What do you count as a zerg?

Ghost-Shot

heystreethawk wrote: »

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.

That was so daoc of you to say, @GRxKnight would probably agree that it was very daoc.

Domander

I don't think a specific number is what defines a zerg, it's overwhelming numbers of weak opponents.

Sanct16

I never understood why people are calling organised 12 man groups "zergs". A zerg is a large group of weak players that aim to overwhelm you with numbers.

Rickter

we all know a zerg is 24+

anything less is just a group bigger than you that you cant handle so you dismissively LABEL it as a zerg to protect your ego by writing the death off as "being zerged"

its just a snobby elitist term nowadays. "you zergling" <

---

snob.

NightbladeMechanics

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.

I honestly hope this happens sometimes. Might make the fights against those guilds closer.

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 disagree. Having the third threat will keep the fights diverse. 4v4s will inevitably devolve into the same dynamic as a duel: each side posturing in an open field until they can one shot someone on the other side because neither will follow the other into any terrain. The third group will create mobility and circling, able to pounce in on weak positioning by another group in retreat or pursuit. It's honestly a genius way to make battlegrounds more closely mimic open world dynamics than dueling dynamics.

apostate9

Satiar

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

Sandman929

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

I don't know about other platforms, but on Xbox it doesn't seem like many guilds are interested in playing the map. Many are only interested in their own AP.

Xsorus

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

the problem is some people see single groups as 24 people......others don't...we see it as a stacked Raid.

Even 12 people i've been iffy about...But figured since it was the number for Trial Groups that I would be somewhat ok with it.

Anything past that though and you're just zerging for the sake of zerging.

I should also clarify, There is zero wrong with zerging in this game..if you want to run in a 24 guild group zerg I don't see a problem with that...

i dislike the mechanics of it (ZergBalling) but the actual Zerg itself is fine by me

Satiar

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

the problem is some people see single groups as 24 people......others don't...we see it as a stacked Raid.

Even 12 people i've been iffy about...But figured since it was the number for Trial Groups that I would be somewhat ok with it.

Anything past that though and you're just zerging for the sake of zerging.

I should also clarify, There is zero wrong with zerging in this game..if you want to run in a 24 guild group zerg I don't see a problem with that...

i dislike the mechanics of it (ZergBalling) but the actual Zerg itself is fine by me

Two problems with that:

1. PvE as a standard for acceptable PvP raid size? Nay sir, I find that an unworthy benchmark.
2. 12 is objectively not enough to push the map vs stuff competition. While that bleeds into my first post about map play in general, there's just limits to what you can accomplish with 12 people. I can fight any group in the game and hold my own with a good 12, but I can't push heavily defended objectives. In our heyday we could straight up 24vsFaction, and win or lose pull up to any keep on the map with the ability to take it or put extreme pressure on it.

So what is a raid for? Is it for fighting other raids the same size? Zergbusting? Taking empty keeps, taking defended keeps? If the "nonzerg" group size is only meant for GvG fights of the same size or bombing larger groups out of context with the map, then your definition has flaws.

Minno

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

the problem is some people see single groups as 24 people......others don't...we see it as a stacked Raid.

Even 12 people i've been iffy about...But figured since it was the number for Trial Groups that I would be somewhat ok with it.

Anything past that though and you're just zerging for the sake of zerging.

I should also clarify, There is zero wrong with zerging in this game..if you want to run in a 24 guild group zerg I don't see a problem with that...

i dislike the mechanics of it (ZergBalling) but the actual Zerg itself is fine by me

Two problems with that:

1. PvE as a standard for acceptable PvP raid size? Nay sir, I find that an unworthy benchmark.
2. 12 is objectively not enough to push the map vs stuff competition. While that bleeds into my first post about map play in general, there's just limits to what you can accomplish with 12 people. I can fight any group in the game and hold my own with a good 12, but I can't push heavily defended objectives. In our heyday we could straight up 24vsFaction, and win or lose pull up to any keep on the map with the ability to take it or put extreme pressure on it.

So what is a raid for? Is it for fighting other raids the same size? Zergbusting? Taking empty keeps, taking defended keeps? If the "nonzerg" group size is only meant for GvG fights of the same size or bombing larger groups out of context with the map, then your definition has flaws.

