we're under no obligation to solve the problems of others. Welcome to the forums where people like crow come in and trigger entertaining threads like this one.

Good thing we are also under no obligation to refrain from developing a system of ethics within the player base or within subsets of the player base.

Good thing right. See. Free to do whatever you want despite what other players think you should or should not do. As I said, no obligation.

With no obligations or enforcement attached, what AotP is doing, regularly stacking multiple raids in one place, is wrong. That is according to my ethical standards now within this game. I'm not sure if the majority agrees, but at least some agree.

technohic

Are we seriously talking ethics in a video game? To hell with it either way. Bottom line is you can do what you want, but nobody will ever respect your or give you any credit for anything so long as you stack so many players and lag the server. You'll just be known as the guys that cant do anything without the massive horde.

zyk

Ethics have *always* been relevant in games from the schoolyard to the pros. "I don't care I do what I want" is just a cop out.

Keep in mind that what AOTP does isn't new nor does it take very much intelligence to think of. Players have been winning fights with overwhelming numbers from day one.

Yet we only rarely see zerg lords like Crow and Ahtu because most players exercise restraint. Every single ESO player capable of leading a group can do what they choose to. Many are also fans of large scale gameplay. However, they show basic decency and respect towards their fellow players by not peeing in the well.

Edirt_seliv

TBois wrote: »

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

I disagree completely. Human society is primarily dictated by ethics and morals that are not explicitly enforced and constantly evolve on a daily basis according to need.

Human society is, good thing video games take those ambiguous ethics, write them down and re-define them in a terms of service and from there, nothing else is relevant. One of the primary motivations for PVPing is to shxt on other people, not share a 'greater good' experience with them. We're all consumers here. Whether the experience of other consumers is positive or negative is indifferent to me. if this game eventually has PvP removed because it's simply no longer a profitable business venture, then it's just a matter of moving to the next game.

That sounds objectionable for the sake of objectionable. But in any case, the rational argument made by any poster when expressing their opinions isn't usually, "don't do this thing because I don't like it," but rather, "we shouldn't do this thing because it causes problems." Which is the case here.

Good thing we're under no obligation to solve the problems of others. Welcome to the forums where people like crow come in and trigger entertaining threads like this one.

Good thing we are also under no obligation to refrain from developing a system of ethics within the player base or within subsets of the player base.

Good thing right. see. free to do whatever you want despite what other players think you should or should not do. As I said. no Obligation

zyk wrote: »

Ethics have *always* been relevant in games from the schoolyard to the pros. "I don't care I do what I want" is just a cop out.

Keep in mind that what AOTP does isn't new nor does it take very much intelligence to think of. Players have been winning fights with overwhelming numbers from day one.

Yet we only rarely see zerg lords like Crow and Ahtu because most players exercise restraint. Every single ESO player capable of leading a group can do what they choose to. Many are also fans of large scale gameplay. However, they show basic decency and respect towards their fellow players by not peeing in the well.

Show me in the terms of service where respect for the opponent or other people is a requirement of this products use. This is PvP in a video game champ, making other peoples day worse is part of the fun. By all means, embrace the philosophy you preach but all the forum tears in the world won't oblige anyone else to do the same. Seems to me they're enjoying this game far more than you and in that regard, I'd deem them winning.

zyk

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

Show me in the terms of service where it requires someone to respect the opponent. This is PvP in a video game man, making others peoples day worse is part of the fun. by all means, embrace the philosophy you preach. I'm just pointing out that others don't have to.

No one has said it's in the TOS. Arguments have been presented about why AOTP should or should not do what they do. No on expects their arguments to be binding.

What you describe is griefing. While it's possible derive griefing pleasure from PVP -- or any interaction with others -- it is not at all intrinsic to PVP.

Telel

In a room where the floor has almost become the ceiling it's amazing how many backs are needed before some folks will even consider reaching upwards.

Also this one is pretty sure that getting a tattoo which reads "I hate competence because you are dumb" is something one can choose to do. You also won't be punished for it with fines or jail time.

However that doesn't suddenly make having it stenciled on your forehead a display of grande foresight on your part.

montiferus

This thread is quite eye opening. It definitely provides some insight into the mind of a zergling.

What cracks me up the most is that if there was any venue to push yourself to get better with zero repercusions a video game would be it. I mean its a completely anonymous environment where the worst that could happen is your character dies and you have to run back to the battle and yet people still dont want to risk it. It makes me wonder what these people are like IRL.

CyrusArya

montiferus wrote: »

This thread is quite eye opening. It definitely provides some insight into the mind of a zergling.

What cracks me up the most is that if there was any venue to push yourself to get better with zero repercusions a video game would be it. I mean its a completely anonymous environment where the worst that could happen is your character dies and you have to run back to the battle and yet people still dont want to risk it. It makes me wonder what these people are like IRL.

Look, I’m no fan of Army of the Packed. But I’d caution against making irl evaluations of people based on how they play a video game. People have different motivations for why they play. Some enjoy challenging themselves to see what’s possible in an open and free environment with so many possibilities and variables, some play just to relax and have fun. Neither is inherently right or wrong.

Let’s keep the eye on the ball here, that ball being just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

J18696

It's time to stop the multi raid zergs take the 200 man dolmen farming instead

Edirt_seliv

CyrusArya wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

This thread is quite eye opening. It definitely provides some insight into the mind of a zergling.

What cracks me up the most is that if there was any venue to push yourself to get better with zero repercusions a video game would be it. I mean its a completely anonymous environment where the worst that could happen is your character dies and you have to run back to the battle and yet people still dont want to risk it. It makes me wonder what these people are like IRL.

Look, I’m no fan of Army of the Packed. But I’d caution against making irl evaluations of people based on how they play a video game. People have different motivations for why they play. Some enjoy challenging themselves to see what’s possible in an open and free environment with so many possibilities and variables, some play just to relax and have fun. Neither is inherently right or wrong.

Let’s keep the eye on the ball here, that ball being just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

You're right, it doesn't mean you should. But my figuritive ball is that if something 'can' be done, and is providing one with enjoyment while doing it, then yes, it should be done, and that consideration for others in this context is not required. The experience of others while i game is of no significance to me, and that is part of the beauty of gaming.

zyk

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

You're right, it doesn't mean you should. But my figuritive ball is that if something 'can' be done, and is providing one with enjoyment while doing it, then yes, it should be done, and that consideration for others in this context is not required. The experience of others while i game is of no significance to me, and that is part of the beauty of gaming.

What you're describing isn't intrinsic to gaming at all and therefore isn't part of its beauty. Obviously it's part of the beauty to you, but that's not really something you hear people say about multiplayer games.

All you're really saying is you enjoy things which you cannot be held accountable for by other people.

_Crow

Tonight was GLORIOUS! That one odd looking guild named Omni Or something was an "ok" speed bump to the good fights that the AD Zerg put up! 😃 GF AD! We had around 73ish people in raid tonight, but I think could get more!

Cadbury

Huh. This has been an interesting read.

My takeaway from this is that I have a better understanding of why some people despise PvP in general.

antihero727

_Crow wrote: »

Tonight was GLORIOUS! That one odd looking guild named Omni Or something was an "ok" speed bump to the good fights that the AD Zerg put up! 😃 GF AD! We had around 73ish people in raid tonight, but I think could get more!

Your guild made the server horrible last night. If causing 200+ people to lag out and disconnect not having fun is your goal then I feel sorry for you. People tell you what this is causing and now other factions have to start stacking as big to counter. Pretty sure your group was the main cause of the system crash a few days ago that made most of us log for the night. If killing the last populated server is the endgame, you are racing towards that goal on a rocket ship.