What do you count as a zerg?

NightbladeMechanics

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

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.

Heavy armor, negate, proc sets, and destro ult had far greater negative impacts on small scale than any positive gain from our opponents having to roll dodge or cast rapids an extra couple of times or use veil/remembrance instead of barrier.

And wouldn't the negate buff and the sheer damage of destro ult contribute to your troubles tanking other groups and this "whoever bombs first wins" dynamic more than the rapids and barrier nerfs?

IlCanis_LupuslI

Sythen88411 wrote: »

[Insert number here]

Zerg
Definition - What does Zerg mean?

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. Gamers essentially team up and agree to attack a specific opponent at the same time. By forming a zerg, the gamers can usually kill an enemy while taking general – but not fatal – damage as a group. This strategy itself is known as zerging.

Zerg is also used to refer to a single player in a strategy game who uses enormous numbers of basic fighting units during the initial stages of the game to attack and defeat comparatively small-sized, but higher-level enemy units.
[WEBINAR] Health Check: Maintaining Enterprise BI
Techopedia explains Zerg

The term zerg comes from a playable race of aliens featured in "Starcraft". In the game, the Zerg targeted weak enemy units and killed them by swarming them with superior numbers. Zerg entered the gaming lexicon when gamers began applying the term to gamers in other games who used a Zerg-like strategy.

Zerg functions as a noun and a verb. When multiple gamers target the same opponent in order to score a quick kill, they are referred to as a zerg. Once the kill is made, they have zerged their target. Lastly, groups that engage in zerging may be called zerglings in a derogatory sense.

The key goals of zerging are as follows:

To ensure victory by using overwhelming numbers
To tremendously surpass the opponents and swarm them
To minimize the chance of an encounter by using bulk numbers of partners rather than skill

Ghost-Shot

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

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.

Heavy armor, negate, proc sets, and destro ult had far greater negative impacts on small scale than any positive gain from our opponents having to roll dodge or cast rapids an extra couple of times or use veil/remembrance instead of barrier.

And wouldn't the negate buff and the sheer damage of destro ult contribute to your troubles tanking other groups and this "whoever bombs first wins" dynamic more than the rapids and barrier nerfs?

Negate/destro are absolutely a problem, but they would be far less problematic with barrier and functioning rapids. Again, I'm not saying small scale is in the best spot its ever been, but I personally experience far more frustrations in the current game while playing in a raid than I do in 4-6 man group.

Satiar

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

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.

Heavy armor, negate, proc sets, and destro ult had far greater negative impacts on small scale than any positive gain from our opponents having to roll dodge or cast rapids an extra couple of times or use veil/remembrance instead of barrier.

And wouldn't the negate buff and the sheer damage of destro ult contribute to your troubles tanking other groups and this "whoever bombs first wins" dynamic more than the rapids and barrier nerfs?

Negate/destro are absolutely a problem, but they far less problematic with barrier and functioning rapids. Again, I'm not saying small scale is in the best spot its ever been, but I personally experience far more frustrations in the current game while playing in a raid than I do in 4-6 man group.

That might be because as a small group you're simply not a priority target.

Sanct16

If you're struggeling in raid, maybe your group setup / gear isn't optimized enough. If you want to talk about setups / builds feel free to send me a private message but don't really feel like boring everyone on here that believes group play comes down to using storms and run forward.

Bombing second is generally better than bombing first as you are more likely to get a good impact and you have inevitebility.
I think the sweetspot for casting your storms is ~4 seconds after the other group. Let them push and waste some of their negates while you go backwards and spread out a bit, wait for their detos to run out and then fist them. Of course this doesn't universally guarantee success but I'd try to bait the opposing group to push you in 8/10 cases.

Rapids aren't really a problem if you have 2 stambuilds spamming it. I prefered the old maneuver that allowed you to just move without constant maneuvers if you didn't waste it by doing damage and don't really see the benefit of the change as it only hurts smallscale but has no impact on raids.

