What do you count as a zerg?

josh.lackey_ESO

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

@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.

There is also a lot of Xv1 that happens under the pretense of "small scale". You have a three or four guys picking off targets one at a time. If you complain about the Xv1 you get told to bring more people, stay in a group, git gud, etc. If you bring more people, you get told you're zerging. I find potatoes are usually pretty good sports about things, all in all. It's the try-hards that get so upset.

That said, I will summon a zerg from zone chat on anyone who is being a jerk about what they're doing. If you're solo or small man but running enough cheese to make Sheogorath wince, then I will call zone chat to zerg you down. I do this to root spammers a lot. 1v1 destro ulters. Cost poison abusers. Various kinds of trolls, and so on. Yeah, ZOS should fix some game balance but the threat of getting zerged down if you cheese mechanics is at least some deterrence.

Also wondering who cares that much about the campaign? I'd rather have a map that promotes good fights than a map where my faction is winning. The gold rewards are nice, but good fights are so much better. Faction-hopping is easy now, and I know some people who I literally see fighting (earnestly, not as a spai) on both sides of a fight in the duration of a single keep battle. It doesn't bother me that much. I'd much rather feel like I am having friendly competition against other players I know and respect, than to feel like I am up against a bunch of anonymous bad guys. Imo, cross-faction play can promote good sportsmanship.

AgriyaTheGrey

Well hush my mouth, I just got learned something I didn't know. All this time I'd been defining 'zerg' as any blind, headlong charge by (any number of) players not paying the slightest bit of attention to anything except what they're charging at.

I will now have to find a different word for this ubiquitous gaming behaviour. [Sighs heavily.]

NightbladeMechanics

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

@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.

...Then you're doing something wrong... Small scale is harder now than ever, but it's completely doable if you get used to how it works and play smart. My friends and I play a mix of all classes and specs in groups of 2-4 with no particular composition and certainly no dedicated heals, and we find perfectly manageable PvP every evening and in every campaign.

GorraShatan

My categories:

1 dude/chick - ganker or lost PvEr

2 - 24 peeps - a group

25-48 peeps - a zerg

49+ peeps - a wrobel

"There's a whole Wrobel of pugs sieging Sejanus!"

Stratforge

you in a group? *** you zergin

Serjustin19

2 people VS All Of Keep Guards. Now that's a zerg.

dennissomb16_ESO

From the typical rage rants I see in PvP a zerg is any number that results in death. Kind of makes me chuckle to be honest

Shelgon

If you invite someone to your group and it says "Large Group Conversion" you're zerging.

No_True_Scotsman

5 people constitutes a zerg confirmed

NACtron

Earthewen wrote: »

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

Most accurate definition so far in this thread. +1

gard

I should think my answer to the question is fairly obvious -

raasdal

For me, it's always relative.

If 5 people chase me down, and run me over, i got zerged. If 5 people run me and a friend down, we failed at an honest 2vX. If 10 people came at me and my friend, i would feel "zerged" again.

I would put the factor at any group that is 5x my own group size.

But it could also be defined as anything over 8 people. It is at this point that any individual gameplay vanish, and it all becomes "move like one" ballgroup. Hence why i never group anything larger than 4.

WeylandLabs

5+

mar42free

hi im athiek and 2+ is a zerg.

/thread

Enslaved

Zerg is anything 10+.
Please, don't give me bs about that being "small scale" or "organised group". Zerg is zerg no matter how well it is organised.

Unfadingsilence

If I'm solo and get jumped by more then 6 ppl then they are a zerg if I'm in a small group 2-6 ppl and we get hit by 15-24 ppl it's a zerg 24+ppl it's all out war

No_True_Scotsman

I have never seen a community as obsessed with their favorite numbers as this one. lol

FlyLionel

If the screen is full of players and there is a warlike feel to it, that to me is a zerg. 1v5 or 1v9 isn't a zerg just a small group really. When you see multiple players spamming breathe of life from the front/back/middle of a fight that's a zerg lmao..

melloni_aleb16_ESO

FlyLionel wrote: »

If the screen is full of players and there is a warlike feel to it, that to me is a zerg. 1v5 or 1v9 isn't a zerg just a small group really. When you see multiple players spamming breathe of life from the front/back/middle of a fight that's a zerg lmao..

in this game ; a group is composed by 4 people ...then...a " small party " is less than 4 .

FlyLionel

melloni_aleb16_ESO wrote: »

FlyLionel wrote: »

If the screen is full of players and there is a warlike feel to it, that to me is a zerg. 1v5 or 1v9 isn't a zerg just a small group really. When you see multiple players spamming breathe of life from the front/back/middle of a fight that's a zerg lmao..

in this game ; a group is composed by 4 people ...then...a " small party " is less than 4 .

