What do you count as a zerg?

Satiar

In case anyone is wondering, this forum thread is not being zerged: it is merely lots of solo players posting next to each other.

CatchMeTrolling

^

NightbladeMechanics

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

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?

So if the rewards for winning -- pride, bragging rights, and other intangibles + tangible end of campaign rewards) no longer outweigh the effort required to win, should ZOS not add additional tanglible rewards to motivate players?

I am keenly aware of how the changes you list, plus several you forgot, impair fighting outnumbered.

But see, I recognize and accept that ZOS isn't going to reverse its changes. You gotta stay positive and propose constructive changes to promote the style of play you want. Sure, your one raid may not be able to command the map anymore like we used to in 1.6, but you could still have fun and engaging large scale play if some additional rewards fired up everyone's spark to compete agin. That's my take on the matter.

Also don't forget that I'm talking about end of campaign victory rewards. AP farming, which you mentioned, won't matter if you don't win.

HoloYoitsu

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

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?

So if the rewards for winning -- pride, bragging rights, and other intangibles + tangible end of campaign rewards) no longer outweigh the effort required to win, should ZOS not add additional tanglible rewards to motivate players?

I am keenly aware of how the changes you list, plus several you forgot, impair fighting outnumbered.

But see, I recognize and accept that ZOS isn't going to reverse its changes. You gotta stay positive and propose constructive changes to promote the style of play you want. Sure, your one raid may not be able to command the map anymore like we used to in 1.6, but you could still have fun and engaging large scale play if some additional rewards fired up everyone's spark to compete agin. That's my take on the matter.

Also don't forget that I'm talking about end of campaign victory rewards. AP farming, which you mentioned, won't matter if you don't win.

More than just end campaign rewards needs to be overhauled, even if we're limiting ourselves to not making skill balance/combat mechanic changes.

Meaningful victory rewards:

• Implement a token system giving say, an amount of victory tokens scaling w/ faction leaderboard. Losing factions get no tokens, or a significantly reduced amount.
• Add a token merchant that has meaningful, valuable rewards to exchange for: sharpened/defending VMA weps, rare motif books, cool furnishings, gold jewelry, unique costumes/polymorphs, unique personalities, mounts, ect.

The idea is that rewards for something that people are expected to work for a whole month should not be gated behind RNG, hence a token system seems preferable. You can price out higher end things that might be offered on the crown store at token values that require multiple cycles to build up enough to purchase if you want, it just needs to offer something concrete to work towards. The last thing we want is a clone of the garbage VMA RNG system.

Secondly, campaign scoring needs to be reworked if we are offering such good rewards for winning the campaign:

• Everything being worth one point is stupid, the TF victory coming down to which faction can PvE the most resources 2 min 30 sec before the score eval for hours on end epitomized how utterly trashy that system is.
• More important objectives need to be worth more, there just isn't any getting around that.
• Scoring needs to account for the duration something has been held for, not just be a snapshot of the map at the eval interval. The game already has resource/keep levels in place so make use of that system ffs! The higher level an objective, the more points it should give - and perhaps bonus points for holding something through consecutive eval periods.

Xsorus

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

You forget I'm on Daggerfall and watch what you guys do nightly. If being called a Zerg hurts your feelings call yourself a raid if you want. You are however not a group. As for telling everyone that you are going after those guild groups then I have even more of a problem with that. Everyone of those groups will not be running 24 people all the time. In fact it looks like from the multiple videos I've seen of these groups that it ranges from 12 to 24. You realize how bloody stupid that is in terms of a group vs group concept? This is why 8v8 worked so well.. because you knew who and what amount you were fighting. You guys are just stacking as many people as possible and if the other side has less then to bad.

I'm basing this all everything you just said as well.... if you were just hitting objectives I'd understand running 24 because you are a Zerg guild like myth was in DAOC.... but you've just straight up said "we go after other guild groups because we want good fights" while having a freakin spread of up 12 people as a possibility.

No wonder you guys have been asking for battlegrounds for so long.

That's not saying you're the only one doing it either. I'm sure you've ran 12 to 16 before and ran into other guilds running 24... so you must know how stupid that is...

Either way you've built yourself as a Zerg guild for objectives while trying to do group vs group with a huge spread... that's pretty *** *shrug*

NightbladeMechanics

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

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?

So if the rewards for winning -- pride, bragging rights, and other intangibles + tangible end of campaign rewards) no longer outweigh the effort required to win, should ZOS not add additional tanglible rewards to motivate players?

I am keenly aware of how the changes you list, plus several you forgot, impair fighting outnumbered.

But see, I recognize and accept that ZOS isn't going to reverse its changes. You gotta stay positive and propose constructive changes to promote the style of play you want. Sure, your one raid may not be able to command the map anymore like we used to in 1.6, but you could still have fun and engaging large scale play if some additional rewards fired up everyone's spark to compete agin. That's my take on the matter.