This is why nCP is arguably the best for pvp. You can have a 24+ zerg hitting each other, but the 12man group has a chance to do some damage. The group limit discussion is partially thrown out the window due to the increased chance to die.

Though you can start to limit the group's based on healing/calculations. But in nCP it's easier to not rage due to the group sizes, at least personally.

IcyDeadPeople

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.

When we have done these kinds of tournaments in the past, the three way battles were always the most fun IMO.

Satiar

Minno wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

the problem is some people see single groups as 24 people......others don't...we see it as a stacked Raid.

Even 12 people i've been iffy about...But figured since it was the number for Trial Groups that I would be somewhat ok with it.

Anything past that though and you're just zerging for the sake of zerging.

I should also clarify, There is zero wrong with zerging in this game..if you want to run in a 24 guild group zerg I don't see a problem with that...

i dislike the mechanics of it (ZergBalling) but the actual Zerg itself is fine by me

Two problems with that:

1. PvE as a standard for acceptable PvP raid size? Nay sir, I find that an unworthy benchmark.
2. 12 is objectively not enough to push the map vs stuff competition. While that bleeds into my first post about map play in general, there's just limits to what you can accomplish with 12 people. I can fight any group in the game and hold my own with a good 12, but I can't push heavily defended objectives. In our heyday we could straight up 24vsFaction, and win or lose pull up to any keep on the map with the ability to take it or put extreme pressure on it.

So what is a raid for? Is it for fighting other raids the same size? Zergbusting? Taking empty keeps, taking defended keeps? If the "nonzerg" group size is only meant for GvG fights of the same size or bombing larger groups out of context with the map, then your definition has flaws.

This is why nCP is arguably the best for pvp. You can have a 24+ zerg hitting each other, but the 12man group has a chance to do some damage. The group limit discussion is partially thrown out the window due to the increased chance to die.

Though you can start to limit the group's based on healing/calculations. But in nCP it's easier to not rage due to the group sizes, at least personally.

I completely agree that no-CP is better for group play, but it also encourages zerging keeps because you NEED more. For example, most of VE played before CP so we were well prepared for the week. We had builds ready and it felt very, very good vs our regular competition. However, due to the lowered health pools and resistances sieges became almost impossible vs organized resistance. Oil and siege was insane. It made stacking up MORE needed.

To me, the group PvP in this game is totally screwed up. What is considered Respectable Raid Comp is ineffective when it comes to actually playing the map, but actually playing the map in an AvAvA format is disincentived by ZoS in many ways. Stacking is abhorred but sustain is continually reduced in favour of burst, meaning fewer and fewer groups feel confident enough to go out beyond front lines and create their own prolonged engagements. I'd go on but I think I'm going off topic now

Minno

Satiar wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

the problem is some people see single groups as 24 people......others don't...we see it as a stacked Raid.

Even 12 people i've been iffy about...But figured since it was the number for Trial Groups that I would be somewhat ok with it.

Anything past that though and you're just zerging for the sake of zerging.

I should also clarify, There is zero wrong with zerging in this game..if you want to run in a 24 guild group zerg I don't see a problem with that...

i dislike the mechanics of it (ZergBalling) but the actual Zerg itself is fine by me

Two problems with that:

1. PvE as a standard for acceptable PvP raid size? Nay sir, I find that an unworthy benchmark.
2. 12 is objectively not enough to push the map vs stuff competition. While that bleeds into my first post about map play in general, there's just limits to what you can accomplish with 12 people. I can fight any group in the game and hold my own with a good 12, but I can't push heavily defended objectives. In our heyday we could straight up 24vsFaction, and win or lose pull up to any keep on the map with the ability to take it or put extreme pressure on it.

So what is a raid for? Is it for fighting other raids the same size? Zergbusting? Taking empty keeps, taking defended keeps? If the "nonzerg" group size is only meant for GvG fights of the same size or bombing larger groups out of context with the map, then your definition has flaws.

This is why nCP is arguably the best for pvp. You can have a 24+ zerg hitting each other, but the 12man group has a chance to do some damage. The group limit discussion is partially thrown out the window due to the increased chance to die.

Though you can start to limit the group's based on healing/calculations. But in nCP it's easier to not rage due to the group sizes, at least personally.