I don't miss barrier at all. "Tanking" other groups shouldn't be possible in the way that it used to be as it means that a large raid will almost always beat a smaller one by just tanking them. Imo you should be forced to actively avoid damage by movement so I have no complaints with the current meta.

Ghost-Shot

Sanct16 wrote: »

If you're struggeling in raid, maybe your group setup / gear isn't optimized enough. If you want to talk about setups / builds feel free to send me a private message but don't really feel like boring everyone on here that believes group play comes down to using storms and run forward.

Bombing second is generally better than bombing first as you are more likely to get a good impact and you have inevitebility.
I think the sweetspot for casting your storms is ~4 seconds after the other group. Let them push and waste some of their negates while you go backwards and spread out a bit, wait for their detos to run out and then fist them. Of course this doesn't universally guarantee success but I'd try to bait the opposing group to push you in 8/10 cases.

Rapids aren't really a problem if you have 2 stambuilds spamming it. I prefered the old maneuver that allowed you to just move without constant maneuvers if you didn't waste it by doing damage and don't really see the benefit of the change as it only hurts smallscale but has no impact on raids.

I don't miss barrier at all. "Tanking" other groups shouldn't be possible in the way that it used to be as it means that a large raid will almost always beat a smaller one by just tanking them. Imo you should be forced to actively avoid damage by movement so I have no complaints with the current meta.

I didn't say I'm struggling I just find more things about playing in a larger group to be frustrating in this meta than I do in a small group. And I also agree that barrier needed a nerf, it was ridiculous, I think about half of the NA server is convinced that we ran 12 barriers back in the day because the 4 we actually had were so op.

That is exactly my opinion on rapids, I don't really see the point in removing it for casting a buff, but its not a huge deal I guess, we adjusted a long time ago.

Baiting ults and counter bombing like what you described is exactly what we do, I guess to say I miss "tanking" a group is the wrong way to put it. I just don't like how quick group fights are now. A proper gvg tends to last fairly long but its not really fighting like it used to be, just posturing until an opportunity to ult dump shows itself. And the open world group fights are just bomb/counter bomb, I guess it just gets really boring after a while.

Esgameplaya1

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

If you're struggeling in raid, maybe your group setup / gear isn't optimized enough. If you want to talk about setups / builds feel free to send me a private message but don't really feel like boring everyone on here that believes group play comes down to using storms and run forward.

Bombing second is generally better than bombing first as you are more likely to get a good impact and you have inevitebility.
I think the sweetspot for casting your storms is ~4 seconds after the other group. Let them push and waste some of their negates while you go backwards and spread out a bit, wait for their detos to run out and then fist them. Of course this doesn't universally guarantee success but I'd try to bait the opposing group to push you in 8/10 cases.

Rapids aren't really a problem if you have 2 stambuilds spamming it. I prefered the old maneuver that allowed you to just move without constant maneuvers if you didn't waste it by doing damage and don't really see the benefit of the change as it only hurts smallscale but has no impact on raids.

I don't miss barrier at all. "Tanking" other groups shouldn't be possible in the way that it used to be as it means that a large raid will almost always beat a smaller one by just tanking them. Imo you should be forced to actively avoid damage by movement so I have no complaints with the current meta.

I didn't say I'm struggling I just find more things about playing in a larger group to be frustrating in this meta than I do in a small group. And I also agree that barrier needed a nerf, it was ridiculous, I think about half of the NA server is convinced that we ran 12 barriers back in the day because the 4 we actually had were so op.

That is exactly my opinion on rapids, I don't really see the point in removing it for casting a buff, but its not a huge deal I guess, we adjusted a long time ago.

Baiting ults and counter bombing like what you described is exactly what we do, I guess to say I miss "tanking" a group is the wrong way to put it. I just don't like how quick group fights are now. A proper gvg tends to last fairly long but its not really fighting like it used to be, just posturing until an opportunity to ult dump shows itself. And the open world group fights are just bomb/counter bomb, I guess it just gets really boring after a while.

