What do you count as a zerg?

Biro123

j.murro2ub17_ESO wrote: »

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.

Nah.. the word Zerg comes from the race in StarCraft which relies on massive numbers of poor troops to simply overwhelm the enemy. What you have described is a me is a good, organised group - the kind of thing that can take down a zerg. Maybe we should call them a Terran?

I'll generally only describe a zerg when it appears to be the majority of the faction there..

Kas

i know i'm kinda alone with that, but from my daoc experience, it's still like that:

zerg = a fractions random zerg. numbers cannot even be determined exactly, it doesn't really matter if they're grouped or not. somehow, in eso 30+ randoms "fighting" with a group of 12 seem to call that group a zerg. i underrstood this by now, but it's still unnatural imho.
zerging = playing in a environment where you don't really know the numbers of players on your side, and sometimes have no control over it either

adders = poeple joining fights with similar numbers (often 1v1's), imho much bigger scum than those who just run in large groups. sure, runnign in a large group doesn't mean they also do this, sometime with even higher priority

12+man groups = group
24+ = giant group (of <insert insult here>) , can be used for anything outnumbering me, even gettign 1v4'd sometimes triggers that feeling xD

Rickter

All the definitions of zergs made my morning - good stuff.

But something no one has really mentioned but its clearly understood is "to be a zerg (n)" and "zerging (v)" is always used in a negative connotation.

It's used as an accusation. but really its just a cover up. I have said this before and i'll say it again: there is a long standing, decrepit, delusional and most importantly: SMALL GROUP of pvp elite who have become jaded with large group playstyle in cyrodiil. They have convinced themselves that running in large groups shows no skill (which is probably truthful) but really its because their egos caused them to break away from egotistical large group raid leaders. These same individuals are the most vocal on forums, many of them are streamers and many of them occupy the Council of PvPers who have a direct line to ZOS. Because of their exposure, they are able to portray ESO pvp as something its not: that you will get the most fulfillment from ESO pvp (whether that be proof of skill, reknown or respect/street cred) by participating and showcasing small group play of groups 4 and under.

We've seen it all over this forum. We've seen the rampant promotion of this concept that ESO should be in groups of 8 and under. ESO was never advertised as this, in fact it was advertised as the complete opposite from day one. But because these celebrity streamers and long time pvp elite keep brainwashing and flooding the forums with their OPINION of how eso pvp should be and the devs are listening and you see it over and over where changes are made to discourage large groups!!

there is a thread about how zos shouldnt listen to streamers and this is why. And this is also why everything gets called a zerg even when completely out of context. LABELING the group that just steam rolled you with superior numbers as a "zerg" is demeaning, and dismissive which only serves to selfishly protect their egos.

so onto the OP - i dont ACCUSE people of zerging unless its a full raid group and more. if i see 24+ players, thats a zerg. they know they are, they know what they are doing. Otherwise, its just a larger group than mine. Im happy for them to have such guild participation and that number of friends.

LeifErickson

Rickter wrote: »

All the definitions of zergs made my morning - good stuff.

But something no one has really mentioned but its clearly understood is "to be a zerg (n)" and "zerging (v)" is always used in a negative connotation.

It's used as an accusation. but really its just a cover up. I have said this before and i'll say it again: there is a long standing, decrepit, delusional and most importantly: SMALL GROUP of pvp elite who have become jaded with large group playstyle in cyrodiil. They have convinced themselves that running in large groups shows no skill (which is probably truthful) but really its because their egos caused them to break away from egotistical large group raid leaders. These same individuals are the most vocal on forums, many of them are streamers and many of them occupy the Council of PvPers who have a direct line to ZOS. Because of their exposure, they are able to portray ESO pvp as something its not: that you will get the most fulfillment from ESO pvp (whether that be proof of skill, reknown or respect/street cred) by participating and showcasing small group play of groups 4 and under.

We've seen it all over this forum. We've seen the rampant promotion of this concept that ESO should be in groups of 8 and under. ESO was never advertised as this, in fact it was advertised as the complete opposite from day one. But because these celebrity streamers and long time pvp elite keep brainwashing and flooding the forums with their OPINION of how eso pvp should be and the devs are listening and you see it over and over where changes are made to discourage large groups!!

there is a thread about how zos shouldnt listen to streamers and this is why. And this is also why everything gets called a zerg even when completely out of context. LABELING the group that just steam rolled you with superior numbers as a "zerg" is demeaning, and dismissive which only serves to selfishly protect their egos.

so onto the OP - i dont ACCUSE people of zerging unless its a full raid group and more. if i see 24+ players, thats a zerg. they know they are, they know what they are doing. Otherwise, its just a larger group than mine. Im happy for them to have such guild participation and that number of friends.