Also don't forget that I'm talking about end of campaign victory rewards. AP farming, which you mentioned, won't matter if you don't win.

More than just end campaign rewards needs to be overhauled, even if we're limiting ourselves to not making skill balance/combat mechanic changes.

Meaningful victory rewards:

• Implement a token system giving say, an amount of victory tokens scaling w/ faction leaderboard. Losing factions get no tokens, or a significantly reduced amount.
• Add a token merchant that has meaningful, valuable rewards to exchange for: sharpened/defending VMA weps, rare motif books, cool furnishings, gold jewelry, unique costumes/polymorphs, unique personalities, mounts, ect.

The idea is that rewards for something that people are expected to work for a whole month should not be gated behind RNG, hence a token system seems preferable. You can price out higher end things that might be offered on the crown store at token values that require multiple cycles to build up enough to purchase if you want, it just needs to offer something concrete to work towards. The last thing we want is a clone of the garbage VMA RNG system.

Secondly, campaign scoring needs to be reworked if we are offering such good rewards for winning the campaign:

• Everything being worth one point is stupid, the TF victory coming down to which faction can PvE the most resources 2 min 30 sec before the score eval for hours on end epitomized how utterly trashy that system is.
• More important objectives need to be worth more, there just isn't any getting around that.
• Scoring needs to account for the duration something has been held for, not just be a snapshot of the map at the eval interval. The game already has resource/keep levels in place so make use of that system ffs! The higher level an objective, the more points it should give - and perhaps bonus points for holding something through consecutive eval periods.

There we go. Now this is a post a dev might stop and read. These ideas have been around, but who knows, with more discussion maybe we can get something implemented. Great organization by the way.

Telel

Any groups from the Doberhuahua Cummerbund that number more than 3 people.

This is because they seem to travel in two types of units. A trio of gankers, and half of their entire pop locked faction

This one is still unsure which is more bothersome.

Satiar

Xsorus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

You forget I'm on Daggerfall and watch what you guys do nightly. If being called a Zerg hurts your feelings call yourself a raid if you want. You are however not a group. As for telling everyone that you are going after those guild groups then I have even more of a problem with that. Everyone of those groups will not be running 24 people all the time. In fact it looks like from the multiple videos I've seen of these groups that it ranges from 12 to 24. You realize how bloody stupid that is in terms of a group vs group concept? This is why 8v8 worked so well.. because you knew who and what amount you were fighting. You guys are just stacking as many people as possible and if the other side has less then to bad.

I'm basing this all everything you just said as well.... if you were just hitting objectives I'd understand running 24 because you are a Zerg guild like myth was in DAOC.... but you've just straight up said "we go after other guild groups because we want good fights" while having a freakin spread of up 12 people as a possibility.

No wonder you guys have been asking for battlegrounds for so long.

That's not saying you're the only one doing it either. I'm sure you've ran 12 to 16 before and ran into other guilds running 24... so you must know how stupid that is...

Either way you've built yourself as a Zerg guild for objectives while trying to do group vs group with a huge spread... that's pretty *** *shrug*

The bolded is called a good fight, I'm not terribly number obsessed.

technohic

Large battles is one thing. Its another when someone is set to mindlessly spam healing springs or other heals, and another to spam AOE, and another to spam roots, and another to spam Radiant Destruction, just doing one thing aimlessly.

I know thats not the precise definition of a zerg but those are zerglings then others just surf on top of it.

Ghost-Shot

technohic wrote: »

Large battles is one thing. Its another when someone is set to mindlessly spam healing springs or other heals, and another to spam AOE, and another to spam roots, and another to spam Radiant Destruction, just doing one thing aimlessly.

I know thats not the precise definition of a zerg but those are zerglings then others just surf on top of it.

Those groups are easy to kill though, like really easy.

technohic

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

Large battles is one thing. Its another when someone is set to mindlessly spam healing springs or other heals, and another to spam AOE, and another to spam roots, and another to spam Radiant Destruction, just doing one thing aimlessly.

I know thats not the precise definition of a zerg but those are zerglings then others just surf on top of it.

Those groups are easy to kill though, like really easy.

Sure. A lot of times though; you are fighting someone else then they just come crashing in from the other side.

Joy_Division

Xsorus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

You forget I'm on Daggerfall and watch what you guys do nightly. If being called a Zerg hurts your feelings call yourself a raid if you want. You are however not a group. As for telling everyone that you are going after those guild groups then I have even more of a problem with that. Everyone of those groups will not be running 24 people all the time. In fact it looks like from the multiple videos I've seen of these groups that it ranges from 12 to 24. You realize how bloody stupid that is in terms of a group vs group concept? This is why 8v8 worked so well.. because you knew who and what amount you were fighting. You guys are just stacking as many people as possible and if the other side has less then to bad.