I completely agree that no-CP is better for group play, but it also encourages zerging keeps because you NEED more. For example, most of VE played before CP so we were well prepared for the week. We had builds ready and it felt very, very good vs our regular competition. However, due to the lowered health pools and resistances sieges became almost impossible vs organized resistance. Oil and siege was insane. It made stacking up MORE needed.

To me, the group PvP in this game is totally screwed up. What is considered Respectable Raid Comp is ineffective when it comes to actually playing the map, but actually playing the map in an AvAvA format is disincentived by ZoS in many ways. Stacking is abhorred but sustain is continually reduced in favour of burst, meaning fewer and fewer groups feel confident enough to go out beyond front lines and create their own prolonged engagements. I'd go on but I think I'm going off topic now

I wouldn't say that just yet. Battlegrounds might prove interesting for the gvgvg competing atmosphere.

In nCP, the keeps were tough and usually terrible unless you had the individuals that could hit other targets to help pull the front lines apart. But I haven't played group in nCP before, only solo, pug side so, and 2-4 man situations.

To me nCP represents Frontline vs frontline warfare. The flanking is just as important as face tanking the main zergs. That could be exciting for group play; one team is set for healing/tanking, and you can have a group that's more moble and dmg. While one engages the main line, the second group is either behind with long range attacks or ready to rush in for a quick ulti drop and back out to recharge Ults.

Xsorus

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

the problem is some people see single groups as 24 people......others don't...we see it as a stacked Raid.

Even 12 people i've been iffy about...But figured since it was the number for Trial Groups that I would be somewhat ok with it.

Anything past that though and you're just zerging for the sake of zerging.

I should also clarify, There is zero wrong with zerging in this game..if you want to run in a 24 guild group zerg I don't see a problem with that...

i dislike the mechanics of it (ZergBalling) but the actual Zerg itself is fine by me

Two problems with that:

1. PvE as a standard for acceptable PvP raid size? Nay sir, I find that an unworthy benchmark.
2. 12 is objectively not enough to push the map vs stuff competition. While that bleeds into my first post about map play in general, there's just limits to what you can accomplish with 12 people. I can fight any group in the game and hold my own with a good 12, but I can't push heavily defended objectives. In our heyday we could straight up 24vsFaction, and win or lose pull up to any keep on the map with the ability to take it or put extreme pressure on it.

So what is a raid for? Is it for fighting other raids the same size? Zergbusting? Taking empty keeps, taking defended keeps? If the "nonzerg" group size is only meant for GvG fights of the same size or bombing larger groups out of context with the map, then your definition has flaws.

You're arguing for different things basically.

When we ran 8 people in DAOC for example..we didn't attack heavily defended objectives like a Keep, Because that would be *drum roll* Dumb....

We hit targets moving between Objectives, but openly attacking a heavy objective just wasn't very bright. Now who did attack that objective? Zergs...usually people not running in guild groups...they would attack the objectives and then 8 mans would roam around outside the area intercepting any other Zergs approaching (depending on your 8man setup) and other 8mans who might hit your zerg.

Now if your guild goal is basically keep taking then again..I have zero problem with that....You've decided that's what you want to do, But you are infact running in a zerg basically to do that..and there is zero wrong with it.

Now I personally wouldn't do it; Because I feel running in a 24 man guild group fighting pug zergs is silly...But I don't think it shouldn't be allowed or they should kill that sort of game play.

I don't like zergballing mechanics though, and I think that *** needs to go..But zergs themselves, even 24 man guild ones..are perfectly fine.

Satiar

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

the problem is some people see single groups as 24 people......others don't...we see it as a stacked Raid.

Even 12 people i've been iffy about...But figured since it was the number for Trial Groups that I would be somewhat ok with it.

Anything past that though and you're just zerging for the sake of zerging.

I should also clarify, There is zero wrong with zerging in this game..if you want to run in a 24 guild group zerg I don't see a problem with that...

i dislike the mechanics of it (ZergBalling) but the actual Zerg itself is fine by me

Two problems with that:

1. PvE as a standard for acceptable PvP raid size? Nay sir, I find that an unworthy benchmark.
2. 12 is objectively not enough to push the map vs stuff competition. While that bleeds into my first post about map play in general, there's just limits to what you can accomplish with 12 people. I can fight any group in the game and hold my own with a good 12, but I can't push heavily defended objectives. In our heyday we could straight up 24vsFaction, and win or lose pull up to any keep on the map with the ability to take it or put extreme pressure on it.