One of the most popular streamers plays in big groups on stream.

Rickter

LeifErickson wrote: »

One of the most popular streamers plays in big groups on stream.

yeah sure now he does. but not in the beginning. and is Sypher no longer a thing? because him and KR and all these video montages of "1vX" splattered all over this forum makes FENGRUSH a bit of an exception at this point

Ghost-Shot

Xsorus wrote: »

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

We don't need to start this debate again, 24 is the group cap because a large group is a group, its literally in the name.

Sandman929

Rickter wrote: »

All the definitions of zergs made my morning - good stuff.

But something no one has really mentioned but its clearly understood is "to be a zerg (n)" and "zerging (v)" is always used in a negative connotation.

It's used as an accusation. but really its just a cover up. I have said this before and i'll say it again: there is a long standing, decrepit, delusional and most importantly: SMALL GROUP of pvp elite who have become jaded with large group playstyle in cyrodiil. They have convinced themselves that running in large groups shows no skill (which is probably truthful) but really its because their egos caused them to break away from egotistical large group raid leaders. These same individuals are the most vocal on forums, many of them are streamers and many of them occupy the Council of PvPers who have a direct line to ZOS. Because of their exposure, they are able to portray ESO pvp as something its not: that you will get the most fulfillment from ESO pvp (whether that be proof of skill, reknown or respect/street cred) by participating and showcasing small group play of groups 4 and under.

We've seen it all over this forum. We've seen the rampant promotion of this concept that ESO should be in groups of 8 and under. ESO was never advertised as this, in fact it was advertised as the complete opposite from day one. But because these celebrity streamers and long time pvp elite keep brainwashing and flooding the forums with their OPINION of how eso pvp should be and the devs are listening and you see it over and over where changes are made to discourage large groups!!

there is a thread about how zos shouldnt listen to streamers and this is why. And this is also why everything gets called a zerg even when completely out of context. LABELING the group that just steam rolled you with superior numbers as a "zerg" is demeaning, and dismissive which only serves to selfishly protect their egos.

so onto the OP - i dont ACCUSE people of zerging unless its a full raid group and more. if i see 24+ players, thats a zerg. they know they are, they know what they are doing. Otherwise, its just a larger group than mine. Im happy for them to have such guild participation and that number of friends.

Well put. I hate getting rolled over by a 40+ army as much as anyone, but this is AvAvA, not Street Fighter. It's saddening that I suspect Battleground will be a frustrating disappointment for a large part of the player base, because that might have been a nice small scale alternative.

My own faction annoys me quite a bit with their ego-driven refusal to cooperate. We can have a 40+ group of EP or AD swarming the map, and in zone chat the response from DC is complain about it, criticize each other, compare length/girth and debate endlessly on who is the best and why so-and-so sucks. Anything to avoid actually coming together to play the map.

Kas

Rickter wrote: »

who have become jaded with large group playstyle in cyrodiil. They have convinced themselves that running in large groups shows no skill (which is probably truthful) but really its because their egos caused them to break away from egotistical large group raid leaders.

I cannot look into people's head, but I really doubt that.
I play a lot with my guild (and I solo a lot) and I enjoy the company on TS a lot more than I enjoy the playstyle. It's certainly NOT about the leader, who I enjoy playing with, and we all actually see taking the lead as a self-sacrificial act that other's benefit from.

The problem is that, to be as effective as possible, you have to leave the "good plays" to the leader and you need to spam a few key abilities, only. It's strictly better if you build for your role, follow it rigorously, and, e.g., provide reliable rapid maneuver or purge, than to squeeze out the last bit of personal performance by frame-perfect bash-cancels and superb personal movement or whatever. Playing in large groups requires good lead and disciplined performance by players within their dedicated roles. Further, optimal builds are usually very 1-dimensional and rather easy to optimize (build for one or two goals, neglect other aspects, and you're fine).