Yes in pve dungeons a group is composed of 4, does not entirely cross over to pvp. A small group can still consist of 5-6-7. From around those numbers a small party can be whatever you want bud. In this game.

hassubhai

Incase it has not been specified before, the definition of zerging is when weaker players join together and win due to their numbers rather than their skill.

olivesforge

The goal is victory. The method, within the rules of the game, is irrelevant. As currently consisted, the game is won by zerging (I go with 13-24), hoarding (25-48), Wrobeling (49-99) and faction stacking.

There is nothing wrong with dueling or zerging - however, 1vXers and gankers are simply irrelevant, in that they do not meaningfully impact the actual game. They are discrete from farmers, who by the amount of AP they gain and by distracting full groups of the enemy effect the campaign, and small resource/town groups, which have a significant impact on final score.

So, one has the choice in this game to do something to actually effect it, or to be proud but irrelevant. The game as designed requires groups to do the former.

NightbladeMechanics

olivesforge wrote: »

1vXers and gankers are simply irrelevant, in that they do not meaningfully impact the actual game. They are discrete from farmers, who by the amount of AP they gain and by distracting full groups of the enemy effect the campaign, and small resource/town groups, which have a significant impact on final score.

Excuse me, but this is not accurate. If your friendly neighborhood 1vXer places himself behind Ales farm while EP sieges DC, wipes 6 or 7 pugs a couple times as they chase him about, kills the quartermaster, and sneakily burns a few camps on the flag while being chased by and killing enemies, I'd call that plenty relevant to the siege at hand. This convenient example comes to mind because I was doing this on my stamblade a couple nights ago and took some joy in DC winning while I did my thing in the back. Would you rather I have logged off and made room for another zone chat LFG if I'm so irrelevant since I'm not in a group?

Gankers can also make themselves relevant by delaying troops getting to objectives or being chased by groups trying to kill them.

And the ally to enemy ratio for a good soloer is generally greater than any AP farming group or large guild group. What's that imply about their relevance?

TLDR: good solo players can make an impact on the campaign by placing their fights near larger conflicts.

Satiar

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

olivesforge wrote: »

1vXers and gankers are simply irrelevant, in that they do not meaningfully impact the actual game. They are discrete from farmers, who by the amount of AP they gain and by distracting full groups of the enemy effect the campaign, and small resource/town groups, which have a significant impact on final score.

Excuse me, but this is not accurate. If your friendly neighborhood 1vXer places himself behind Ales farm while EP sieges DC, wipes 6 or 7 pugs a couple times as they chase him about, kills the quartermaster, and sneakily burns a few camps on the flag while being chased by and killing enemies, I'd call that plenty relevant to the siege at hand. This convenient example comes to mind because I was doing this on my stamblade a couple nights ago and took some joy in DC winning while I did my thing in the back. Would you rather I have logged off and made room for another zone chat LFG if I'm so irrelevant since I'm not in a group?

Gankers can also make themselves relevant by delaying troops getting to objectives or being chased by groups trying to kill them.

And the ally to enemy ratio for a good soloer is generally greater than any AP farming group or large guild group. What's that imply about their relevance?

TLDR: good solo players can make an impact on the campaign by placing their fights near larger conflicts.

In before good solo player gets hunted down by a group for messing with the camps, hangs up his roll-dodging boots and takes on a full time job shouting "small scale is deaaaaaaad!" in zone.

I've seen it happen to so many young, promising 1vXers

NightbladeMechanics

Satiar wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

olivesforge wrote: »

1vXers and gankers are simply irrelevant, in that they do not meaningfully impact the actual game. They are discrete from farmers, who by the amount of AP they gain and by distracting full groups of the enemy effect the campaign, and small resource/town groups, which have a significant impact on final score.

Excuse me, but this is not accurate. If your friendly neighborhood 1vXer places himself behind Ales farm while EP sieges DC, wipes 6 or 7 pugs a couple times as they chase him about, kills the quartermaster, and sneakily burns a few camps on the flag while being chased by and killing enemies, I'd call that plenty relevant to the siege at hand. This convenient example comes to mind because I was doing this on my stamblade a couple nights ago and took some joy in DC winning while I did my thing in the back. Would you rather I have logged off and made room for another zone chat LFG if I'm so irrelevant since I'm not in a group?

Gankers can also make themselves relevant by delaying troops getting to objectives or being chased by groups trying to kill them.

And the ally to enemy ratio for a good soloer is generally greater than any AP farming group or large guild group. What's that imply about their relevance?

TLDR: good solo players can make an impact on the campaign by placing their fights near larger conflicts.

In before good solo player gets hunted down by a group for messing with the camps, hangs up his roll-dodging boots and takes on a full time job shouting "small scale is deaaaaaaad!" in zone.

