How many people is a zerg?

GRxKnight

24+

Derra wrote: »

GRxKnight wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

GRxKnight wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

4-8 could be considered zerging depending on which gameplay you're taking part in.

Even though that is a full group in both ESO and DAOC.

For example during DAOC most stealthers ran as solos or duos. You would run into trios but anything past that was called a stealth Zerg. For anyone who played Merlin server they probably remember the dumba Zerg which was usually 6 to 8 stealthers.

For anything not concerning stealth based pvp it's usually anything past one group; though frankly in this game if you hit me with 7 or 8 and I had 4 I wouldn't think ya zerged me but I wouldn't fault people who did. Simply cause the group pvp in this game is very lax with what people run. It hasn't been enforced like it was in DAOC for example. If you ran for example 10vs8 in DAOC every single 8 man would shun you; they would go out of their way to Assjam your fights; if two different realms were fighting they would seriously stop and fight the 10 man as well. It was very strictly enforced not to be *** in pvp basically.

Now you look at ESO if you hit me with 10 and I had 8 I wouldn't care... I wouldn't say you zerged or what not either... Probably cause just adding another person onto the 8 isn't going to make a break the fight like adding an extra person in DAOC did... Having 2 people in DAOC add on your fight could seriously ruin your day with the interrupt system and things like buff shears for example.

however there is a certain point where past a number you are just zerging around... In DAOC it was 9+ I'd say in this game it's probably 12+ even though I'd never run 12 I see it as the number most guilds would have simply cause of trials.

Running 24 you're a damn Zerg though... There hasn't been an MMO yet running 24 people wasn't considered a Zerg.

Daoc...being relavent to explaining eso pvp mechanics since never

Daoc being relevant to giving and example of what good large scale pvp for all playstyles looks like - always. Quite the opposite of eso pvp.

So should i go ahead and say what halo did well in multiplayer and ask for that in call of duty? Or vice-versa? I mean that's essentially what is going on here. Let's stop comparing this game to others or what you want to bring from other games here.

Strawman argument. Can´t compare that situation in the slightest.

Then why are we comparing daoc to eso? They're two completely different games and just because daoc did it doesn't mean it would be good or used in eso?

Better analogy is league of legends and Dota...since they're just about the same game...just because one of them does something doesn't automatically mean the other should...

My point is, eso is not daoc so why do we give a rat's fanny what daoc did in pvp...it's completely irrelevant.

Elong

Fed up of reading about DAOC on an Eso forum to be honest. May as well compare it to Minecraft.

Derra

13-14

GRxKnight wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

GRxKnight wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

GRxKnight wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

4-8 could be considered zerging depending on which gameplay you're taking part in.

Even though that is a full group in both ESO and DAOC.

For example during DAOC most stealthers ran as solos or duos. You would run into trios but anything past that was called a stealth Zerg. For anyone who played Merlin server they probably remember the dumba Zerg which was usually 6 to 8 stealthers.

For anything not concerning stealth based pvp it's usually anything past one group; though frankly in this game if you hit me with 7 or 8 and I had 4 I wouldn't think ya zerged me but I wouldn't fault people who did. Simply cause the group pvp in this game is very lax with what people run. It hasn't been enforced like it was in DAOC for example. If you ran for example 10vs8 in DAOC every single 8 man would shun you; they would go out of their way to Assjam your fights; if two different realms were fighting they would seriously stop and fight the 10 man as well. It was very strictly enforced not to be *** in pvp basically.

Now you look at ESO if you hit me with 10 and I had 8 I wouldn't care... I wouldn't say you zerged or what not either... Probably cause just adding another person onto the 8 isn't going to make a break the fight like adding an extra person in DAOC did... Having 2 people in DAOC add on your fight could seriously ruin your day with the interrupt system and things like buff shears for example.

however there is a certain point where past a number you are just zerging around... In DAOC it was 9+ I'd say in this game it's probably 12+ even though I'd never run 12 I see it as the number most guilds would have simply cause of trials.

Running 24 you're a damn Zerg though... There hasn't been an MMO yet running 24 people wasn't considered a Zerg.

Daoc...being relavent to explaining eso pvp mechanics since never

Daoc being relevant to giving and example of what good large scale pvp for all playstyles looks like - always. Quite the opposite of eso pvp.

So should i go ahead and say what halo did well in multiplayer and ask for that in call of duty? Or vice-versa? I mean that's essentially what is going on here. Let's stop comparing this game to others or what you want to bring from other games here.