High-quality play in large groups is thus much more streamlined and repetitive than solo play (or small-scale to some extend). In my opinion, THAT is why people turn their backs on large groups and not some conflicts of ago between them and leaders, not at all.

Sandman929

Kas wrote: »

The problem is that, to be as effective as possible, you have to leave the "good plays" to the leader and you need to spam some key abilities.

In my opinion, THAT is why people turn their backs on large groups and not some conflicts of ago between them and leaders, not at all.

To me it sounds like you're describing an ego problem though. Everyone in this game imagines themselves the leader and very few know how to follow. They've got what they imagine is the ultimate 1vX build going and they're just itching to make their highlights reel.
It's hard to put together a group in PvP that is willing to do what the best PvE groups do; build for the role and then play the role.

Rickter

Sandman929 wrote: »

Kas wrote: »

The problem is that, to be as effective as possible, you have to leave the "good plays" to the leader and you need to spam some key abilities.

In my opinion, THAT is why people turn their backs on large groups and not some conflicts of ago between them and leaders, not at all.

To me it sounds like you're describing an ego problem though. Everyone in this game imagines themselves the leader and very few know how to follow. They've got what they imagine is the ultimate 1vX build going and they're just itching to make their highlights reel.
It's hard to put together a group in PvP that is willing to do what the best PvE groups do; build for the role and then play the role.

exactly - they arent putting faith and trust in the leader to call the shots - ego

Merlin13KAGL

If it moves as a unit, casts as a unit, and just relies on sheer #'s to mow things down like tidal wave, it's likely a zerg. It's all about overkill.

Even large groups tend to have an assortment of skills, methods, and some variation in individual movement.

Think 'mutliboxing,' but with different boxes.

Kas

Rickter wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Kas wrote: »

The problem is that, to be as effective as possible, you have to leave the "good plays" to the leader and you need to spam some key abilities.

In my opinion, THAT is why people turn their backs on large groups and not some conflicts of ago between them and leaders, not at all.

To me it sounds like you're describing an ego problem though. Everyone in this game imagines themselves the leader and very few know how to follow. They've got what they imagine is the ultimate 1vX build going and they're just itching to make their highlights reel.
It's hard to put together a group in PvP that is willing to do what the best PvE groups do; build for the role and then play the role.

exactly - they arent putting faith and trust in the leader to call the shots - ego

No, that's not the point, not at all. the point is: play a "normal" pvp build and follow the leader's order and get rekt by theoretic group with the same leader, where people actually play the proper "2-skill group builds". See some zergsquad video where people start complaining about the maneuver spam. Same goes for DDs with enough single target skills and sustain to theoretically play solo as well: your group is just not as good if you play that way.

what you describes sounds more like zonechat pickup groups, which have nothing to do with anything meaningful. people don't even complain when they get zerged by those, because you usually kill enough in the progress for a decent amount of Ap to console you. almost no serious 1vX player has played in those in the last few years. I don't know any decent PvP player who has since the introduction of CP...

Instead, people also get tired of successful guild groups where they also have 100% faith in the leader. It's just not challenging to do this kind of job for hundreds of hours.

NBrookus

Kas wrote: »

High-quality play in large groups is thus much more streamlined and repetitive than solo play (or small-scale to some extend). In my opinion, THAT is why people turn their backs on large groups and not some conflicts of ago between them and leaders, not at all.

I agree with Kas. If you are in a group of 12+, you can spam healing springs and purge while eating a taco and probably keep your team alive because that's your only job. Effective, but some people are going to find that boring.

In a small group you have to have a more well-rounded build and pay more attention. When you know your teammates' playstyles you don't have to constantly call out specific orders, but that doesn't mean strong leadership isn't important. If anything, the argument is usually who has to take crown instead of the other way around.

IME inflated egos can be found anywhere in the spectrum of large group to small.

ToRelax

NBrookus wrote: »

Kas wrote: »

High-quality play in large groups is thus much more streamlined and repetitive than solo play (or small-scale to some extend). In my opinion, THAT is why people turn their backs on large groups and not some conflicts of ago between them and leaders, not at all.

I agree with Kas. If you are in a group of 12+, you can spam healing springs and purge while eating a taco and probably keep your team alive because that's your only job. Effective, but some people are going to find that boring.