I've seen it happen to so many young, promising 1vXers

loool That happens all the time when the 1vX isn't easy! I personally think that many people have been carried by classes or gear since DB patch, got inflated perceptions of their own skill levels, and expect to be able to continue performing at the same level as ZOS nerfs things.

Small scale is harder than ever, but it's definitely not dead. Anyone saying it's dead just hasn't L2ped enough. It's that simple.

Edit: I can't wait until the CP nerfs next patch.

Sandman929

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

olivesforge wrote: »

1vXers and gankers are simply irrelevant, in that they do not meaningfully impact the actual game. They are discrete from farmers, who by the amount of AP they gain and by distracting full groups of the enemy effect the campaign, and small resource/town groups, which have a significant impact on final score.

Excuse me, but this is not accurate. If your friendly neighborhood 1vXer places himself behind Ales farm while EP sieges DC, wipes 6 or 7 pugs a couple times as they chase him about, kills the quartermaster, and sneakily burns a few camps on the flag while being chased by and killing enemies, I'd call that plenty relevant to the siege at hand. This convenient example comes to mind because I was doing this on my stamblade a couple nights ago and took some joy in DC winning while I did my thing in the back. Would you rather I have logged off and made room for another zone chat LFG if I'm so irrelevant since I'm not in a group?

Gankers can also make themselves relevant by delaying troops getting to objectives or being chased by groups trying to kill them.

And the ally to enemy ratio for a good soloer is generally greater than any AP farming group or large guild group. What's that imply about their relevance?

TLDR: good solo players can make an impact on the campaign by placing their fights near larger conflicts.

In before good solo player gets hunted down by a group for messing with the camps, hangs up his roll-dodging boots and takes on a full time job shouting "small scale is deaaaaaaad!" in zone.

I've seen it happen to so many young, promising 1vXers

loool That happens all the time when the 1vX isn't easy! I personally think that many people have been carried by classes or gear since DB patch, got inflated perceptions of their own skill levels, and expect to be able to continue performing at the same level as ZOS nerfs things.

Small scale is harder than ever, but it's definitely not dead. Anyone saying it's dead just hasn't L2ped enough. It's that simple.

Edit: I can't wait until the CP nerfs next chapter.

One small change. We're calling it chapter now...chapter. That way it's not just DLC and can be sold separately.

Ghost-Shot

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

olivesforge wrote: »

1vXers and gankers are simply irrelevant, in that they do not meaningfully impact the actual game. They are discrete from farmers, who by the amount of AP they gain and by distracting full groups of the enemy effect the campaign, and small resource/town groups, which have a significant impact on final score.

Excuse me, but this is not accurate. If your friendly neighborhood 1vXer places himself behind Ales farm while EP sieges DC, wipes 6 or 7 pugs a couple times as they chase him about, kills the quartermaster, and sneakily burns a few camps on the flag while being chased by and killing enemies, I'd call that plenty relevant to the siege at hand. This convenient example comes to mind because I was doing this on my stamblade a couple nights ago and took some joy in DC winning while I did my thing in the back. Would you rather I have logged off and made room for another zone chat LFG if I'm so irrelevant since I'm not in a group?

Gankers can also make themselves relevant by delaying troops getting to objectives or being chased by groups trying to kill them.

And the ally to enemy ratio for a good soloer is generally greater than any AP farming group or large guild group. What's that imply about their relevance?

TLDR: good solo players can make an impact on the campaign by placing their fights near larger conflicts.

In before good solo player gets hunted down by a group for messing with the camps, hangs up his roll-dodging boots and takes on a full time job shouting "small scale is deaaaaaaad!" in zone.

I've seen it happen to so many young, promising 1vXers

loool That happens all the time when the 1vX isn't easy! I personally think that many people have been carried by classes or gear since DB patch, got inflated perceptions of their own skill levels, and expect to be able to continue performing at the same level as ZOS nerfs things.

Small scale is harder than ever, but it's definitely not dead. Anyone saying it's dead just hasn't L2ped enough. It's that simple.

Edit: I can't wait until the CP nerfs next patch.

I wouldn't say its harder than ever, it's certainly not the easiest it's ever been (rip bats spam) but with the AoE cap adjustments and how high damage is wiping big groups with a few is pretty easy. When a small man comes across a well organized group and choose to engage it you will tend to have a bad time sure, but even the best groups can be caught off guard.

NightbladeMechanics

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

olivesforge wrote: »

1vXers and gankers are simply irrelevant, in that they do not meaningfully impact the actual game. They are discrete from farmers, who by the amount of AP they gain and by distracting full groups of the enemy effect the campaign, and small resource/town groups, which have a significant impact on final score.