I'm basing this all everything you just said as well.... if you were just hitting objectives I'd understand running 24 because you are a Zerg guild like myth was in DAOC.... but you've just straight up said "we go after other guild groups because we want good fights" while having a freakin spread of up 12 people as a possibility.

No wonder you guys have been asking for battlegrounds for so long.

That's not saying you're the only one doing it either. I'm sure you've ran 12 to 16 before and ran into other guilds running 24... so you must know how stupid that is...

Either way you've built yourself as a Zerg guild for objectives while trying to do group vs group with a huge spread... that's pretty *** *shrug*

Can you read? I DON'T CARE IF YOU CALL US A ZERG GUILD. Doesn't hurt my feelings. Especially coming from Mr DAOC is so awesome OMG 8 man!

Yes, we dont just capture castles and objectives. It gets boring. So sometimes when we hear another guild is somewhere, we seek out a fight. Sometime we go to an objective and seek a fight with another guild at the same time. Sometimes we throw ourselves at a horde of 60 just to see what happens. You know sometimes that 12 group has 30 Pugs which creates an interesting dynamic. That's why I like open world. Variety. Never the same fight twice. I don't care if you think this didn't happen in DAOC. Guess what, we aren't playing DAOC. And even if we were, I wouldn't care how you think DAOC should be played. I wouldn't allow you preferences to dictate how I play.

No s*** sometimes we fight groups that have less than us. What the hell do you expect us to do? Stop what we are doing, count all the enemies in an area, look closely at their guild tabbards and walk away if the other group that has less numbers than we do? Again, as long as it's not clubbing baby seals (in which case we'll usually ignore them), the expectation is there's going to be a fight.

You can stop speaking for me or my guild anytime. You have zero clue how we react when we are fighting guilds and group larger than what we have. Yes, it does happen to us, we get hit by full raids when we running with 12 or 13. And it's fine. It's part of them game. I personally enjoy when the other group has larger numbers. Don't think it's bloody stupid. It happens. We do our best. When we win it's really satisfying. When we lose, I don't whine about it, spread lies about the other guilds, and lament ESO never approached the genius of DaoC 8 man perfect pvp mechanics.

You don't like that we have a zerg guild and play objectives and seek out group fights while doing so? Too damn bad. I don't care if you think its "***" You are entitled to your opinion. Good. That means I dont have to worry about you joining us anytime soon, getting in our teamspeak, and mentioning DAOC every 30 seconds. But when you claim to be a know-it-all and mischaracterization us, that's something else. I'm going to call you out when you go beyond calling us names or your opinion and make dead wrong assertions about us.

mtwiggz

Zerg pre-1.6 = 48+ players
Zerg 1.6-2.0 = 24+ players
Zerg 2.0-current = any encounter that's more than your numbers.

Realistically, probably 24-48+ would be a good determination. Yet most players these days call anything bigger than a duo a zerg.

Derra

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

I think both of you have never played with a good grouplead.

BooskySG

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

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.

Nah, IR, Crys specifically, was concerned with acquiescing to my whinging about objectives. If IR was significantly concerned with farming and not objectives, Crys would've been GO at least a month to 2 months earlier than he was

frozywozy

BooskySG wrote: »

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

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.

Nah, IR, Crys specifically, was concerned with acquiescing to my whinging about objectives. If IR was significantly concerned with farming and not objectives, Crys would've been GO at least a month to 2 months earlier than he was

Yeah I though the same when I read that comment. I was like, what is he even talking about? IR did alot of openfield but we did more than our part defending and sieging keeps.

ZOS_JohanaB

A couple of comments have been removed from this thread for excessively baited comments. Please remember to be civil and follow the community rules in the future.

Sandman929

Derra wrote: »

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

I think both of you have never played with a good grouplead.

No, it's more like both of us have played with far too many ego-filled "master 1vXers" and habitual backseat-crowns who can't or won't follow the simplest instructions of good groupleads.

Rickter

NBrookus wrote: »

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.

i dont agree. If you are running a large group and you are about to take a keep, and you decide to take a resource and siege from that side, why should that be discouraged? you gain the continuous attack buff and the resource flips faster so you can get to your siege faster.

and your real life comparison. . . have you heard of Blitzkrieg? its an aggressive offensive strategy developed by the *** German Military to "blitz(lightning)" the enemy down so they cant recover and defend.

zerg all day!! errr. . . . i mean blitz!

Xsorus

Joy_Division wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

You forget I'm on Daggerfall and watch what you guys do nightly. If being called a Zerg hurts your feelings call yourself a raid if you want. You are however not a group. As for telling everyone that you are going after those guild groups then I have even more of a problem with that. Everyone of those groups will not be running 24 people all the time. In fact it looks like from the multiple videos I've seen of these groups that it ranges from 12 to 24. You realize how bloody stupid that is in terms of a group vs group concept? This is why 8v8 worked so well.. because you knew who and what amount you were fighting. You guys are just stacking as many people as possible and if the other side has less then to bad.