In a small group you have to have a more well-rounded build and pay more attention. When you know your teammates' playstyles you don't have to constantly call out specific orders, but that doesn't mean strong leadership isn't important. If anything, the argument is usually who has to take crown instead of the other way around.

IME inflated egos can be found anywhere in the spectrum of large group to small.

Exactly. I would like playing in large groups just as much as solo and small group play if it involved more quick thinking, reaction times, different skills and decision making.

Rickter wrote: »

[...]
These same individuals are the most vocal on forums, many of them are streamers and many of them occupy the Council of PvPers who have a direct line to ZOS. Because of their exposure, they are able to portray ESO pvp as something its not: that you will get the most fulfillment from ESO pvp (whether that be proof of skill, reknown or respect/street cred) by participating and showcasing small group play of groups 4 and under.

We've seen it all over this forum. We've seen the rampant promotion of this concept that ESO should be in groups of 8 and under. ESO was never advertised as this, in fact it was advertised as the complete opposite from day one. But because these celebrity streamers and long time pvp elite keep brainwashing and flooding the forums with their OPINION of how eso pvp should be and the devs are listening and you see it over and over where changes are made to discourage large groups!!

[...]

Right... and Nirn is a flat disk.

frozywozy

NBrookus wrote: »

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.

This. I find it really amusing when I ride to defend Drake or Dragon and I don't make it in time, then I wait at a ressource to get some fights, and often, I will see a full 24men group going from one ressource to the other instead of splitting up to capture all of them at the same time. I simply wait until the full ballgroup leave to flip it back solo in 1minute, then go back to stealth and repeat this over and over. haha #worthit

frozywozy

Rickter wrote: »

All the definitions of zergs made my morning - good stuff.

But something no one has really mentioned but its clearly understood is "to be a zerg (n)" and "zerging (v)" is always used in a negative connotation.

It's used as an accusation. but really its just a cover up. I have said this before and i'll say it again: there is a long standing, decrepit, delusional and most importantly: SMALL GROUP of pvp elite who have become jaded with large group playstyle in cyrodiil. They have convinced themselves that running in large groups shows no skill (which is probably truthful) but really its because their egos caused them to break away from egotistical large group raid leaders. These same individuals are the most vocal on forums, many of them are streamers and many of them occupy the Council of PvPers who have a direct line to ZOS. Because of their exposure, they are able to portray ESO pvp as something its not: that you will get the most fulfillment from ESO pvp (whether that be proof of skill, reknown or respect/street cred) by participating and showcasing small group play of groups 4 and under.

We've seen it all over this forum. We've seen the rampant promotion of this concept that ESO should be in groups of 8 and under. ESO was never advertised as this, in fact it was advertised as the complete opposite from day one. But because these celebrity streamers and long time pvp elite keep brainwashing and flooding the forums with their OPINION of how eso pvp should be and the devs are listening and you see it over and over where changes are made to discourage large groups!!

there is a thread about how zos shouldnt listen to streamers and this is why. And this is also why everything gets called a zerg even when completely out of context. LABELING the group that just steam rolled you with superior numbers as a "zerg" is demeaning, and dismissive which only serves to selfishly protect their egos.

so onto the OP - i dont ACCUSE people of zerging unless its a full raid group and more. if i see 24+ players, thats a zerg. they know they are, they know what they are doing. Otherwise, its just a larger group than mine. Im happy for them to have such guild participation and that number of friends.

Most TESO streamers have been doing solo or small scale for a long time. You're right. Alot of them has a disdain for large groups of 16+ for very simple reasons. Not because running large groups is less skillful. But because it creates server performances issues and increase the latency of everyone on the server. I have been sub to Sypher and Fengrush since day1. I have also been supporting Jules and Kodi's stream since day1. I have never heard them saying that playing in a larger group is any easier. They all support the fact that large groups are a problem and the main cause of lag.

I personally have been streaming alot more recently to show that medium group play (12-16) has a place in this game and should be encouraged. It is a total difference game. Unlike soloing, you have access to several group buffs from specific classes or geat sets. Learning to cover all your minor / major buffs on top of sets like SPC, Trans, Hircines, etc. is so much fun and makes your group alot stronger. I'm looking forward for battlegrounds of 8vs8, 12vs12 or 16vs16.

Regarding my own definition of zergs, I have answered this question already in the past a few times and my opinion hasn't changed today. First of all, alot of people confuse the terms "zerg", "zerger", "getting zerged".