Strawman argument. Can´t compare that situation in the slightest.

Then why are we comparing daoc to eso? They're two completely different games and just because daoc did it doesn't mean it would be good or used in eso?

Better analogy is league of legends and Dota...since they're just about the same game...just because one of them does something doesn't automatically mean the other should...

My point is, eso is not daoc so why do we give a rat's fanny what daoc did in pvp...it's completely irrelevant.

Simply because one game was working with better large scale pvp in 2002 than the other is in 2016. People would damn sure compare lol to the dota warcraft 3 mod if lol would be worse in terms of playability. That´s the whole point.

This game has the potential to be so much better than daoc ever was but it´s plagued by certain design decisions that just don´t make sense when looking at pvp in general.

Xeniph

I look at it this way as a solo player.

If I get killed/attacked by more than 3 people simultaneously, I was zerged.

Cyantific87

My opinion -

These conversations/debates/trollposts are so boring.

Get over it, all of you whiney people. Its a game. Play the game or gtfo.

Etaniel

13-14

GRxKnight wrote: »

Then why are we comparing daoc to eso? They're two completely different games and just because daoc did it doesn't mean it would be good or used in eso?

Better analogy is league of legends and Dota...since they're just about the same game...just because one of them does something doesn't automatically mean the other should...

My point is, eso is not daoc so why do we give a rat's fanny what daoc did in pvp...it's completely irrelevant.

They are not completely different games, at least in terms of PvP design. ESO ried to incorporate a ton of elements from DAoC, it's the furthest thing from irrelevant to try to compare the two

Satiar

Derra wrote: »

GRxKnight wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

GRxKnight wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

GRxKnight wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

4-8 could be considered zerging depending on which gameplay you're taking part in.

Even though that is a full group in both ESO and DAOC.

For example during DAOC most stealthers ran as solos or duos. You would run into trios but anything past that was called a stealth Zerg. For anyone who played Merlin server they probably remember the dumba Zerg which was usually 6 to 8 stealthers.

For anything not concerning stealth based pvp it's usually anything past one group; though frankly in this game if you hit me with 7 or 8 and I had 4 I wouldn't think ya zerged me but I wouldn't fault people who did. Simply cause the group pvp in this game is very lax with what people run. It hasn't been enforced like it was in DAOC for example. If you ran for example 10vs8 in DAOC every single 8 man would shun you; they would go out of their way to Assjam your fights; if two different realms were fighting they would seriously stop and fight the 10 man as well. It was very strictly enforced not to be *** in pvp basically.

Now you look at ESO if you hit me with 10 and I had 8 I wouldn't care... I wouldn't say you zerged or what not either... Probably cause just adding another person onto the 8 isn't going to make a break the fight like adding an extra person in DAOC did... Having 2 people in DAOC add on your fight could seriously ruin your day with the interrupt system and things like buff shears for example.

however there is a certain point where past a number you are just zerging around... In DAOC it was 9+ I'd say in this game it's probably 12+ even though I'd never run 12 I see it as the number most guilds would have simply cause of trials.

Running 24 you're a damn Zerg though... There hasn't been an MMO yet running 24 people wasn't considered a Zerg.

Daoc...being relavent to explaining eso pvp mechanics since never

Daoc being relevant to giving and example of what good large scale pvp for all playstyles looks like - always. Quite the opposite of eso pvp.

So should i go ahead and say what halo did well in multiplayer and ask for that in call of duty? Or vice-versa? I mean that's essentially what is going on here. Let's stop comparing this game to others or what you want to bring from other games here.

Strawman argument. Can´t compare that situation in the slightest.

Then why are we comparing daoc to eso? They're two completely different games and just because daoc did it doesn't mean it would be good or used in eso?

Better analogy is league of legends and Dota...since they're just about the same game...just because one of them does something doesn't automatically mean the other should...

My point is, eso is not daoc so why do we give a rat's fanny what daoc did in pvp...it's completely irrelevant.

Simply because one game was working with better large scale pvp in 2002 than the other is in 2016. People would damn sure compare lol to the dota warcraft 3 mod if lol would be worse in terms of playability. That´s the whole point.

This game has the potential to be so much better than daoc ever was but it´s plagued by certain design decisions that just don´t make sense when looking at pvp in general.