I'm basing this all everything you just said as well.... if you were just hitting objectives I'd understand running 24 because you are a Zerg guild like myth was in DAOC.... but you've just straight up said "we go after other guild groups because we want good fights" while having a freakin spread of up 12 people as a possibility.

No wonder you guys have been asking for battlegrounds for so long.

That's not saying you're the only one doing it either. I'm sure you've ran 12 to 16 before and ran into other guilds running 24... so you must know how stupid that is...

Either way you've built yourself as a Zerg guild for objectives while trying to do group vs group with a huge spread... that's pretty *** *shrug*

Can you read? I DON'T CARE IF YOU CALL US A ZERG GUILD. Doesn't hurt my feelings. Especially coming from Mr DAOC is so awesome OMG 8 man!

Yes, we dont just capture castles and objectives. It gets boring. So sometimes when we hear another guild is somewhere, we seek out a fight. Sometime we go to an objective and seek a fight with another guild at the same time. Sometimes we throw ourselves at a horde of 60 just to see what happens. You know sometimes that 12 group has 30 Pugs which creates an interesting dynamic. That's why I like open world. Variety. Never the same fight twice. I don't care if you think this didn't happen in DAOC. Guess what, we aren't playing DAOC. And even if we were, I wouldn't care how you think DAOC should be played. I wouldn't allow you preferences to dictate how I play.

No s*** sometimes we fight groups that have less than us. What the hell do you expect us to do? Stop what we are doing, count all the enemies in an area, look closely at their guild tabbards and walk away if the other group that has less numbers than we do? Again, as long as it's not clubbing baby seals (in which case we'll usually ignore them), the expectation is there's going to be a fight.

You can stop speaking for me or my guild anytime. You have zero clue how we react when we are fighting guilds and group larger than what we have. Yes, it does happen to us, we get hit by full raids when we running with 12 or 13. And it's fine. It's part of them game. I personally enjoy when the other group has larger numbers. Don't think it's bloody stupid. It happens. We do our best. When we win it's really satisfying. When we lose, I don't whine about it, spread lies about the other guilds, and lament ESO never approached the genius of DaoC 8 man perfect pvp mechanics.

You don't like that we have a zerg guild and play objectives and seek out group fights while doing so? Too damn bad. I don't care if you think its "***" You are entitled to your opinion. Good. That means I dont have to worry about you joining us anytime soon, getting in our teamspeak, and mentioning DAOC every 30 seconds. But when you claim to be a know-it-all and mischaracterization us, that's something else. I'm going to call you out when you go beyond calling us names or your opinion and make dead wrong assertions about us.

I don't know, whenever I say zerg guild you and your buddies seem to get pretty Salty over it. I mean what actually is your argument right now? That you do everything I stated you do? So how exactly do I know know what you're doing? When you just agreed you do those very things?

Joy_Division

Xsorus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

You forget I'm on Daggerfall and watch what you guys do nightly. If being called a Zerg hurts your feelings call yourself a raid if you want. You are however not a group. As for telling everyone that you are going after those guild groups then I have even more of a problem with that. Everyone of those groups will not be running 24 people all the time. In fact it looks like from the multiple videos I've seen of these groups that it ranges from 12 to 24. You realize how bloody stupid that is in terms of a group vs group concept? This is why 8v8 worked so well.. because you knew who and what amount you were fighting. You guys are just stacking as many people as possible and if the other side has less then to bad.

I'm basing this all everything you just said as well.... if you were just hitting objectives I'd understand running 24 because you are a Zerg guild like myth was in DAOC.... but you've just straight up said "we go after other guild groups because we want good fights" while having a freakin spread of up 12 people as a possibility.

No wonder you guys have been asking for battlegrounds for so long.

That's not saying you're the only one doing it either. I'm sure you've ran 12 to 16 before and ran into other guilds running 24... so you must know how stupid that is...

Either way you've built yourself as a Zerg guild for objectives while trying to do group vs group with a huge spread... that's pretty *** *shrug*

Can you read? I DON'T CARE IF YOU CALL US A ZERG GUILD. Doesn't hurt my feelings. Especially coming from Mr DAOC is so awesome OMG 8 man!

Yes, we dont just capture castles and objectives. It gets boring. So sometimes when we hear another guild is somewhere, we seek out a fight. Sometime we go to an objective and seek a fight with another guild at the same time. Sometimes we throw ourselves at a horde of 60 just to see what happens. You know sometimes that 12 group has 30 Pugs which creates an interesting dynamic. That's why I like open world. Variety. Never the same fight twice. I don't care if you think this didn't happen in DAOC. Guess what, we aren't playing DAOC. And even if we were, I wouldn't care how you think DAOC should be played. I wouldn't allow you preferences to dictate how I play.