Zerg

• A mindless group of individuals or groups running next to each other in the transit line
• An organized group of 20players or more

Zerger

• A player (solo or not) part of a group of individuals or groups running next to each other in the transit line also known as zerg surfing
• A player part of an organized group of 20+ players
• A player (solo or not) attacking another player or group of players while outnumbering that group by a large amount (90% of these kinds of zergers tend to ignore that being solo next to players of their own faction doesn't make them any better)

Getting zerged

Getting attacked while being outnumbered and often, being chased from Drake, to Dragon, to Brindle multiple times. For example :

• 1v4
• 2v6
• 3v8
• 4v8
• 5v10
• 6v11
• 7v12
• 8v14
• 12v18
• 16v24

A zerg or a zerger is relative to the amount of players in a specific location from different factions.

NBrookus

frozywozy wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

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.

This. I find it really amusing when I ride to defend Drake or Dragon and I don't make it in time, then I wait at a ressource to get some fights, and often, I will see a full 24men group going from one ressource to the other instead of splitting up to capture all of them at the same time. I simply wait until the full ballgroup leave to flip it back solo in 1minute, then go back to stealth and repeat this over and over. haha #worthit

IKR?

My biggest beef with the 1500 AP participation trophy is that it ruined a place where small groups and soloers could usually find each other for fights. Split up the AP and the motivation to zerg resources is gone. (Altho some will do it anyway.)

HoloYoitsu

Ahem, let me consult the Book of Leet Smallmaning:

manny254 wrote: »

Dude i personally think 5 people is a zerg.

/thread

frozywozy wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

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.

This. I find it really amusing when I ride to defend Drake or Dragon and I don't make it in time, then I wait at a ressource to get some fights, and often, I will see a full 24men group going from one ressource to the other instead of splitting up to capture all of them at the same time. I simply wait until the full ballgroup leave to flip it back solo in 1minute, then go back to stealth and repeat this over and over. haha #worthit

Do you have like 2 accounts you play? One that is always in raid w/ Invictus or zerg surfing, and another secret one that does all of your solo stuff?

No_True_Scotsman

frozywozy wrote: »

Rickter wrote: »

All the definitions of zergs made my morning - good stuff.

But something no one has really mentioned but its clearly understood is "to be a zerg (n)" and "zerging (v)" is always used in a negative connotation.

It's used as an accusation. but really its just a cover up. I have said this before and i'll say it again: there is a long standing, decrepit, delusional and most importantly: SMALL GROUP of pvp elite who have become jaded with large group playstyle in cyrodiil. They have convinced themselves that running in large groups shows no skill (which is probably truthful) but really its because their egos caused them to break away from egotistical large group raid leaders. These same individuals are the most vocal on forums, many of them are streamers and many of them occupy the Council of PvPers who have a direct line to ZOS. Because of their exposure, they are able to portray ESO pvp as something its not: that you will get the most fulfillment from ESO pvp (whether that be proof of skill, reknown or respect/street cred) by participating and showcasing small group play of groups 4 and under.

We've seen it all over this forum. We've seen the rampant promotion of this concept that ESO should be in groups of 8 and under. ESO was never advertised as this, in fact it was advertised as the complete opposite from day one. But because these celebrity streamers and long time pvp elite keep brainwashing and flooding the forums with their OPINION of how eso pvp should be and the devs are listening and you see it over and over where changes are made to discourage large groups!!

there is a thread about how zos shouldnt listen to streamers and this is why. And this is also why everything gets called a zerg even when completely out of context. LABELING the group that just steam rolled you with superior numbers as a "zerg" is demeaning, and dismissive which only serves to selfishly protect their egos.

so onto the OP - i dont ACCUSE people of zerging unless its a full raid group and more. if i see 24+ players, thats a zerg. they know they are, they know what they are doing. Otherwise, its just a larger group than mine. Im happy for them to have such guild participation and that number of friends.

Most TESO streamers have been doing solo or small scale for a long time. You're right. Alot of them has a disdain for large groups of 16+ for very simple reasons. Not because running large groups is less skillful. But because it creates server performances issues and increase the latency of everyone on the server. I have been sub to Sypher and Fengrush since day1. I have also been supporting Jules and Kodi's stream since day1. I have never heard them saying that playing in a larger group is any easier. They all support the fact that large groups are a problem and the main cause of lag.