I agree but criticisms should be somewhat self evident. You can say "8 is a Zerg because 8 was a Zerg in DAOC" but that claim should also have legs of its own to stand on. Different games, different mechanics, different group size, etc. We need more to go in than comparisons to decade old games.

Some of the of the best and most engaging play I've ever seen was fleet vs fleet battles in EVE online. When I think open world RvRvR that's what I want to emulate, I want to command multiple groups and run complex battlefields. Or at least, fight in battles like that again.

The race to the bottom does nothing for me. The need to define big fights as Zerg v Zerg is honestly kind of depressing. There are SO MANY games dedicated to set teams of 4v4, 6v6, 8v8, 12v12 etc. Why than do we take the few games that give us the ability to make and run big fun battles and try to fit these games into those rule sets ? Makes no bloody sense

Hektik_V

1-2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLVZtDWiWt4

I want some small man groups like this.

ToRelax

13-14

eliisra wrote: »

ESO is possibly the only MMO on the market where 10 players grouped on a huge open PvP map will be accused of being a zerg

I mean 10-12 guys is less than amount of players joining a normal battleground&similar PvP instance in any online game. Instanced PvP is generally considered small- to mid scale. Open world PvP maps is where you do the zerging and large scale lagfest combat.

In your average MMORPG where talking 20-30 players or more being a zerg. Not sure why ESO would be any different?

Because ESO's combat system currently so heavily favours numbers that the point at wich they become more important than skill to win a fight is very low.

Ghostbane

Hektik_V wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLVZtDWiWt4

I want some small man groups like this.

Dude, thats a Haxus video. That bombard spam is OP.

HeroOfNone

17-24

GW2 has small group zergs around 16+. The point of them is to spam so many abilities in one area they will cancel out any negative or positive enemy debuff (the server can only handle so many).

I think the small scale folks get a bad wrap since a few patches ago similar groups in eso would hide in a keep out of danger and spam healing springs to lag the server during a siege. They fixed that, but there is still lag and folks that will outnumber & out flank you.

Manoekin

1-2

Hektik_V wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLVZtDWiWt4

I want some small man groups like this.

Dat IDDQD small man. @hammayolettuce or @Satiar can you point this out to BBQ?

Hek I'll let you run the 11th guild.

HoloYoitsu

5-6

HeroOfNone wrote: »

GW2 has small group zergs around 16+. The point of them is to spam so many abilities in one area they will cancel out any negative or positive enemy debuff (the server can only handle so many).

I think the small scale folks get a bad wrap since a few patches ago similar groups in eso would hide in a keep out of danger and spam healing springs to lag the server during a siege. They fixed that, but there is still lag and folks that will outnumber & out flank you.

It's funny that you actually believe that. Brandon was the only one who ever did that afaik, and that was over a year ago.

PhatGrimReaper

24+

Manoekin wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

CN_Daniel wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

CN_Daniel wrote: »

The same people who cry about 'getting zerged' seem to think it's different if they jump on someone 6v1, 6v2, etc

So I kill groups like Analiers whenever possible, because they just "mini-zerg" small teams.


If 6 people jump 2, that's 3:1 odds. Those same 6 should expect 3:1 odds from 18 people then.

I'm just restoring the balance.

Game mechanics prevent that from being 3:1 odds, just fyi.

Sometimes small groups do things that they then shouldn't complain about any kind of numbers after. However, there's plenty of small groups that try to do things away from the main action, and a group of 24 shows up to clear them out for whatever reason. You can take 4 people to a Glademist resource and expect a full raid to show up. If you go to an Arrius resource what appears to be the entirety of the EP population ends up there. The same thing happens with AD I know because sometimes I show up to a resource expecting to see a lot of enemies, and I only see a couple of known small group players. What I do is then let zone chat know it's clear, and what I don't do is engage in fighting myself. If I see them trying to get away I'll tell my group to stop chasing. If they go in the tower I won't say to follow them, but if you want to stay in the tower I can't help it if people enter it to try and fight them.

It's not about what other people do, it's about what you do.

It would be different if I saw teams of 6+ leave solo/duo players, I've never seen one do it. They 6v1 them. We actually had this discussion in depth in Ts a few nights ago. The rule we camp up with was ~6+, you're a target. Less and and you're not. All about ratios. 3v1 is no different than 9v3 is no different than 27v9.

