What do you count as a zerg?

Potenza

Zerg is not a number. It represents the actions of a raid group. They group up in a ball - spam aoe's, healing and storms while running through your group killing everyone in its path. That is a zerg. Stop calling a large number of players a zerg.

NightbladeMechanics

Soloers: "if they're in a group, they're a zerg. If multiple people hit me, they're a zerg. Omg I died, they're a zerg!"

Small groups (2-4): "if they outnumber us, they're a zerg."

Medium groups (5-10): "if they move like a school of fish, they're a zerg. I heard a destro ult! They're a zerg!"

Large groups (11-full): "if they're over the group cap, they're a zerg."

The zerg: "we're playing the map in a large scale PvP game, screw you, we're gonna zerg!"

Publius_Scipio

If I am all alone, and I am attacked by three or more people, I was zerged.

apostate9

Any chitinous alien monster in StarCraft. This game doesn't have any. It does feature some large armies in the army vs. army zone though.

RebornV3x

Anything more than 1 apparently is a zerg I would say anything more than 9 or 10 in all seriousness

Minno

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

If I am all alone, and I am attacked by three or more people, I was zerged.

You got caught in East NY at 2am?

No_True_Scotsman

In AvA games, zerging has traditionally always meant using numbers mostly or entirely to win. Smaller bomb groups have almost always derided "the zergs", but in previous MMO's with a wider player base they were mostly isolated to their own cliques. (They wouldn't have anything to do if it weren't for "the zerg" so it's strange to me that they complain about them.)

Nowadays, the term doesn't really mean anything. The same people that rage at you for zerg surfing have no issues having 16 of their friends ulti dump you while not even trying to see the irony in what they do. That's why no one can agree on how much is a zerg. Shouting about it is just a way for late teens and early twenty somethings to hedge the purpose of their existence, by doing the video game version of virtue signalling.

The term has become standard MMO vernacular. But it still doesn't really mean anything.

NBrookus

FluffyReachWitch wrote: »

I don't understand the hatred for groups in Cyrodiil, when the map is covered in objectives that are meant for large groups of players to cooperatively capture and defend. To me a 'zerg' is just a group that's big enough to get something done. Trying to play solo or in a tiny group will eventually lead to a 'zerg' running you down, if you spend a lot of time close to the front. That's the risk you take when going alone in a map where group play is intended.

I disagree that every objective on the map was "meant" for large groups. Resources and towns are easily soloed and there's zero reason to bring a large group to them. Alliance v. alliance doesn't mean you have to stack entire armies to have a faction-based war. Snipers, special forces, guerilla tactics, suicide bombers... these are all real life war concepts that have analogs in ESO.

Small group players are well aware that they will get zerged (verb, to be overwhelmed by a larger force), because that's how pretty much every small group engagement ends. You start by having some good fights, then eventually more people show up and you get zerged. Or, less often, they give up and you get bored and go somewhere else. Or sometimes friendlies show up and you become the zerg.

IDK if large groups fight each other. Have fun.

My disdain for zergs (noun, a large force comprised of players that usually think it takes a large group to accomplish anything) comes from the number of times a zerg will chase a couple of random players around Cyrodiil while losing their home keeps, send an entire raid to flip a resource when it flipped slowly enough that it's clear it was only one or two players there, hang back and refuse to engage until they have a amassed large numerical advantage, set up a siege line when they already outnumber you 5 to 1, wipe 3 or 4 times but zombie rez and then teabag you like they accomplished something when they finally kill you, or send rage tells calling you a "hacker" or "cheater" because it took a large number of unorganized players to kill your smaller, but organized, group.

AlwaysOnFire

people complaining about the most effective ways to get something done because it sometimes inconveniences them or doesn't validate them as a person to participate in

Derra

Alomar wrote: »

I lol a little inside when people call such small numbers a zerg in ESO, as someone whose played 39 mmo's I normally conclude a zerg as 50+. Yet, due to ESO's zerg friendly mechanics (target cap mainly) I'd say it's 25+ in ESO.