I personally have been streaming alot more recently to show that medium group play (12-16) has a place in this game and should be encouraged. It is a total difference game. Unlike soloing, you have access to several group buffs from specific classes or geat sets. Learning to cover all your minor / major buffs on top of sets like SPC, Trans, Hircines, etc. is so much fun and makes your group alot stronger. I'm looking forward for battlegrounds of 8vs8, 12vs12 or 16vs16.

Regarding my own definition of zergs, I have answered this question already in the past a few times and my opinion hasn't changed today. First of all, alot of people confuse the terms "zerg", "zerger", "getting zerged".

Zerg

• A mindless group of individuals or groups running next to each other in the transit line
• An organized group of 20players or more

Zerger

• A player (solo or not) part of a group of individuals or groups running next to each other in the transit line also known as zerg surfing
• A player part of an organized group of 20+ players
• A player (solo or not) attacking another player or group of players while outnumbering that group by a large amount (90% of these kinds of zergers tend to ignore that being solo next to players of their own faction doesn't make them any better)

Getting zerged

Getting attacked while being outnumbered and often, being chased from Drake, to Dragon, to Brindle multiple times. For example :

• 1v4
• 2v6
• 3v8
• 4v8
• 5v10
• 6v11
• 7v12
• 8v14
• 12v18
• 16v24

A zerg or a zerger is relative to the amount of players in a specific location from different factions.

By your own standards, you zerg every chance you get. Does that make you a zergling?

DODHitman

Zerg = term derived from the "players" that bought a game designed for "groups of 24" and realized they couldnt hang and/or decided they should be able to take on 4x the amount players and cant.

Small man: Groups of 5-8 also known as squads in FPS games, maybe more their fit........
(Not even close to what they promoted this game to be, which was massive tri-faction warfare)

This comment is based on what this game was meant to be and was promoted as* not the performance of the servers currently.

Edit: To those small man groups that "CAN" legit whoop ass, I give mad props too. Im just saying that just cause the top players, that have been playing from day one can......others shouldnt cry and/or expect to be able too.

Kram8ion

Well why doesn't Zoe just change the Your group is now a large group to Your group is now a Zerg and Your group is no longer a Zerg. Just for trolling purposes

NightbladeMechanics

Rickter wrote: »

LeifErickson wrote: »

One of the most popular streamers plays in big groups on stream.

yeah sure now he does. but not in the beginning. and is Sypher no longer a thing? because him and KR and all these video montages of "1vX" splattered all over this forum makes FENGRUSH a bit of an exception at this point

I don't remember the last time I saw Sypher stream ESO. He's been on For Honor lately.

NightbladeMechanics

frozywozy wrote: »

Rickter wrote: »

All the definitions of zergs made my morning - good stuff.

But something no one has really mentioned but its clearly understood is "to be a zerg (n)" and "zerging (v)" is always used in a negative connotation.

It's used as an accusation. but really its just a cover up. I have said this before and i'll say it again: there is a long standing, decrepit, delusional and most importantly: SMALL GROUP of pvp elite who have become jaded with large group playstyle in cyrodiil. They have convinced themselves that running in large groups shows no skill (which is probably truthful) but really its because their egos caused them to break away from egotistical large group raid leaders. These same individuals are the most vocal on forums, many of them are streamers and many of them occupy the Council of PvPers who have a direct line to ZOS. Because of their exposure, they are able to portray ESO pvp as something its not: that you will get the most fulfillment from ESO pvp (whether that be proof of skill, reknown or respect/street cred) by participating and showcasing small group play of groups 4 and under.

We've seen it all over this forum. We've seen the rampant promotion of this concept that ESO should be in groups of 8 and under. ESO was never advertised as this, in fact it was advertised as the complete opposite from day one. But because these celebrity streamers and long time pvp elite keep brainwashing and flooding the forums with their OPINION of how eso pvp should be and the devs are listening and you see it over and over where changes are made to discourage large groups!!

there is a thread about how zos shouldnt listen to streamers and this is why. And this is also why everything gets called a zerg even when completely out of context. LABELING the group that just steam rolled you with superior numbers as a "zerg" is demeaning, and dismissive which only serves to selfishly protect their egos.

so onto the OP - i dont ACCUSE people of zerging unless its a full raid group and more. if i see 24+ players, thats a zerg. they know they are, they know what they are doing. Otherwise, its just a larger group than mine. Im happy for them to have such guild participation and that number of friends.