IMO you'll never reliably decide whether or not it's less than or more than 6. Too many people inflate numbers in call outs. It's better to learn who you're fighting. Also, my point was that 3v1 may not be a "fair" fight, but at least it's fair mechanically. 3v9 is still pretty good, but getting to the point of 6v18, 9v27 you are essentially adding an extra 6 or 10.5 players to the fight via AOE caps in regards to how much damage you need to do. Certainly, if those smaller groups are trying to pick a fight go right on ahead, but to accomplish your objective and then go out of your way to kill them... I see that happen way too much.

Zerglord has spoken people!!

You shall feel the wrath of Manoekhan and my Yellow Horde.

Sorry Mano, but I believe the politically correct term is Yellow Trickle

Sublime

I'm bored AF, so I'm trying to give some constructive input here.

Given the origin of the term "zerg" from Starcraft, zerging as such is not tied to a specific number, but rather a description of a specific type of encounter. I.e. a zerg is a participating faction of a battle that outnumbers the opposing force to an extent at which an individual player's contribution no longer has a significant effect on the outcome of the encounter.

llllADBllll

A zerg is a group outpowering through brute force not skill so it's relative to how many are fighting. 1vs2 is not a zerg one can't get zerged as you shouldn't be out there alone and expect to survive against anymore than 1 if you do its skill not a poor zerg.
For me a zerg is a group that greatly outsizes it's opposition. So maybe a 1:4 or 1:5 is fair to class as a zerg.

PhatGrimReaper

24+

Zerg is Love, Zerg is Life.....

Duiwel

11-12

MountainHound wrote: »

Because by your logic, 10 vs 90 is not a zerg either.

[snip[

Back to topic. A squad is 2-4 in this game (not in military terms)
A platoon is 5-10
anything higher can be seen as a zerg.

I will quote myself because you seem to have not understood a particular sentence which is very important in understanding my logic in this matter. (this also goes for the 2 people that agreed with you without actually reading what I said).

Duiwel wrote: »

So I answered 11-12 because imo anything larger than a 10 man group can be seen as a zerg.

I guess you must have missed that part...

So actually both groups in your example are zergs (or the 10 man group is a platoon whatever you want to call it, my choice in this poll is not set in stone and what I believe to be the absolute EVERY time), the one is just a larger zerg.

[snip]

[Edited for inflammatory comment]

Xsorus

eliisra wrote: »

ESO is possibly the only MMO on the market where 10 players grouped on a huge open PvP map will be accused of being a zerg

I mean 10-12 guys is less than amount of players joining a normal battleground&similar PvP instance in any online game. Instanced PvP is generally considered small- to mid scale. Open world PvP maps is where you do the zerging and large scale lagfest combat.

In your average MMORPG where talking 20-30 players or more being a zerg. Not sure why ESO would be any different?

In DAOC and Warhammer Online you could of been accused of zerging while running 10 depending on the situation.

Pretty much 10 would of been considered a zerg by any 8 man... same with Stealther Meta.

Xsorus

Satiar wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

GRxKnight wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

GRxKnight wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

GRxKnight wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

4-8 could be considered zerging depending on which gameplay you're taking part in.

Even though that is a full group in both ESO and DAOC.

For example during DAOC most stealthers ran as solos or duos. You would run into trios but anything past that was called a stealth Zerg. For anyone who played Merlin server they probably remember the dumba Zerg which was usually 6 to 8 stealthers.

For anything not concerning stealth based pvp it's usually anything past one group; though frankly in this game if you hit me with 7 or 8 and I had 4 I wouldn't think ya zerged me but I wouldn't fault people who did. Simply cause the group pvp in this game is very lax with what people run. It hasn't been enforced like it was in DAOC for example. If you ran for example 10vs8 in DAOC every single 8 man would shun you; they would go out of their way to Assjam your fights; if two different realms were fighting they would seriously stop and fight the 10 man as well. It was very strictly enforced not to be *** in pvp basically.

Now you look at ESO if you hit me with 10 and I had 8 I wouldn't care... I wouldn't say you zerged or what not either... Probably cause just adding another person onto the 8 isn't going to make a break the fight like adding an extra person in DAOC did... Having 2 people in DAOC add on your fight could seriously ruin your day with the interrupt system and things like buff shears for example.

however there is a certain point where past a number you are just zerging around... In DAOC it was 9+ I'd say in this game it's probably 12+ even though I'd never run 12 I see it as the number most guilds would have simply cause of trials.

Running 24 you're a damn Zerg though... There hasn't been an MMO yet running 24 people wasn't considered a Zerg.