Agreed!!

NightbladeMechanics

Satiar wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

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.

Heavy armor, negate, proc sets, and destro ult had far greater negative impacts on small scale than any positive gain from our opponents having to roll dodge or cast rapids an extra couple of times or use veil/remembrance instead of barrier.

And wouldn't the negate buff and the sheer damage of destro ult contribute to your troubles tanking other groups and this "whoever bombs first wins" dynamic more than the rapids and barrier nerfs?

Negate/destro are absolutely a problem, but they far less problematic with barrier and functioning rapids. Again, I'm not saying small scale is in the best spot its ever been, but I personally experience far more frustrations in the current game while playing in a raid than I do in 4-6 man group.

That might be because as a small group you're simply not a priority target.

A small group fighting alongside a zerg may not be. Try going to the other side of the map as 3 people with no allies nearby and 3-4x your numbers or more in any given cluster of enemies. You become the priority target quite quickly.

NACtron

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

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.

Heavy armor, negate, proc sets, and destro ult had far greater negative impacts on small scale than any positive gain from our opponents having to roll dodge or cast rapids an extra couple of times or use veil/remembrance instead of barrier.

And wouldn't the negate buff and the sheer damage of destro ult contribute to your troubles tanking other groups and this "whoever bombs first wins" dynamic more than the rapids and barrier nerfs?

Negate/destro are absolutely a problem, but they far less problematic with barrier and functioning rapids. Again, I'm not saying small scale is in the best spot its ever been, but I personally experience far more frustrations in the current game while playing in a raid than I do in 4-6 man group.

That might be because as a small group you're simply not a priority target.

A small group fighting alongside a zerg may not be. Try going to the other side of the map as 3 people with no allies nearby and 3-4x your numbers or more in any given cluster of enemies. You become the priority target quite quickly.

Small groups become targets of large groups when:
- Small groups are trying to bomb or are constantly attacking the large group, even a group of 2-4 people can be a big enough nusiance to a group of 24 if they try hard enough.
- Harassing seige, destorying FC's etc.
- small group is right in front of the large groups path to their next objective. If the small group is at all tanky then they are geat ulti build up fodder.

HoloYoitsu

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

If you're struggeling in raid, maybe your group setup / gear isn't optimized enough. If you want to talk about setups / builds feel free to send me a private message but don't really feel like boring everyone on here that believes group play comes down to using storms and run forward.

Bombing second is generally better than bombing first as you are more likely to get a good impact and you have inevitebility.
I think the sweetspot for casting your storms is ~4 seconds after the other group. Let them push and waste some of their negates while you go backwards and spread out a bit, wait for their detos to run out and then fist them. Of course this doesn't universally guarantee success but I'd try to bait the opposing group to push you in 8/10 cases.

Rapids aren't really a problem if you have 2 stambuilds spamming it. I prefered the old maneuver that allowed you to just move without constant maneuvers if you didn't waste it by doing damage and don't really see the benefit of the change as it only hurts smallscale but has no impact on raids.

I don't miss barrier at all. "Tanking" other groups shouldn't be possible in the way that it used to be as it means that a large raid will almost always beat a smaller one by just tanking them. Imo you should be forced to actively avoid damage by movement so I have no complaints with the current meta.

I think about half of the NA server is convinced that we ran 12 barriers back in the day because the 4 we actually had were so op.

Are you denying the 24 meteor + 12 barrier rotation at the end of the rainbow?

NightbladeMechanics

NACtron wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

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.

Heavy armor, negate, proc sets, and destro ult had far greater negative impacts on small scale than any positive gain from our opponents having to roll dodge or cast rapids an extra couple of times or use veil/remembrance instead of barrier.

And wouldn't the negate buff and the sheer damage of destro ult contribute to your troubles tanking other groups and this "whoever bombs first wins" dynamic more than the rapids and barrier nerfs?