No s*** sometimes we fight groups that have less than us. What the hell do you expect us to do? Stop what we are doing, count all the enemies in an area, look closely at their guild tabbards and walk away if the other group that has less numbers than we do? Again, as long as it's not clubbing baby seals (in which case we'll usually ignore them), the expectation is there's going to be a fight.

You can stop speaking for me or my guild anytime. You have zero clue how we react when we are fighting guilds and group larger than what we have. Yes, it does happen to us, we get hit by full raids when we running with 12 or 13. And it's fine. It's part of them game. I personally enjoy when the other group has larger numbers. Don't think it's bloody stupid. It happens. We do our best. When we win it's really satisfying. When we lose, I don't whine about it, spread lies about the other guilds, and lament ESO never approached the genius of DaoC 8 man perfect pvp mechanics.

You don't like that we have a zerg guild and play objectives and seek out group fights while doing so? Too damn bad. I don't care if you think its "***" You are entitled to your opinion. Good. That means I dont have to worry about you joining us anytime soon, getting in our teamspeak, and mentioning DAOC every 30 seconds. But when you claim to be a know-it-all and mischaracterization us, that's something else. I'm going to call you out when you go beyond calling us names or your opinion and make dead wrong assertions about us.

I don't know, whenever I say zerg guild you and your buddies seem to get pretty Salty over it. I mean what actually is your argument right now? That you do everything I stated you do? So how exactly do I know know what you're doing? When you just agreed you do those very things?

I don't get salty when you call me names. I do not like it when people - who dont know me, have never played with me, and have zero clue about what I or my guild face - spread misleading information on a public forum.

And you're still doing it. Why do you have to be so disingenuous? I didn't "agree." I try to be honest and acknowledge we sometimes do these like run over a group of 4. We dont spend most of out time fighting "a bunch of pug players." Most of the time we do not "equal numbers". Or "running into pug groups of like 4 and 6 at a time in a keep even with 60." If you don't like how we play, that's fine. But don't mischaracterize what we do, why we do.

Yeah you play daggerfall, but when we go to Arrius, you don't see what we are doing. When we fight Pact Militia and the EP faction stack at Aleswell Mine, you have zero clue how those fights are won or lost because you are not in our group. When we fight Fantasia at a spot where it's just us and them, you aren't there. You don't know how many we got, how many they got, how we feel about the engagement. You don't see what we fight on a night to night basis and you aren't in our teamspeak to know our decision-making process. You know none of that. Stop pretending like you do.

You want to know why I know what I'm talking about? Because I'm there. Not only there, also in communication with other people who are also there.

It's hard to have a productive conversation about PvP because people like you have to insist on tossing out derogatory names and claim to know everything even though at best you only have occasional observation from afar and second-hand accounts.

You want to help make ESO better Xsorus? How about stop being deliberately antagonistic and provoking forum fights so those of us in Zerg guilds who would rather see something more effective than a desto-ult bomb can spend less time defending ourselves and more time communicating to ZoS how to make the game more interesting.

Xsorus

Joy_Division wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

You forget I'm on Daggerfall and watch what you guys do nightly. If being called a Zerg hurts your feelings call yourself a raid if you want. You are however not a group. As for telling everyone that you are going after those guild groups then I have even more of a problem with that. Everyone of those groups will not be running 24 people all the time. In fact it looks like from the multiple videos I've seen of these groups that it ranges from 12 to 24. You realize how bloody stupid that is in terms of a group vs group concept? This is why 8v8 worked so well.. because you knew who and what amount you were fighting. You guys are just stacking as many people as possible and if the other side has less then to bad.

I'm basing this all everything you just said as well.... if you were just hitting objectives I'd understand running 24 because you are a Zerg guild like myth was in DAOC.... but you've just straight up said "we go after other guild groups because we want good fights" while having a freakin spread of up 12 people as a possibility.

No wonder you guys have been asking for battlegrounds for so long.

That's not saying you're the only one doing it either. I'm sure you've ran 12 to 16 before and ran into other guilds running 24... so you must know how stupid that is...

Either way you've built yourself as a Zerg guild for objectives while trying to do group vs group with a huge spread... that's pretty *** *shrug*

Can you read? I DON'T CARE IF YOU CALL US A ZERG GUILD. Doesn't hurt my feelings. Especially coming from Mr DAOC is so awesome OMG 8 man!

Yes, we dont just capture castles and objectives. It gets boring. So sometimes when we hear another guild is somewhere, we seek out a fight. Sometime we go to an objective and seek a fight with another guild at the same time. Sometimes we throw ourselves at a horde of 60 just to see what happens. You know sometimes that 12 group has 30 Pugs which creates an interesting dynamic. That's why I like open world. Variety. Never the same fight twice. I don't care if you think this didn't happen in DAOC. Guess what, we aren't playing DAOC. And even if we were, I wouldn't care how you think DAOC should be played. I wouldn't allow you preferences to dictate how I play.