So what is a raid for? Is it for fighting other raids the same size? Zergbusting? Taking empty keeps, taking defended keeps? If the "nonzerg" group size is only meant for GvG fights of the same size or bombing larger groups out of context with the map, then your definition has flaws.

You're arguing for different things basically.

When we ran 8 people in DAOC for example..we didn't attack heavily defended objectives like a Keep, Because that would be *drum roll* Dumb....

We hit targets moving between Objectives, but openly attacking a heavy objective just wasn't very bright. Now who did attack that objective? Zergs...usually people not running in guild groups...they would attack the objectives and then 8 mans would roam around outside the area intercepting any other Zergs approaching (depending on your 8man setup) and other 8mans who might hit your zerg.

Now if your guild goal is basically keep taking then again..I have zero problem with that....You've decided that's what you want to do, But you are infact running in a zerg basically to do that..and there is zero wrong with it.

Now I personally wouldn't do it; Because I feel running in a 24 man guild group fighting pug zergs is silly...But I don't think it shouldn't be allowed or they should kill that sort of game play.

I don't like zergballing mechanics though, and I think that *** needs to go..But zergs themselves, even 24 man guild ones..are perfectly fine.

As I said, if a group of proper size to engage map objectives in an AvAvA is a Zerg to you, than your definition of Zerg is faulty or means something totally different than it means to everyone else.

If your definition is based off pure size alone, it seems overly arbitrary.

If your definition is based off size relative to content then it doesn't make sense that the proper size group for map objectives is classified a Zerg (in the same way that your 8-man was proper size for your chosen content).

If an 8-man isn't a Zerg for 8-man content why is 20 people a Zerg for 20-man content?

At this point it simply seems to be elitism on your part. "Pros play 8-man, zergs take keeps."

HoloYoitsu

@Xsorus
It should be a pretty simple concept.

UrbanDictionary wrote:

Zerg

• Zerg is used in mmo games to describe force consisted of large group of lower level players (often with only basic equipment) who use numbers rather then strategy to defeat the enemy, therefore requiring no skill. This tactics is commonly known as zerging.
• To assure ones victory using overwhelming numbers.
• To greatly outnumber the enemy, and swarm them.
• To trivialize en encounter using mass numbers of allies rather than skill.

Rohamad_Ali

5

NightbladeMechanics

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

The problem is not that you don't have a competitive campaign. That would imply that campaign rulesets aren't designed to be competitive.

The problem is that the rewards for winning a campaign are not sufficiently motivating to make the guilds mobilize and fight like rabid dogs over them anymore.

People don't fail to compete now because they can't compete. You've competed before. People fail to compete now because they choose not to.

If ZOS made it so that the top 5% of the leaderboard of the winning faction cashed out gold equal to the AP they earned during that campaign cycle and got a sick fire dragon mount wearing their faction's flag which they could ride only for the next campaign cycle, you can bet TF would be competitive.

Xsorus

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

the problem is some people see single groups as 24 people......others don't...we see it as a stacked Raid.

Even 12 people i've been iffy about...But figured since it was the number for Trial Groups that I would be somewhat ok with it.

Anything past that though and you're just zerging for the sake of zerging.

I should also clarify, There is zero wrong with zerging in this game..if you want to run in a 24 guild group zerg I don't see a problem with that...

i dislike the mechanics of it (ZergBalling) but the actual Zerg itself is fine by me

Two problems with that:

1. PvE as a standard for acceptable PvP raid size? Nay sir, I find that an unworthy benchmark.
2. 12 is objectively not enough to push the map vs stuff competition. While that bleeds into my first post about map play in general, there's just limits to what you can accomplish with 12 people. I can fight any group in the game and hold my own with a good 12, but I can't push heavily defended objectives. In our heyday we could straight up 24vsFaction, and win or lose pull up to any keep on the map with the ability to take it or put extreme pressure on it.

So what is a raid for? Is it for fighting other raids the same size? Zergbusting? Taking empty keeps, taking defended keeps? If the "nonzerg" group size is only meant for GvG fights of the same size or bombing larger groups out of context with the map, then your definition has flaws.

You're arguing for different things basically.