Negate/destro are absolutely a problem, but they far less problematic with barrier and functioning rapids. Again, I'm not saying small scale is in the best spot its ever been, but I personally experience far more frustrations in the current game while playing in a raid than I do in 4-6 man group.

That might be because as a small group you're simply not a priority target.

A small group fighting alongside a zerg may not be. Try going to the other side of the map as 3 people with no allies nearby and 3-4x your numbers or more in any given cluster of enemies. You become the priority target quite quickly.

Small groups become targets of large groups when:
- Small groups are trying to bomb or are constantly attacking the large group, even a group of 2-4 people can be a big enough nusiance to a group of 24 if they try hard enough.
- Harassing seige, destorying FC's etc.
- small group is right in front of the large groups path to their next objective. If the small group is at all tanky then they are geat ulti build up fodder.

Some of my favorite things to do.

Although merely poking my head over a hill is often enough to draw a zerg to chase me to kingdom come.

Anazasi

I have spent several days reading through this and to be honest after 3 years of being called many things from terrible to zerg king; all of which are negative and all of which came from individual or group players depending on who died last. I think it's time to put this puppy to rest. The term "zerging" in correlation to ESO PVP has a negative meaning: "you are not good enough to kill me so you bring twice the numbers". Well lets all be honest, brutally honest here. There is no place or play style in open world A v A v A that does not invite or hold the potential to escalate into zerging. Players who attempt to justify something that our culture has attributed to bad play is simply a subconscious lie that players continue to propagate. Please stop trying to sell your beliefs to the enlightened masses. No one is going to buy that 3 year old lie any longer. Ever player understands that open world play means you bring as many players as you can to one square and you will win. Zerging although is not the only meta that exists. Since there are dozens of objectives all over the map, small groups (less than 6) have ample opportunity to move to other areas that are further away from the larger groups. If you choose to take the risk with your small group to play in the large group pound, that's your choice and you have absolutely no room to complain when you die to a larger group. You made a poor choice to be there and no one is to blame for your failure but you.

Furthermore, since a very long time ago when AOE caps were introduced it was apparent that zerging existed and that the developers of the game understood it. AOE caps were introduced to protect the majority because the minority of pvp players simply were that good.

Stop spreading lies, stop trying to justify your limited views. zerging is intended game play. Get a group and play or simply un-sub.

#truth

Winnamine

@Sythen88411 this should be an opinion poll, the results could be interesting. Or just trolly.

NightbladeMechanics

Anazasi wrote: »

I have spent several days reading through this and to be honest after 3 years of being called many things from terrible to zerg king; all of which are negative and all of which came from individual or group players depending on who died last. I think it's time to put this puppy to rest. The term "zerging" in correlation to ESO PVP has a negative meaning: "you are not good enough to kill me so you bring twice the numbers". Well lets all be honest, brutally honest here. There is no place or play style in open world A v A v A that does not invite or hold the potential to escalate into zerging. Players who attempt to justify something that our culture has attributed to bad play is simply a subconscious lie that players continue to propagate. Please stop trying to sell your beliefs to the enlightened masses. No one is going to buy that 3 year old lie any longer. Ever player understands that open world play means you bring as many players as you can to one square and you will win. Zerging although is not the only meta that exists. Since there are dozens of objectives all over the map, small groups (less than 6) have ample opportunity to move to other areas that are further away from the larger groups. If you choose to take the risk with your small group to play in the large group pound, that's your choice and you have absolutely no room to complain when you die to a larger group. You made a poor choice to be there and no one is to blame for your failure but you.

Furthermore, since a very long time ago when AOE caps were introduced it was apparent that zerging existed and that the developers of the game understood it. AOE caps were introduced to protect the majority because the minority of pvp players simply were that good.

Stop spreading lies, stop trying to justify your limited views. zerging is intended game play. Get a group and play or simply un-sub.

#truth

Is this what you tell new Dominion Knights members when your 15 man group suffers four consecutive wipes to my 3 man at Fare mine?