No s*** sometimes we fight groups that have less than us. What the hell do you expect us to do? Stop what we are doing, count all the enemies in an area, look closely at their guild tabbards and walk away if the other group that has less numbers than we do? Again, as long as it's not clubbing baby seals (in which case we'll usually ignore them), the expectation is there's going to be a fight.

You can stop speaking for me or my guild anytime. You have zero clue how we react when we are fighting guilds and group larger than what we have. Yes, it does happen to us, we get hit by full raids when we running with 12 or 13. And it's fine. It's part of them game. I personally enjoy when the other group has larger numbers. Don't think it's bloody stupid. It happens. We do our best. When we win it's really satisfying. When we lose, I don't whine about it, spread lies about the other guilds, and lament ESO never approached the genius of DaoC 8 man perfect pvp mechanics.

You don't like that we have a zerg guild and play objectives and seek out group fights while doing so? Too damn bad. I don't care if you think its "***" You are entitled to your opinion. Good. That means I dont have to worry about you joining us anytime soon, getting in our teamspeak, and mentioning DAOC every 30 seconds. But when you claim to be a know-it-all and mischaracterization us, that's something else. I'm going to call you out when you go beyond calling us names or your opinion and make dead wrong assertions about us.

I don't know, whenever I say zerg guild you and your buddies seem to get pretty Salty over it. I mean what actually is your argument right now? That you do everything I stated you do? So how exactly do I know know what you're doing? When you just agreed you do those very things?

I don't get salty when you call me names. I do not like it when people - who dont know me, have never played with me, and have zero clue about what I or my guild face - spread misleading information on a public forum.

And you're still doing it. Why do you have to be so disingenuous? I didn't "agree." I try to be honest and acknowledge we sometimes do these like run over a group of 4. We dont spend most of out time fighting "a bunch of pug players." Most of the time we do not "equal numbers". Or "running into pug groups of like 4 and 6 at a time in a keep even with 60." If you don't like how we play, that's fine. But don't mischaracterize what we do, why we do.

Yeah you play daggerfall, but when we go to Arrius, you don't see what we are doing. When we fight Pact Militia and the EP faction stack at Aleswell Mine, you have zero clue how those fights are won or lost because you are not in our group. When we fight Fantasia at a spot where it's just us and them, you aren't there. You don't know how many we got, how many they got, how we feel about the engagement. You don't see what we fight on a night to night basis and you aren't in our teamspeak to know our decision-making process. You know none of that. Stop pretending like you do.

You want to know why I know what I'm talking about? Because I'm there. Not only there, also in communication with other people who are also there.

It's hard to have a productive conversation about PvP because people like you have to insist on tossing out derogatory names and claim to know everything even though at best you only have occasional observation from afar and second-hand accounts.

You want to help make ESO better Xsorus? How about stop being deliberately antagonistic and provoking forum fights so those of us in Zerg guilds who would rather see something more effective than a desto-ult bomb can spend less time defending ourselves and more time communicating to ZoS how to make the game more interesting.

I say you're a zerg guild (which isn't calling you names, Nothing is wrong with being a Zerg Guild)

You say I don't know you, never played with you or your guild and don't know how you play

But at the same time, you make statements like this

"You don't like that we have a zerg guild and play objectives and seek out group fights while doing so?"

So again, what are you arguing here?

Joy_Division

Xsorus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

You forget I'm on Daggerfall and watch what you guys do nightly. If being called a Zerg hurts your feelings call yourself a raid if you want. You are however not a group. As for telling everyone that you are going after those guild groups then I have even more of a problem with that. Everyone of those groups will not be running 24 people all the time. In fact it looks like from the multiple videos I've seen of these groups that it ranges from 12 to 24. You realize how bloody stupid that is in terms of a group vs group concept? This is why 8v8 worked so well.. because you knew who and what amount you were fighting. You guys are just stacking as many people as possible and if the other side has less then to bad.

I'm basing this all everything you just said as well.... if you were just hitting objectives I'd understand running 24 because you are a Zerg guild like myth was in DAOC.... but you've just straight up said "we go after other guild groups because we want good fights" while having a freakin spread of up 12 people as a possibility.

No wonder you guys have been asking for battlegrounds for so long.

That's not saying you're the only one doing it either. I'm sure you've ran 12 to 16 before and ran into other guilds running 24... so you must know how stupid that is...

Either way you've built yourself as a Zerg guild for objectives while trying to do group vs group with a huge spread... that's pretty *** *shrug*

Can you read? I DON'T CARE IF YOU CALL US A ZERG GUILD. Doesn't hurt my feelings. Especially coming from Mr DAOC is so awesome OMG 8 man!