When we ran 8 people in DAOC for example..we didn't attack heavily defended objectives like a Keep, Because that would be *drum roll* Dumb....

We hit targets moving between Objectives, but openly attacking a heavy objective just wasn't very bright. Now who did attack that objective? Zergs...usually people not running in guild groups...they would attack the objectives and then 8 mans would roam around outside the area intercepting any other Zergs approaching (depending on your 8man setup) and other 8mans who might hit your zerg.

Now if your guild goal is basically keep taking then again..I have zero problem with that....You've decided that's what you want to do, But you are infact running in a zerg basically to do that..and there is zero wrong with it.

Now I personally wouldn't do it; Because I feel running in a 24 man guild group fighting pug zergs is silly...But I don't think it shouldn't be allowed or they should kill that sort of game play.

I don't like zergballing mechanics though, and I think that *** needs to go..But zergs themselves, even 24 man guild ones..are perfectly fine.

As I said, if a group of proper size to engage map objectives in an AvAvA is a Zerg to you, than your definition of Zerg is faulty or means something totally different than it means to everyone else.

If your definition is based off pure size alone, it seems overly arbitrary.

If your definition is based off size relative to content then it doesn't make sense that the proper size group for map objectives is classified a Zerg (in the same way that your 8-man was proper size for your chosen content).

If an 8-man isn't a Zerg for 8-man content why is 20 people a Zerg for 20-man content?

At this point it simply seems to be elitism on your part. "Pros play 8-man, zergs take keeps."

You're considered a Zerg guild because what you're fighting most of the time isn't another Zerg guild but a bunch of pug players. You're using the sheer size of your group to have an advantage over those said players. You may have even equal numbers but you're playing in an actual group put together to work together. So for everyone of you you're worth more the actual pug player there.

Is there anything wrong with that? Nope.. should you be insulted if you're called a Zerg guild? Nope.. we had them in DAOC and they usually played for objectives.

Now if we had an active 8 man scene in this game and you rolled around with 24man hitting those groups I'd have a problem with that.. but we don't.. it never formed for what ever reason in this game and the 12 man scene morphed into 24 it seems...

Either way you seem to be upset you're referred to a Zerg when running 24; we both know that what you're fighting doesn't require 24 most of the time and you vastly out number random pugs you run across when running it. When you're moving in a solid stack of 24 and running into pug groups of like 4 and 6 at a time in a keep even with 60 plus there you're basically just relying on numbers at that point....

HoloYoitsu

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

The problem is not that you don't have a competitive campaign. That would imply that campaign rulesets aren't designed to be competitive.

The problem is that the rewards for winning a campaign are not sufficiently motivating to make the guilds mobilize and fight like rabid dogs over them anymore.

People don't fail to compete now because they can't compete. You've competed before. People fail to compete now because they choose not to.

If ZOS made it so that the top 5% of the leaderboard of the winning faction cashed out gold equal to the AP they earned during that campaign cycle and got a sick fire dragon mount wearing their faction's flag which they could ride only for the next campaign cycle, you can bet TF would be competitive.

Um uh uhh, nahhhhhhh.

End campaign rewards aren't the reason for lack of competition. The end campaign rewards have been crap since launch, but for the first 1.5 years of the game we still had competitive campaigns; competitive defined as multiple active guilds on each side focused on pushing map objectives day in day out. Of course there were still ones that were significantly concerned with farming (IR), but that was the minority in the organized guild scene.

Adding super cool shinies to campaign rewards isn't going to encourage competitive map objective play, it's just going to encourage everyone to farm the hell out of AP because farming AP nets more than playing objectives.

The reason competitive play is in the trash now (both small scale and raid level) is because Wrobel has systematically scrapped the tools and mechanics that supported it for his vision of, and I quote, "greater numbers should basically always win".

You smallman, so you should be acutely aware of the changes:

• Removed dynamic ult
• Sustain trivialized through CP system
• Rapids nerf
• Streak penalty
• Dodge roll penalty
• Removed stam regen on block
• Introduction of destro ult
• Increased siege dmg
• Mag drain on lightning balista
• Poisons
• Gap close auto snare
• Proctato sets
• Prox nerf
• LOS on BoL and Healing Ward
• Switching major expidition & sprint speed

Ask yourself, who do these changes benifit, groups of skilled players trying to fight against the odds, or the unorganized faction stack rolling from keep to keep zergging everything down?