AbraXuSeXile

I personally dont care how big a group is as long as they move away from their allies and make pvp elsewhere. Nothing worse than a bomb group nuttcupping allies, i understand sometimes for instance if we just took a wipe and we spawn somewhere under attack or we are riding somewhere. When i start raid i look at the other side of the map and play there. It makes us vulnerable but if its too easy its boring as hell.

Takllin

I think we've had this before and honestly anything more than the amount necessary to complete an objective(keep/outpost/fight) is a zerg imo. Most people have zerg goggles though and call zerg whenever they see a group even remotely matching their own numbers.

IxSTALKERxI

Any group which contains a Manoekin, otherwise known as a Manozerg.

WuffyCerulei

20 or more people that is somewhat disorganized. A ball group can be the same size, but is usually way more organized and tightly clustered.

NightbladeMechanics

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

Any group which contains a Manoekin, otherwise known as a Manozerg.

Truth! Mano.

blazjit420

My 2cent

Zerging is a playstyle originated from starcraft when you use any means necessary to dispose of your enemy in a short span of time, in starcraft, it was using all the units you have accumulated in a brief amount of time including your "working units". In terms of ESO it will be using all your skills including ultimates, poison etc in a short amount of time on the same target.

Dreyloch

Maybe we should break it down.

Solo
2-4 small group
5-8 very small raid
9-12 medium raid
13-24 full raid
25-48 zerg
Anything after that I call it a faction stack rofl. The worst possible scenario. But when your faction is doing this and you have all your home keeps and half the inner ring? It's just horrible gameplay by that faction and makes many players wanna punch cute furry things. All factions have done it though. I won't even try to say mine hasen't at times. My guild will try to pull off that if we can. Sometimes we'll leave an assault on a keep when we realize 1348715124351 other people just showed up in order to address another area. Some guilds will run everywhere with 2 full raids (see zerg above). That's just stupid, and causes tons of hate.

Kay1

If there's 4 players on me I consider them a zerg.

I play solo so anything above 2 players is a zerg, I don't get attacked by small scale groups they all know me on my server but if a group from a zerg 4v1d me I will consider them a zerg.

Zerging is just the meaning of getting completely outnumbered by no brains who don't even know what is happening, so if you are in a group of 5 and you attack with your group a solo player you are being a zerg.

Kay1

Anazasi wrote: »

I have spent several days reading through this and to be honest after 3 years of being called many things from terrible to zerg king; all of which are negative and all of which came from individual or group players depending on who died last. I think it's time to put this puppy to rest. The term "zerging" in correlation to ESO PVP has a negative meaning: "you are not good enough to kill me so you bring twice the numbers". Well lets all be honest, brutally honest here. There is no place or play style in open world A v A v A that does not invite or hold the potential to escalate into zerging. Players who attempt to justify something that our culture has attributed to bad play is simply a subconscious lie that players continue to propagate. Please stop trying to sell your beliefs to the enlightened masses. No one is going to buy that 3 year old lie any longer. Ever player understands that open world play means you bring as many players as you can to one square and you will win. Zerging although is not the only meta that exists. Since there are dozens of objectives all over the map, small groups (less than 6) have ample opportunity to move to other areas that are further away from the larger groups. If you choose to take the risk with your small group to play in the large group pound, that's your choice and you have absolutely no room to complain when you die to a larger group. You made a poor choice to be there and no one is to blame for your failure but you.

Furthermore, since a very long time ago when AOE caps were introduced it was apparent that zerging existed and that the developers of the game understood it. AOE caps were introduced to protect the majority because the minority of pvp players simply were that good.

Stop spreading lies, stop trying to justify your limited views. zerging is intended game play. Get a group and play or simply un-sub.