Daoc...being relavent to explaining eso pvp mechanics since never

Daoc being relevant to giving and example of what good large scale pvp for all playstyles looks like - always. Quite the opposite of eso pvp.

So should i go ahead and say what halo did well in multiplayer and ask for that in call of duty? Or vice-versa? I mean that's essentially what is going on here. Let's stop comparing this game to others or what you want to bring from other games here.

Strawman argument. Can´t compare that situation in the slightest.

Then why are we comparing daoc to eso? They're two completely different games and just because daoc did it doesn't mean it would be good or used in eso?

Better analogy is league of legends and Dota...since they're just about the same game...just because one of them does something doesn't automatically mean the other should...

My point is, eso is not daoc so why do we give a rat's fanny what daoc did in pvp...it's completely irrelevant.

Simply because one game was working with better large scale pvp in 2002 than the other is in 2016. People would damn sure compare lol to the dota warcraft 3 mod if lol would be worse in terms of playability. That´s the whole point.

This game has the potential to be so much better than daoc ever was but it´s plagued by certain design decisions that just don´t make sense when looking at pvp in general.

I agree but criticisms should be somewhat self evident. You can say "8 is a Zerg because 8 was a Zerg in DAOC" but that claim should also have legs of its own to stand on. Different games, different mechanics, different group size, etc. We need more to go in than comparisons to decade old games.

Some of the of the best and most engaging play I've ever seen was fleet vs fleet battles in EVE online. When I think open world RvRvR that's what I want to emulate, I want to command multiple groups and run complex battlefields. Or at least, fight in battles like that again.

The race to the bottom does nothing for me. The need to define big fights as Zerg v Zerg is honestly kind of depressing. There are SO MANY games dedicated to set teams of 4v4, 6v6, 8v8, 12v12 etc. Why than do we take the few games that give us the ability to make and run big fun battles and try to fit these games into those rule sets ? Makes no bloody sense

.............

Ok I seriously can't be the only one who laughed at this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9x8eYjUQzg

You had huge battles in Eve...Zergs that make this game look tiny

But come the *** on...

Dyride

24+

Yiko wrote: »

Zerging is relative to an extent, but there's more to it than that. I'd never call 2 people a zerg. I think zerging results when an individual's effective performance is diluted from allied group numbers to the point that the individual's output is rendered insignificant or inconsequential. For example, in a group of 2, ideally each person would be responsible for 50% of the outcome. In a group of 25, each person would have around 4% of the outcome.

You have to draw the line somewhere to deem whether or not one's actions can be determined as significant or meaningful in the general context of ESO PVP. If they're not meaningful based on the individual output %'s, then they're zerging.

That way, both the group of 48 and the group of 70 can BOTH be considered zergs in the general context of ESO PVP, and a group of 2 will (or should) never be considered a zerg.

That is so hilarious.

So performing at 4% of a 24 man group is all it takes.

Someone misses a barrier while fighting outnumbered. Wipe. That's on you.

Someone misses their Negate. Wipe. That's on you.

So if anything the stakes get higher since you have to perform when called on or the whole group can wipe.

ToRelax

13-14

Dyride wrote: »

Yiko wrote: »

Zerging is relative to an extent, but there's more to it than that. I'd never call 2 people a zerg. I think zerging results when an individual's effective performance is diluted from allied group numbers to the point that the individual's output is rendered insignificant or inconsequential. For example, in a group of 2, ideally each person would be responsible for 50% of the outcome. In a group of 25, each person would have around 4% of the outcome.

You have to draw the line somewhere to deem whether or not one's actions can be determined as significant or meaningful in the general context of ESO PVP. If they're not meaningful based on the individual output %'s, then they're zerging.

That way, both the group of 48 and the group of 70 can BOTH be considered zergs in the general context of ESO PVP, and a group of 2 will (or should) never be considered a zerg.

That is so hilarious.

So performing at 4% of a 24 man group is all it takes.

Someone misses a barrier while fighting outnumbered. Wipe. That's on you.

Someone misses their Negate. Wipe. That's on you.

So if anything the stakes get higher since you have to perform when called on or the whole group can wipe.

That argument goes both ways, and I'd argue it makes more sense for smaller groups. There simply is less room for mistakes. In a small group you have to be self aware as well as looking out for your groupmates, whatever roll you are supposed to fill. When under pressure, group members constantly safe each other by interrupting or cc'ing enemies, walking in between teammates and foes, and ofc everyone heals you when needed, wether that is their primary role or not. I really wouldn't count it as a display of skill to not have to make certain decisions yourself (though I am aware even in large groups you should act when needed, wether called upon or not - it simply doesn't happen as much and the variety of different actions a player could take then is much more limited).