Rickter

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

If ZOS made it so that the top 5% of the leaderboard of the winning faction cashed out gold equal to the AP they earned during that campaign cycle and got a sick fire dragon mount wearing their faction's flag which they could ride only for the next campaign cycle, you can bet TF would be competitive.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom PLEASE!

BRogueNZ

a 'leader'less bunch of 10 or more mongrel pugsters

Satiar

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

the problem is some people see single groups as 24 people......others don't...we see it as a stacked Raid.

Even 12 people i've been iffy about...But figured since it was the number for Trial Groups that I would be somewhat ok with it.

Anything past that though and you're just zerging for the sake of zerging.

I should also clarify, There is zero wrong with zerging in this game..if you want to run in a 24 guild group zerg I don't see a problem with that...

i dislike the mechanics of it (ZergBalling) but the actual Zerg itself is fine by me

Two problems with that:

1. PvE as a standard for acceptable PvP raid size? Nay sir, I find that an unworthy benchmark.
2. 12 is objectively not enough to push the map vs stuff competition. While that bleeds into my first post about map play in general, there's just limits to what you can accomplish with 12 people. I can fight any group in the game and hold my own with a good 12, but I can't push heavily defended objectives. In our heyday we could straight up 24vsFaction, and win or lose pull up to any keep on the map with the ability to take it or put extreme pressure on it.

So what is a raid for? Is it for fighting other raids the same size? Zergbusting? Taking empty keeps, taking defended keeps? If the "nonzerg" group size is only meant for GvG fights of the same size or bombing larger groups out of context with the map, then your definition has flaws.

You're arguing for different things basically.

When we ran 8 people in DAOC for example..we didn't attack heavily defended objectives like a Keep, Because that would be *drum roll* Dumb....

We hit targets moving between Objectives, but openly attacking a heavy objective just wasn't very bright. Now who did attack that objective? Zergs...usually people not running in guild groups...they would attack the objectives and then 8 mans would roam around outside the area intercepting any other Zergs approaching (depending on your 8man setup) and other 8mans who might hit your zerg.

Now if your guild goal is basically keep taking then again..I have zero problem with that....You've decided that's what you want to do, But you are infact running in a zerg basically to do that..and there is zero wrong with it.

Now I personally wouldn't do it; Because I feel running in a 24 man guild group fighting pug zergs is silly...But I don't think it shouldn't be allowed or they should kill that sort of game play.

I don't like zergballing mechanics though, and I think that *** needs to go..But zergs themselves, even 24 man guild ones..are perfectly fine.

As I said, if a group of proper size to engage map objectives in an AvAvA is a Zerg to you, than your definition of Zerg is faulty or means something totally different than it means to everyone else.

If your definition is based off pure size alone, it seems overly arbitrary.

If your definition is based off size relative to content then it doesn't make sense that the proper size group for map objectives is classified a Zerg (in the same way that your 8-man was proper size for your chosen content).

If an 8-man isn't a Zerg for 8-man content why is 20 people a Zerg for 20-man content?

At this point it simply seems to be elitism on your part. "Pros play 8-man, zergs take keeps."

You're considered a Zerg guild because what you're fighting most of the time isn't another Zerg guild but a bunch of pug players. You're using the sheer size of your group to have an advantage over those said players. You may have even equal numbers but you're playing in an actual group put together to work together. So for everyone of you you're worth more the actual pug player there.

Is there anything wrong with that? Nope.. should you be insulted if you're called a Zerg guild? Nope.. we had them in DAOC and they usually played for objectives.

Now if we had an active 8 man scene in this game and you rolled around with 24man hitting those groups I'd have a problem with that.. but we don't.. it never formed for what ever reason in this game and the 12 man scene morphed into 24 it seems...

Either way you seem to be upset you're referred to a Zerg when running 24; we both know that what you're fighting doesn't require 24 most of the time and you vastly out number random pugs you run across when running it. When you're moving in a solid stack of 24 and running into pug groups of like 4 and 6 at a time in a keep even with 60 plus there you're basically just relying on numbers at that point....

For someone who doesn't play groups you certainly have confidence talking about how they work.