Well in daoc you were basically zerging when you ran with more than 8 people

t3hdubzy

I consider 30 or more a zerg, but i also see smaller groups rolling around with that zerg mentality of steam rolling any small group they can run over.

In imperial city i consider a group of 10 or more a zerg especially when they try to farm solo players.

Im fine with zergs, all out warfare is fun, but i do not personally like to be a part of a zerg. I watch in the shadows and pick my targets, and i dont ult train the allesia bridge.

imokie2609

Any (organized) group greater than 4 is a zerg.

apostate9

No_True_Scotsman wrote: »

In AvA games, zerging has traditionally always meant using numbers mostly or entirely to win. Smaller bomb groups have almost always derided "the zergs", but in previous MMO's with a wider player base they were mostly isolated to their own cliques. (They wouldn't have anything to do if it weren't for "the zerg" so it's strange to me that they complain about .)

Nowadays, the term doesn't really mean anything. The same people that rage at you for zerg surfing have no issues having 16 of their friends ulti dump you while not even trying to see the irony in what they do. That's why no one can agree on how much is a zerg. Shouting about it is just a way for late teens and early twenty somethings to hedge the purpose of their existence, by doing the video game version of virtue signalling.

The term has become standard MMO vernacular. But it still doesn't really mean anything.

^ This.

ssewallb14_ESO

A zerg is a group of players relying on numbers rather than skill. Numbers are context dependent, so it's impossible to define a zerg by an exact number of players.

The two most common characteristics used to define a zerg:

-Significantly outnumbering their opponent
-Having enough players to specialize in roles to the point where the individual skill requirement is very low

AlwaysOnFire

NBrookus wrote: »

My disdain for zergs (noun, a large force comprised of players that usually think it takes a large group to accomplish anything) comes from the number of times a zerg will chase a couple of random players around Cyrodiil while losing their home keeps, send an entire raid to flip a resource when it flipped slowly enough that it's clear it was only one or two players there, hang back and refuse to engage until they have a amassed large numerical advantage, set up a siege line when they already outnumber you 5 to 1, wipe 3 or 4 times but zombie rez and then teabag you like they accomplished something when they finally kill you, or send rage tells calling you a "hacker" or "cheater" because it took a large number of unorganized players to kill your smaller, but organized, group.

"*sniffle* I'm... complaining because I'm so good at this game that *sob* it takes so many people to kill me and *sob sob* sometimes they tell me I'm so good at this game I must be cheating *sniffle* I feel that it's unfair that I die sometimes in these circumstances"

miss me with the humblebrag. If you were such a skilled player that entire armies have to gather to put you and your mates down, maybe you would either take the flattery or learn strategies to avoid fights that you can't win alone. You know, like less powerful players have to do to avoid the supposed likes of you skulking about.

xeNNNNN

Earthewen wrote: »

Zerg is a slang term for a group of low-level gamers who depend on overwhelming numbers to achieve victory, rather than relying on technique or strategy. The term is most often used in the context of online role-playing and strategy games, but it also applies to multiplayer first-person shooters.

Thank you for reminding everyone of the true meaning behind the term we use in MMO PvP areas also thank the guy above for implying the actual origin of the term which is 100% correct, GG WP Starcraft

IcyDeadPeople

The formula for zerg is the long-established mathematical theorem zerg = (n + 1) where n is the number of players in your party.

TrueGreenSmoker

1 solo. 2-6 small group. 7-12 small zerg 13-24 zerg. 24+ massive zerg.

Valen_Byte

A zerg is a group larger than is necessary for a particular objective.

Ex: If you are attacking a guarded keep, a 24 man group is not a zerg. If the same 24 man group is taking an undefended resource, its a zerg. So, if you take 24 peeps to fight 10 peeps, you are a zerg. If you take 10 to fight 10, not a zerg. A zerg is an unnecessary amount of players for a given objective. make sense?