I personally have been streaming alot more recently to show that medium group play (12-16) has a place in this game and should be encouraged. It is a total difference game. Unlike soloing, you have access to several group buffs from specific classes or geat sets. Learning to cover all your minor / major buffs on top of sets like SPC, Trans, Hircines, etc. is so much fun and makes your group alot stronger. I'm looking forward for battlegrounds of 8vs8, 12vs12 or 16vs16.

The threshold between "medium" and "large" scale PvP has been steadily falling with the buff to Negate, the introduction of VD and destro ult, and the nerfs to Purge, Rapids, and proxy. My observation has been that groups of 12 play the same as groups of 24 these days and can take on more people than ever, where they were quite different a year or a year and a half ago.

Publius_Scipio

Everyone relax, I just got a text from Zergbad Exterminator. Apparently Battlegrounds are coming!

frozywozy

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Everyone relax, I just got a text from Zergbad Exterminator. Apparently Battlegrounds are coming!

Can't wait to get zerged down by large guilds queuing up 48players simultaneously teaming up 8v4 in a well though ZOS battleground. Sounds like a release from the daily Cyrodiil experience.

Ghost-Shot

frozywozy wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Everyone relax, I just got a text from Zergbad Exterminator. Apparently Battlegrounds are coming!

Can't wait to get zerged down by large guilds queuing up 48players simultaneously teaming up 8v4 in a well though ZOS battleground. Sounds like a release from the daily Cyrodiil experience.

Yeah the 4v4v4 is really dumb, it will destroy every ounce of competitive play in battle grounds, they should really be 4v4.

Xsorus

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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

We don't need to start this debate again, 24 is the group cap because a large group is a group, its literally in the name.

It was called battle groups in warhammer online, but it was still a raid. Hell I think rift even called it the same when ya went past it's group cap. WoW calls it a raid, but that's what 24 people are.. it's a raid.. in this game it happens to be two raids

Xsorus

DODHitman wrote: »

Zerg = term derived from the "players" that bought a game designed for "groups of 24" and realized they couldnt hang and/or decided they should be able to take on 4x the amount players and cant.

Small man: Groups of 5-8 also known as squads in FPS games, maybe more their fit........
(Not even close to what they promoted this game to be, which was massive tri-faction warfare)

This comment is based on what this game was meant to be and was promoted as* not the performance of the servers currently.

Edit: To those small man groups that "CAN" legit whoop ass, I give mad props too. Im just saying that just cause the top players, that have been playing from day one can......others shouldnt cry and/or expect to be able too.

I find it adorable that you think this game is only designed for 24 man groups. You new MMO players are just so cute *grin*

NBrookus

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Everyone relax, I just got a text from Zergbad Exterminator. Apparently Battlegrounds are coming!

Can't wait to get zerged down by large guilds queuing up 48players simultaneously teaming up 8v4 in a well though ZOS battleground. Sounds like a release from the daily Cyrodiil experience.

Yeah the 4v4v4 is really dumb, it will destroy every ounce of competitive play in battle grounds, they should really be 4v4.

I think the 3-way will be interesting and keep it fresher longer, because it adds an element of chaos.

Since teams are faction agnostic, guilds trying to queue all at once will likely end up fighting each other rather than getting a chance to double team someone.

heystreethawk

Xsorus wrote: »

DODHitman wrote: »

Zerg = term derived from the "players" that bought a game designed for "groups of 24" and realized they couldnt hang and/or decided they should be able to take on 4x the amount players and cant.

Small man: Groups of 5-8 also known as squads in FPS games, maybe more their fit........
(Not even close to what they promoted this game to be, which was massive tri-faction warfare)

This comment is based on what this game was meant to be and was promoted as* not the performance of the servers currently.

Edit: To those small man groups that "CAN" legit whoop ass, I give mad props too. Im just saying that just cause the top players, that have been playing from day one can......others shouldnt cry and/or expect to be able too.

I find it adorable that you think this game is only designed for 24 man groups. You new MMO players are just so cute *grin*

Nothing he said suggested that, though. If a game is designed for 24, it doesn't mean it's designed only for 24, and his post supports that. However, I agree with the following: daoc.