You say a raid isn't needed to take heavily defended targets, I absolutely disagree. I don't know if there's some PvP gods on EU I don't know about, but I have never seen a group of 12 walk up to a heavily defended keep and crack it open vs 60 people. Because keep fights like that are not, as you imagine, fighting 4-6 at a time. It's fighting at least double your number under enemy siege where they have access to easy respawn.

What I'm hearing from you over and over is that any group large enough to actually play AvAvA objectives is a Zerg, and that's a dumb definition. The goal of a raid is to be a self sufficient unit on the map that can separate from the faction horde and pressure any keep or objective with credible force. That doesn't fit any definition of Zerg I know, except this strange one you have where any group capable of doing more than bombing is a Zerg.

If 12 mans had a history of pushing objectives and brute forcing keeps then I'd have to relent. But they don't, because for the large part game mechanics won't allow them to. They can farm, fight bigger groups, back cap, sneak back keeps.... but that's it. At a certain point math kicks in and you're staring at 2 raids of red on a roof, wondering how on earth you're supposed to win that fight.

Crystelle

Anything past 16 is zerging imo

LadyLavina

I don't usually start referring to a group as a "zerg" until it's a full 24 person raid. People over use the term so much. (I was with a group of 5 that killed some people and we got yelled at for "zerging")

frozywozy

Crystelle wrote: »

Anything past 16 is zerging imo

Make sure to specify that it's not related to a specific number in particular but an ideal, otherwise you will get the whole VE crew shouting about how running 16 is not any better than 17.

DODHitman

frozywozy wrote: »

Crystelle wrote: »

Anything past 16 is zerging imo

Make sure to specify that it's not related to a specific number in particular but an ideal, otherwise you will get the whole VE crew shouting about how running 16 is not any better than 17.

Coming from a person that loves to use the term "zerg" and by their own* definition runs in one......

@Satiar These forum warriors have a lot too say here, but we both know that what they say and what they do are two totally different things in cyro. Your honestly wasting your breath.... unfortunately.

Joy_Division

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

The progressively looser and looser definition of Zerg in this game is a strange thing. The PvP aspect of the game went from a classic guild-focused AvAvA experience to an environment where most remaining guilds are seen as part of a problem then as part of a functioning PvP ecosystem. Zerg went from a term you used for stacked raids to the single groups that would fight those stacked raids.

The thing I blame is the lack of competitive campaigns. Without a campaign to fight for guilds go from a necessary and welcome force on the map to what are essentially farm groups. While I could be wrong, I still place the time this really picked up to be after the breaking of Thorneblade

the problem is some people see single groups as 24 people......others don't...we see it as a stacked Raid.

Even 12 people i've been iffy about...But figured since it was the number for Trial Groups that I would be somewhat ok with it.

Anything past that though and you're just zerging for the sake of zerging.

I should also clarify, There is zero wrong with zerging in this game..if you want to run in a 24 guild group zerg I don't see a problem with that...

i dislike the mechanics of it (ZergBalling) but the actual Zerg itself is fine by me

Two problems with that:

1. PvE as a standard for acceptable PvP raid size? Nay sir, I find that an unworthy benchmark.
2. 12 is objectively not enough to push the map vs stuff competition. While that bleeds into my first post about map play in general, there's just limits to what you can accomplish with 12 people. I can fight any group in the game and hold my own with a good 12, but I can't push heavily defended objectives. In our heyday we could straight up 24vsFaction, and win or lose pull up to any keep on the map with the ability to take it or put extreme pressure on it.

So what is a raid for? Is it for fighting other raids the same size? Zergbusting? Taking empty keeps, taking defended keeps? If the "nonzerg" group size is only meant for GvG fights of the same size or bombing larger groups out of context with the map, then your definition has flaws.

You're arguing for different things basically.

When we ran 8 people in DAOC for example..we didn't attack heavily defended objectives like a Keep, Because that would be *drum roll* Dumb....

We hit targets moving between Objectives, but openly attacking a heavy objective just wasn't very bright. Now who did attack that objective? Zergs...usually people not running in guild groups...they would attack the objectives and then 8 mans would roam around outside the area intercepting any other Zergs approaching (depending on your 8man setup) and other 8mans who might hit your zerg.