Xsorus

josh.lackey_ESO wrote: »

I think the definition of "zerg" as a noun is different than the definition of "zerg" as a verb. The definition of the verb zerg is different between the passive and active forms.

So 5 or 6 people would not be considered a "zerg" properly, nor could 6 people ever be "zerging". But if you are alone and 5 or 6 people move you over, you could say you were "zerged" down.

A second definition of the noun zerg is not necessarily related to the number of players, but instead referring to main group of faction pugs. If AD has Nikel and DC has Ash, and the AD push up to Ash keep, you might say "AD zerg at Ash" even if it's the middle of the night and sever pops are two bars and it's only 15 people.

The most common definition of zerg is "any group larger than the one I am currently in."

This is incorrect.

6 people can be considered zerging based on the actual gameplay you're in.

DAOC is a perfect example of this. If you were running 2 groups and fighting other 8 mans you were considered zerging...Basically because you went past the Group Vs Group Meta...

However..If you were running 8 stealthers, you were also considered zerging (6 would be the same as well) because the people you were going to fight were solo players or duo stealthers usually.

Xsorus

Derra wrote: »

Alomar wrote: »

I lol a little inside when people call such small numbers a zerg in ESO, as someone whose played 39 mmo's I normally conclude a zerg as 50+. Yet, due to ESO's zerg friendly mechanics (target cap mainly) I'd say it's 25+ in ESO.

Well in daoc you were basically zerging when you ran with more than 8 people

8mans were super strict about that in DAOC. Getting Caught running more then 8 would not only get you laughed at by all the other 8 mans, but they'd gang up on you...and i'm not talking about just say one alliance..I'm talking about whatever Realms you weren't in would intentionally attack you if you were fighting...and just you...And if you're getting hit by 2 and 3 groups everytime you go out and fight you pretty much spent your entire night running back.

Also this only applied to actual 8 mans..If you were zerging with the Zerg for example no one cared..

Soon as you got a group together though people would expect you to follow the Code though

phairdon

20-50 players = zerg
50+ = blob

This is my take on it, from another mmo.

Shia419

you know what they say...

two is company, three is a crowd.

Ghost-Shot

Zerg is such a relative term, I'm told I'm zerging for running in a group of ~18 on average everyday by "solo" players that are sitting inside of 60+ people from their faction. IMO 25+ in this game simply because 24 is the group cap but I also think you're zerging if your group of 10 chases me down solo.

Xsorus

24 isn't the group cap, 4 is... when ya go past four it specifically tells you it's a large group.

Hell raids in this game are 12

Astanphaeus

From what I've seen, it mostly follows this equation:

n*2>m

where n is the actual number of the enemies and m is the size of your group (not everyone around that is in your faction, just your group).

Anything greater than this and you start to get hate tells from the "elite" players.

Kram8ion

As a nb for me it's when ever I don't have to use sneak it's a Zerg

Iskrasfemme

Draxys wrote: »

Everyone's got their own definition these days. It's essentially become a term to be used when an angry child can't stand not feeling superior to their competition, thus they lash out in anger and make attempted insults using the ambiguous term "zerg".

Draxys is right!

Zinaroth

I've decided to go by the definition provided by our biggest EU PvP streamer:

If I die I got zerged - numbers are not a factor.

This rule only has one exception:

If I die while standing in the middle of my own alliance group (which isn't a zerg mind you) I got ganked - which is of equally little skill, if not less, as zerging.

Applying these two rules to open world PvP I have all bases covered so that no matter what the scenario was at my point of death I am not in danger of having my illusion, of being one of the best players in the game, shattered.

PandaIsAPotato

12+ if they're well coordinated ball group tards.

16+ if they're mindless potatos.

48+ if they're roleplayers. Trust me on this, a full raid and a half of roleplayers does no damage... Don't ask why I know...

Though individual definition doesn't matter when Zerg is a relative term anyway, if you're outnumbered by a significant amount you are being zerged by a zerg, if the zerg is outnumbered they are being zerged by a zerg.