Xeniph

Hektik_V wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLVZtDWiWt4

I want some small man groups like this.

<---- Is waiting for early release of this, as I have already preordered

Tavore1138

It's a war game, there are no campaign points for getting the castle in a stylish manner.

If lag wasn't the problem it was then would anyone really care?

Personally I enjoy playing solo, I enjoy playing in groups of less than 10, I enjoy playing in a group of 18-24 and, yes, I enjoy playing in a huge sprawling zerg of people all having a crack on voice chat and if we do it wearing only tabards with some beers than that's just bonus points.

Each type of play requires different skills, gear and behaviours and I'm not going to sit here and tell someone their play style is wrong - apart from obvious exploits and bugs if the game allows it then go for it.

yodased

In this game, any number more than the number I have is considered a zerg. If you kill me with 2 players, waiuzergmebro?

PainfulFAFA

If my death recap are all gap closers... i was zerged.

HoloYoitsu

5-6

ToRelax wrote: »

Dyride wrote: »

Yiko wrote: »

Zerging is relative to an extent, but there's more to it than that. I'd never call 2 people a zerg. I think zerging results when an individual's effective performance is diluted from allied group numbers to the point that the individual's output is rendered insignificant or inconsequential. For example, in a group of 2, ideally each person would be responsible for 50% of the outcome. In a group of 25, each person would have around 4% of the outcome.

You have to draw the line somewhere to deem whether or not one's actions can be determined as significant or meaningful in the general context of ESO PVP. If they're not meaningful based on the individual output %'s, then they're zerging.

That way, both the group of 48 and the group of 70 can BOTH be considered zergs in the general context of ESO PVP, and a group of 2 will (or should) never be considered a zerg.

That is so hilarious.

So performing at 4% of a 24 man group is all it takes.

Someone misses a barrier while fighting outnumbered. Wipe. That's on you.

Someone misses their Negate. Wipe. That's on you.

So if anything the stakes get higher since you have to perform when called on or the whole group can wipe.

That argument goes both ways, and I'd argue it makes more sense for smaller groups. There simply is less room for mistakes. In a small group you have to be self aware as well as looking out for your groupmates, whatever roll you are supposed to fill. When under pressure, group members constantly safe each other by interrupting or cc'ing enemies, walking in between teammates and foes, and ofc everyone heals you when needed, wether that is their primary role or not. I really wouldn't count it as a display of skill to not have to make certain decisions yourself (though I am aware even in large groups you should act when needed, wether called upon or not - it simply doesn't happen as much and the variety of different actions a player could take then is much more limited).

Yes on the surface, it is a clear and simple concept that individual action is more important in the small group level since the individual makes up a larger fraction of the group. However, it must also be understood that on the large scale level certain individual roles are vitally important, to the point of being even more important than an individual in the typical smaller group. These are roles such as barrier/negate/speed. One individual not performing that role properly when called upon makes the difference between wiping another group or being wiped by them in seconds.

I know a lot of the people here are solo and small group players, so this is a dynamic I don't expect them to understand. It's honestly difficult to comprehend if you haven't played in a skilled raid.

This is all of course in the context of the typical lvl of play of both smallmans and large groups. Smallmans fight unorganized pugs, other smallmans, or harass large groups - not engage them directly. While large groups fight the pug zerg and/or other large groups head on.

ToRelax

13-14

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Dyride wrote: »

Yiko wrote: »

Zerging is relative to an extent, but there's more to it than that. I'd never call 2 people a zerg. I think zerging results when an individual's effective performance is diluted from allied group numbers to the point that the individual's output is rendered insignificant or inconsequential. For example, in a group of 2, ideally each person would be responsible for 50% of the outcome. In a group of 25, each person would have around 4% of the outcome.

You have to draw the line somewhere to deem whether or not one's actions can be determined as significant or meaningful in the general context of ESO PVP. If they're not meaningful based on the individual output %'s, then they're zerging.

That way, both the group of 48 and the group of 70 can BOTH be considered zergs in the general context of ESO PVP, and a group of 2 will (or should) never be considered a zerg.

That is so hilarious.

So performing at 4% of a 24 man group is all it takes.