Now if your guild goal is basically keep taking then again..I have zero problem with that....You've decided that's what you want to do, But you are infact running in a zerg basically to do that..and there is zero wrong with it.

Now I personally wouldn't do it; Because I feel running in a 24 man guild group fighting pug zergs is silly...But I don't think it shouldn't be allowed or they should kill that sort of game play.

I don't like zergballing mechanics though, and I think that *** needs to go..But zergs themselves, even 24 man guild ones..are perfectly fine.

As I said, if a group of proper size to engage map objectives in an AvAvA is a Zerg to you, than your definition of Zerg is faulty or means something totally different than it means to everyone else.

If your definition is based off pure size alone, it seems overly arbitrary.

If your definition is based off size relative to content then it doesn't make sense that the proper size group for map objectives is classified a Zerg (in the same way that your 8-man was proper size for your chosen content).

If an 8-man isn't a Zerg for 8-man content why is 20 people a Zerg for 20-man content?

At this point it simply seems to be elitism on your part. "Pros play 8-man, zergs take keeps."

You're considered a Zerg guild because what you're fighting most of the time isn't another Zerg guild but a bunch of pug players. You're using the sheer size of your group to have an advantage over those said players. You may have even equal numbers but you're playing in an actual group put together to work together. So for everyone of you you're worth more the actual pug player there.

Is there anything wrong with that? Nope.. should you be insulted if you're called a Zerg guild? Nope.. we had them in DAOC and they usually played for objectives.

Now if we had an active 8 man scene in this game and you rolled around with 24man hitting those groups I'd have a problem with that.. but we don't.. it never formed for what ever reason in this game and the 12 man scene morphed into 24 it seems...

Either way you seem to be upset you're referred to a Zerg when running 24; we both know that what you're fighting doesn't require 24 most of the time and you vastly out number random pugs you run across when running it. When you're moving in a solid stack of 24 and running into pug groups of like 4 and 6 at a time in a keep even with 60 plus there you're basically just relying on numbers at that point....

You should only write about Daoc because you don;t have a clue about what our "Zerg Guild" does a nightly basis. Not a clue. You are just parroting people who are pissed off about their ping, about getting destro-ulit bombed, about dying, about whatever pisses them off about this game (granted, there are many things), but you are clueless about what exactly a "zerg Guild" faces, how they fight, why they fight, and what they do every night.

I'm not insulted that you think it's a "Zerg Guild," I am do, however, take umbrage to your claims of omniscience and mischaracterizations of what we do, who and what we fight, how we fight, etc.

Every time we go fight Red, Pact Miltiia, Haxus, Invetius, Phoenix Rising, Brandon-South-Gas PUG raid etc., in some combination invariably comes out. Which is totally fine, because we actually want to fight them. That's why we fight Red! And when we fight the "bunch of PUG players," it's not "equal numbers."

We aren't upset you call us a "zerg," especially considering you silly definition based on the semantics of ZoS grouping system. I don't care you think I zerg. I do care that do not run with us, do not have first-hand experience what we do, have not heard what we say in teamspeak, and are just spreading nonsense about us.

Do we run over disorganized players of 4 and 5? Yes. It happens. I would rather it not happen. Just as often we ignore them because clubbing baby seals isn't worthy of the time and it's just not cool. It's not what we or any "zerg" guild seeks out to do or would even continue. We go to the EP faction stack because that's where the competition is. Yes, we understand that within the 60, they are disjointed and do not represent 60 people fighting us all at once. But to make it out that it's just two and threesin a bunch of separate fights at different points is nonsense; you are so nostalgic about Daoc you don't have a clue about what goes on in Cyrodiil. You know what happens when we go to the bridge and only meet the sort of opposition you refer to: streams of small disorganized pugs one after another? We jump into the Slaughterfish and go chase he Haxus-Pact Militia-EP faction stack at Aleswell Farm.

I get it most people who play this game hate us, and considering the rules in which ZoS has in place and idiotic mechanics I can't say I totally blame them. I play on my Red enough to fight the very guild I'm in to appreciate the "other side." But it's one thing to be frustrated at ZoS's apathy and mismanagement in letting Cyrodiil deteriorate into the mess it is now and another to outright lie about how we play, what we fight and why we fight. You wouldn't like it if I made us lies about you or what you do, so I kindly ask you don't do the same about me.

HoloYoitsu