#truth

You see this type of guy? On my server there's like 5 of them who are very famous, what I do is that I 1vX his group of 8 players but I don't kill him, I start heavy attacking him until he dies then I proceed to push ups weak on his body then I receive a message insulting me then I proceed to send him a picture of him few months ago offering me 200k gold if I stop attacking his group.

I have so much fun with the zerg kings like this guy, they usually run with a magdk with Ice staff and 2 maces back bar while they spam the stone fist to DPS.

Never leave this game, really, I will stop playing if you PvP diamonds stop playing.

Armitas

Sythen88411 wrote: »

[Insert number here]

A number that I die to is a zerg, even if it's pets, especially sorc pets.

zyk

In the 6-12 (rarely 16) player groups I occasionally ran in during 2.6, we engaged opposition groups of all sizes and it wasn't whoever bombs first wins.

The biggest problem we had was getting good group comp because it seems everyone is casual these days.

I don't find that damage or snares are ruining PVP. I think it's the cheesy tank builds in conflicts of all sizes. The absence of such builds during no CP week was very very nice.

Enslaved

Dreyloch wrote: »

Maybe we should break it down.

Solo
2-4 small group
5-8 very small raid
9-12 medium raid
13-24 full raid
25-48 zerg
Anything after that I call it a faction stack rofl. The worst possible scenario. But when your faction is doing this and you have all your home keeps and half the inner ring? It's just horrible gameplay by that faction and makes many players wanna punch cute furry things. All factions have done it though. I won't even try to say mine hasen't at times. My guild will try to pull off that if we can. Sometimes we'll leave an assault on a keep when we realize 1348715124351 other people just showed up in order to address another area. Some guilds will run everywhere with 2 full raids (see zerg above). That's just stupid, and causes tons of hate.

And how do you call it when (naming and shaming) from AD and his 15 friends log in on DC chars and join other AD to prevent EP from dethroning AD? I call it bull F shiet.

Rickter

Enslaved wrote: »

And how do you call it when (naming and shaming) from AD and his 15 friends log in on DC chars and join other AD to prevent EP from dethroning AD? I call it bull F shiet.

I always felt like this was an oversight on zos' part - Campaigns should have ALWAYS been faction locked from the start. this should have been account bound. make then buy crowns to change it and crowns only. 5000 crowns to release faction lock for your account on a campaign

Zvorgin

Zerg is not defined by how many in my opinion, but by what they do. 24 people in a group running coordinated siege with a clear objective outside of running around the center circle is not a Zerg.

Zerging is the mindless fighting around the center circle with no real objective other than grinding out AP. Cyrodiil is just poorly laid out and encourages people to just circle the center all day.

Dreyloch

Enslaved wrote: »

Dreyloch wrote: »

Maybe we should break it down.

Solo
2-4 small group
5-8 very small raid
9-12 medium raid
13-24 full raid
25-48 zerg
Anything after that I call it a faction stack rofl. The worst possible scenario. But when your faction is doing this and you have all your home keeps and half the inner ring? It's just horrible gameplay by that faction and makes many players wanna punch cute furry things. All factions have done it though. I won't even try to say mine hasen't at times. My guild will try to pull off that if we can. Sometimes we'll leave an assault on a keep when we realize 1348715124351 other people just showed up in order to address another area. Some guilds will run everywhere with 2 full raids (see zerg above). That's just stupid, and causes tons of hate.

And how do you call it when (naming and shaming) from AD and his 15 friends log in on DC chars and join other AD to prevent EP from dethroning AD? I call it bull F shiet.

I have zero clue what your talking about. Oh wait, maybe it's you that has no clue what your talking about? I play NA TF prime time. Far as I know, there hasen't been a AD emp in ages? So slow your roll on that angry tone. ZoS made that possible. Not me, or anyone else. Personally I don't have ANY AD toons. PvE,PvP, or otherwise. I have some EP toons that are simply mules for gear and will probably never see Cyrodiil. They aren't even level 10 lol.

bosmern_ESO

Whatever kills me is 100% zerg. Even if its one person, theyre zerging and need to git gud.