Someone misses a barrier while fighting outnumbered. Wipe. That's on you.

Someone misses their Negate. Wipe. That's on you.

So if anything the stakes get higher since you have to perform when called on or the whole group can wipe.

That argument goes both ways, and I'd argue it makes more sense for smaller groups. There simply is less room for mistakes. In a small group you have to be self aware as well as looking out for your groupmates, whatever roll you are supposed to fill. When under pressure, group members constantly safe each other by interrupting or cc'ing enemies, walking in between teammates and foes, and ofc everyone heals you when needed, wether that is their primary role or not. I really wouldn't count it as a display of skill to not have to make certain decisions yourself (though I am aware even in large groups you should act when needed, wether called upon or not - it simply doesn't happen as much and the variety of different actions a player could take then is much more limited).

Yes on the surface, it is a clear and simple concept that individual action is more important in the small group level since the individual makes up a larger fraction of the group. However, it must also be understood that on the large scale level certain individual roles are vitally important, to the point of being even more important than an individual in the typical smaller group. These are roles such as barrier/negate/speed. One individual not performing that role properly when called upon makes the difference between wiping another group or being wiped by them in seconds.

I know a lot of the people here are solo and small group players, so this is a dynamic I don't expect them to understand. It's honestly difficult to comprehend if you haven't played in a skilled raid.

This is all of course in the context of the typical lvl of play of both smallmans and large groups. Smallmans fight unorganized pugs, other smallmans, or harass large groups - not engage them directly. While large groups fight the pug zerg and/or other large groups head on.

Oh, I do understand, but maybe I didn't go into that enough. Look, in a small group players taylor their builds to be able to perform any role when needed but when things go smooth to still be able to get the most out of their primary role. On the contrary, in a large group - especially if it runs as a "zergball" - the members are not constantly in danger from anyone running around, the other large groups or maybe massive random zergs are a threat though. When stacking up, this means the raid will mostly die together, so that it makes a lot of sense to specialize in roles more. That means members will for example run very high damage with little regen, slot mainly AoE, build for very high regen to spam a certain high cost ability, or like in our scenario, slot certain group supporting ultimates to use when called on.
This means they have to learn to perform that special role well, yes - but it does not mean it is in any way harder to do so then to play well in a smallgroup. If it is more important to use a Barrier in a large group at the right time, than to use a Healing Ward in a small one, then because the rest of the small gorup can still work after one player dies, while the raid might wipe together. But the exact same thing would happen with small groups, again to an even larger extend, if they decided to ball up and distribute roles more precisely - it just isn't as good of a tactic for them because 1.) AoE caps, 2.) less players available to fill those roles and 3.) more need for single target abilities because enemies are spread out, too.

D0ntevenL1ft

7-8

Yusuf wrote: »

1 vs 4 is a zerg
2 vs 8 is a zerg
3 vs 16 and so on

Is 24v 24 not a zerg then? Also, I find it hilarious how people are answering 15+ people

MaximillianDiE

24+

Zerging is a meaningless term in this game now as its so subjective. This thread in itself shows how the community can't agree on its meaning and each and by and large every one of you have a different opinion on what it means... Get run over by larger number then by all means assuage your bruised ego by calling them a zerg but get up and get back into it. Killing superior numbers with my guild is what gives me the real rush and challenge that I need to keep me in this game at this point 2+ years down the track since closed beta.

Look on the positive side - getting to call the "bads" on the other side (because everyone is except you right?) a zerg and never really having to admit you lost is an added bonus (if you're into making excuses), your e-peen will never have to deflate and you can remain the legend in your own mind that you really truly believe that you are. I know I know, all that AP we're accumulating is actually really good at pulling da chicks IRL.... Getting t-bagged by one of the "zerg" just adds to the hilarity, especially when their damage doesn't even register in your death recap as this isn't really a team game at all so they don't count as they didn't actually get the killing blow. Anyone would think from reading these forums that the majority of players are those individualistic gamers without the social skills to make friends and form groups/guilds who's actual pvp involves spamming zone and providing illustrations of how high on the autism scale they are (we all know who at least one example)... But that's not actually the case is it?

I picked 24+ because that's when the 8-12 man guild group (up to 16 rarely at the moment when the stars align) I'm fortunate enough to be a part of starts to be challenged. Any less than that, (unless its a good guild group who we're not going to accuse of being a zerg anyway, as the challenge is respected) its not a zerg - its just "sheep".