Yes, we dont just capture castles and objectives. It gets boring. So sometimes when we hear another guild is somewhere, we seek out a fight. Sometime we go to an objective and seek a fight with another guild at the same time. Sometimes we throw ourselves at a horde of 60 just to see what happens. You know sometimes that 12 group has 30 Pugs which creates an interesting dynamic. That's why I like open world. Variety. Never the same fight twice. I don't care if you think this didn't happen in DAOC. Guess what, we aren't playing DAOC. And even if we were, I wouldn't care how you think DAOC should be played. I wouldn't allow you preferences to dictate how I play.

No s*** sometimes we fight groups that have less than us. What the hell do you expect us to do? Stop what we are doing, count all the enemies in an area, look closely at their guild tabbards and walk away if the other group that has less numbers than we do? Again, as long as it's not clubbing baby seals (in which case we'll usually ignore them), the expectation is there's going to be a fight.

You can stop speaking for me or my guild anytime. You have zero clue how we react when we are fighting guilds and group larger than what we have. Yes, it does happen to us, we get hit by full raids when we running with 12 or 13. And it's fine. It's part of them game. I personally enjoy when the other group has larger numbers. Don't think it's bloody stupid. It happens. We do our best. When we win it's really satisfying. When we lose, I don't whine about it, spread lies about the other guilds, and lament ESO never approached the genius of DaoC 8 man perfect pvp mechanics.

You don't like that we have a zerg guild and play objectives and seek out group fights while doing so? Too damn bad. I don't care if you think its "***" You are entitled to your opinion. Good. That means I dont have to worry about you joining us anytime soon, getting in our teamspeak, and mentioning DAOC every 30 seconds. But when you claim to be a know-it-all and mischaracterization us, that's something else. I'm going to call you out when you go beyond calling us names or your opinion and make dead wrong assertions about us.

I don't know, whenever I say zerg guild you and your buddies seem to get pretty Salty over it. I mean what actually is your argument right now? That you do everything I stated you do? So how exactly do I know know what you're doing? When you just agreed you do those very things?

I don't get salty when you call me names. I do not like it when people - who dont know me, have never played with me, and have zero clue about what I or my guild face - spread misleading information on a public forum.

And you're still doing it. Why do you have to be so disingenuous? I didn't "agree." I try to be honest and acknowledge we sometimes do these like run over a group of 4. We dont spend most of out time fighting "a bunch of pug players." Most of the time we do not "equal numbers". Or "running into pug groups of like 4 and 6 at a time in a keep even with 60." If you don't like how we play, that's fine. But don't mischaracterize what we do, why we do.

Yeah you play daggerfall, but when we go to Arrius, you don't see what we are doing. When we fight Pact Militia and the EP faction stack at Aleswell Mine, you have zero clue how those fights are won or lost because you are not in our group. When we fight Fantasia at a spot where it's just us and them, you aren't there. You don't know how many we got, how many they got, how we feel about the engagement. You don't see what we fight on a night to night basis and you aren't in our teamspeak to know our decision-making process. You know none of that. Stop pretending like you do.

You want to know why I know what I'm talking about? Because I'm there. Not only there, also in communication with other people who are also there.

It's hard to have a productive conversation about PvP because people like you have to insist on tossing out derogatory names and claim to know everything even though at best you only have occasional observation from afar and second-hand accounts.

You want to help make ESO better Xsorus? How about stop being deliberately antagonistic and provoking forum fights so those of us in Zerg guilds who would rather see something more effective than a desto-ult bomb can spend less time defending ourselves and more time communicating to ZoS how to make the game more interesting.

I say you're a zerg guild (which isn't calling you names, Nothing is wrong with being a Zerg Guild)

You say I don't know you, never played with you or your guild and don't know how you play

But at the same time, you make statements like this

"You don't like that we have a zerg guild and play objectives and seek out group fights while doing so?"

So again, what are you arguing here?

I had to tell you that. Before you posted that we run around Cyrodiil wiping out 4 to 6 Pugs at a time. Or that we love jumping on other Zerg Guilds who run half our numbers.

Stop being arrogant and insisting you know how our fights go and how they are won or lost.

loki547

All you guys are arguing and I'm just zerg surfing like

Kirsch9

To me, a zerg is any group (numbers don't matter) of unskilled/unorganized (or lack of wanting to be) players that out number the other side, and have to because if they went head to head (24v24) they'd wipe. So, to win they bring an extra 10+ players to get the job done since almost none of them could kill one of yours in a 1v1.

Although, it can be used in smaller scale terms too, as in...

Your small 4 man group starts fighting another small 6-8 man group but soon find yourselves fighting more and more people until there's no way you can beat them due to the overwhelming numbers that had to show up because they couldn't kill your group with what they had to start (which was already a bigger group).