Excuse me, but this is not accurate. If your friendly neighborhood 1vXer places himself behind Ales farm while EP sieges DC, wipes 6 or 7 pugs a couple times as they chase him about, kills the quartermaster, and sneakily burns a few camps on the flag while being chased by and killing enemies, I'd call that plenty relevant to the siege at hand. This convenient example comes to mind because I was doing this on my stamblade a couple nights ago and took some joy in DC winning while I did my thing in the back. Would you rather I have logged off and made room for another zone chat LFG if I'm so irrelevant since I'm not in a group?

Gankers can also make themselves relevant by delaying troops getting to objectives or being chased by groups trying to kill them.

And the ally to enemy ratio for a good soloer is generally greater than any AP farming group or large guild group. What's that imply about their relevance?

TLDR: good solo players can make an impact on the campaign by placing their fights near larger conflicts.

In before good solo player gets hunted down by a group for messing with the camps, hangs up his roll-dodging boots and takes on a full time job shouting "small scale is deaaaaaaad!" in zone.

I've seen it happen to so many young, promising 1vXers

loool That happens all the time when the 1vX isn't easy! I personally think that many people have been carried by classes or gear since DB patch, got inflated perceptions of their own skill levels, and expect to be able to continue performing at the same level as ZOS nerfs things.

Small scale is harder than ever, but it's definitely not dead. Anyone saying it's dead just hasn't L2ped enough. It's that simple.

Edit: I can't wait until the CP nerfs next patch.

I wouldn't say its harder than ever, it's certainly not the easiest it's ever been (rip bats spam) but with the AoE cap adjustments and how high damage is wiping big groups with a few is pretty easy. When a small man comes across a well organized group and choose to engage it you will tend to have a bad time sure, but even the best groups can be caught off guard.

Oh I'm not talking about bombing. Bombing has been very easy for a long time.

I'm talking about real small scale outnumbered brawls, which revolve around single target damage, chains of priority targets, and occasional small aoe bombs aimed at taking out a handful of enemies at a time.

But yea, you're right that this patch is better for small scale than last patch. I should say it's the second hardest patch ever!

Ghost-Shot

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

olivesforge wrote: »

1vXers and gankers are simply irrelevant, in that they do not meaningfully impact the actual game. They are discrete from farmers, who by the amount of AP they gain and by distracting full groups of the enemy effect the campaign, and small resource/town groups, which have a significant impact on final score.

Excuse me, but this is not accurate. If your friendly neighborhood 1vXer places himself behind Ales farm while EP sieges DC, wipes 6 or 7 pugs a couple times as they chase him about, kills the quartermaster, and sneakily burns a few camps on the flag while being chased by and killing enemies, I'd call that plenty relevant to the siege at hand. This convenient example comes to mind because I was doing this on my stamblade a couple nights ago and took some joy in DC winning while I did my thing in the back. Would you rather I have logged off and made room for another zone chat LFG if I'm so irrelevant since I'm not in a group?

Gankers can also make themselves relevant by delaying troops getting to objectives or being chased by groups trying to kill them.

And the ally to enemy ratio for a good soloer is generally greater than any AP farming group or large guild group. What's that imply about their relevance?

TLDR: good solo players can make an impact on the campaign by placing their fights near larger conflicts.

In before good solo player gets hunted down by a group for messing with the camps, hangs up his roll-dodging boots and takes on a full time job shouting "small scale is deaaaaaaad!" in zone.

I've seen it happen to so many young, promising 1vXers

loool That happens all the time when the 1vX isn't easy! I personally think that many people have been carried by classes or gear since DB patch, got inflated perceptions of their own skill levels, and expect to be able to continue performing at the same level as ZOS nerfs things.

Small scale is harder than ever, but it's definitely not dead. Anyone saying it's dead just hasn't L2ped enough. It's that simple.

Edit: I can't wait until the CP nerfs next patch.

I wouldn't say its harder than ever, it's certainly not the easiest it's ever been (rip bats spam) but with the AoE cap adjustments and how high damage is wiping big groups with a few is pretty easy. When a small man comes across a well organized group and choose to engage it you will tend to have a bad time sure, but even the best groups can be caught off guard.

Oh I'm not talking about bombing. Bombing has been very easy for a long time.

I'm talking about real small scale outnumbered brawls, which revolve around single target damage, chains of priority targets, and occasional small aoe bombs aimed at taking out a handful of enemies at a time.

But yea, you're right that this patch is better for small scale than last patch. I should say it's the second hardest patch ever!

All I'm saying is that looking at it from both sides of the argument, I think small scale has become much easier since the nerf to barrier and rapids. I think both of those abilities needed nerfs as they were incredibly powerful group tools but I think they went overboard, while they made it easier for small groups to take on large groups, they destroyed the ability for one group to properly tank another, its basically who bombs first now and that game play is just meh.

loki547

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

TLDR: good solo players can make an impact on the campaign by placing their fights near larger conflicts.

This is me!!!