Same goes for a solo player, when you fight a player that you kill pretty easily and do so several times in a row, then he finally comes back with 4 or more to kill you, that's technically a zerg. It's a zerg because, again, none of them could have beaten you in a 1v1.

Now, if your 4 man just happened to turn a corner to find a full 24 man group and they mow you over, that's not a zerg, it's a "well damn, wrong place wrong time" kind of thing. When you are at a keep and about 20-30 people show up to siege it, that's not a zerg, it's a group trying to take your keep.

Like @Recremen said,

Recremen wrote: »

...generally it's got to be a bunch of people, many not in a group, who just happen to be showing up at the same location and following the crowd. No actual direction, just trying to read the swarm's movements and get their hits in.

In which lies the issue, an organized group almost always ends up being a zerg even though that group had no intentions of doing so... they just start sieging/fighting and then a butt load of pugs show up just to get in on the "action".

FML, I always do this... stop in to say one thing and it turns into a book! Sorry lol

NightbladeMechanics

Kirsch9 wrote: »

In which lies the issue, an organized group almost always ends up being a zerg even though that group had no intentions of doing so... they just start sieging/fighting and then a butt load of pugs show up just to get in on the "action".

In a large scale AvAvA game, I don't think keep siege "action" can be owned by a single group or guild in a sense that we can talk about pugs showing up in a derogatory manner. Large guilds who siege keeps know they'll attract pugs. They know what the gameplan is and fight among and against pugs all night, regardless of how they talk about the pugs. If they didn't want to share the "action," they'd be on the other side of the map and wouldn't create respawn points for pugs to follow, like keeps and towns (and some large guilds do this).

Esgameplaya1

Elong

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

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?

Perfectly said.

Us smaller groups have also, not by choice, been moved into "zerg surfing" quite a lot of the time now on TF, because there's simply no hope of surviving long enough out there unless you're on the level of a group like Mojican's.

Steve also said above that the last time PVP felt truly non stop competitive was Thornblade. Might be rose tinted glasses on all our part, but it's damn hard to disagree with that too.

Elong

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

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?

So if the rewards for winning -- pride, bragging rights, and other intangibles + tangible end of campaign rewards) no longer outweigh the effort required to win, should ZOS not add additional tanglible rewards to motivate players?

I am keenly aware of how the changes you list, plus several you forgot, impair fighting outnumbered.

But see, I recognize and accept that ZOS isn't going to reverse its changes. You gotta stay positive and propose constructive changes to promote the style of play you want. Sure, your one raid may not be able to command the map anymore like we used to in 1.6, but you could still have fun and engaging large scale play if some additional rewards fired up everyone's spark to compete agin. That's my take on the matter.

Also don't forget that I'm talking about end of campaign victory rewards. AP farming, which you mentioned, won't matter if you don't win.

More than just end campaign rewards needs to be overhauled, even if we're limiting ourselves to not making skill balance/combat mechanic changes.

Meaningful victory rewards:

• Implement a token system giving say, an amount of victory tokens scaling w/ faction leaderboard. Losing factions get no tokens, or a significantly reduced amount.
• Add a token merchant that has meaningful, valuable rewards to exchange for: sharpened/defending VMA weps, rare motif books, cool furnishings, gold jewelry, unique costumes/polymorphs, unique personalities, mounts, ect.

The idea is that rewards for something that people are expected to work for a whole month should not be gated behind RNG, hence a token system seems preferable. You can price out higher end things that might be offered on the crown store at token values that require multiple cycles to build up enough to purchase if you want, it just needs to offer something concrete to work towards. The last thing we want is a clone of the garbage VMA RNG system.

Secondly, campaign scoring needs to be reworked if we are offering such good rewards for winning the campaign:

• Everything being worth one point is stupid, the TF victory coming down to which faction can PvE the most resources 2 min 30 sec before the score eval for hours on end epitomized how utterly trashy that system is.
• More important objectives need to be worth more, there just isn't any getting around that.
• Scoring needs to account for the duration something has been held for, not just be a snapshot of the map at the eval interval. The game already has resource/keep levels in place so make use of that system ffs! The higher level an objective, the more points it should give - and perhaps bonus points for holding something through consecutive eval periods.

Sorry for quoting another post but again totally agree, devs take note.

HoloYoitsu

@Elong Yeah, pretty much the only way to be successful small manning anymore seems to be just be a bunch of stamblades rolling around in eternal hunt, or have 1-2 Templars for the heals.

The most frustrating part is just trying to find anysmallscale fights. Fighting in transit lines or trying to pull ppl off of a siege line will just end up with 3-4x your numbers of potatos deciding to run you down spamming pew pew. Basically, it's near impossible to actually get any evenly matched smallman fights anymore.