Organized Raids vs Zergs

Aki-Ral

Sanct16 wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Lol. Delusional post of the year award goes to you!!!! Keep on zerging!

So....make a statement, fail to back it up...throw insult to cover inability to defend point. Ok snowflake.

Here is a statement. You are a zeger who is so delusional he thinks it is harder to run in a gang of 24 than a gang of 4. Is that better? Do you feel good?

If you guys are so talented why don't you get the best and brightest from your herd to run in Animosity's GvG fights. This way we can all see how amazing you big groups really are and how terrible small scale players are....snowflake...

First, it is important to understand that we are comparing completly different playstyles. In smallscale everyone plays for himself kinda, whereas in a group you build your character in a way that will benefit the group the most. Both playstyles require a lot individual skill if you want to be successful, however it's completly different types of "skill". In smallscale, you need to be good at a "dueling" type of pvp, in raids you need to be good at movement, communcation and prediction of how the fight will develope.
An argument I often read for why players in groups are trash is that if you catch them alone, they die in no time. However this is most likely due to their build not being aimed to 1v1. On my nightblade bomber in group I run neither singletarget damage nor self-heal on a build with 900 magicka recovery. Hard to duel someone. However if you put someone with a smallscale build into a raid, he will be completly dead weight aswell.

Second, you have to put things into relation. You can't compare top smallscale groups to casual raid groups and vice versa. If you run with an average pug guild, you don't need to be good at anything, however that group won't ever pull off anything special. Maybe win a 20v20 fight against pugs but that's it. However if you take 14 really good players, you might be able to pull of a 14v60. Likewise, if you take 4 scrubs you might be able to win a 4v4. If you take 4 really good players, you might be able to pull of a 4v12.

This ^, it's funny how many people in zonechat go on about "it's easy to run in a blob, you just have to press 2 skills".

driosketch

Stratforge wrote: »

BertMoTron wrote: »

This will hopefully be a discussion about how to improve the PvP community in Cyrodiil since we're unable to improve the loading screens, but as most things Cyrodiil the salt miners will come to play.

I want to address the terms "Zerg" and "Raid" and define them as I've come to know them.
...
Choose yours wisely but know the differances.

Who could possibly care about the difference? Getting zerged down by a zerg or zerged down by a "raid" feel the exact same.

It's not that hard to tell the difference.
Somewhat spread out players who converge and clump on a target, with a death recap of spamables and executes, -zerg

Players in a train or stacked formation, heavy use of snares and AoE like the the destro ult, -raid.

Fighting zergs outnumbered is like fighting a bee hive. Random players will converge on the nearest target. Fighting a raid is like fighting a military unit. They don't chase players, they let others come after them then turn around and mow them down. That also makes the latter somewhat predictable, and if the zerg contains any experenced yet "socially casual" players, they will help pick the raid apart provided enough pugs survive to finish the job.

Recremen

Organized raiding waxes and wanes as guilds form and leave based on the rise and fall of individual player interest in the game. We recently lost a fantastic DC guild on PC NA who were an absolute pleasure to compete with, but who have more or less had to call it quits as a unified whole. It's sad, but it wasn't the first I've seen take a seat, it won't be the last, and PvP will keep rolling on. So if you're seeing an increase in zerging, it might just be that a guild on your server took a step back recently so that all that's left are the zergier groups for now.

Prince_of_all_Pugs

Organized Raids=Zergs

Zbigb4life

montiferus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Just a quick note on the post- without actual zergs the farm groups, small man LOS and gankers are irrelevant here in cyro and don't function. The idea of one server with max limit on grouping of 4 would be a nightmare for these groups as everyone would sit in stealth or run around resources in circles trying to bait new players into chasing them so they can be mowed down. These groups take experienced players only, so there would be no baiting of anyone on that server and since no one would push map there would not be anything to do, at all. They NEED zergs as much as they cry otherwise as without them they have absolutely nothing to do. This is different from organized small mans who do push for the faction and push the map, very different.

Lol. Do you really believe this?

Soul_Demon wrote: »

We are the skilled, they are mindless idiots mashing buttons.

I wouldn't say mindless idiots but if you think for a second playing small scale isn't harder than "organized raids" you are out of your mind.

Yes, not only do I believe it but I think we have a perfect example of what happens when PvP goes small scale only....Battlegrounds. Huge success, right? If small scale could exist on its own Battlegrounds would have drawn the entire PvP community from Cyro and made it the number 1 attraction. But that did not happen. You could argue the reasons why...but why bother, it simply was not the draw many proclaimed it would be. Personally I remember multiple players predicting this and asking ZOS to look at fixing bugs and working on Cyro- They chose to finish developing and implementing Battlegrounds.

The other statement- not only did I not say that, but now that you have.....if you think its a challenge to manage 4 players well and win more than you loose, try doing that with 16-18. Tell me what way you find to be more difficult and we can compare notes.

Lol. Delusional post of the year award goes to you!!!! Keep on zerging!

Yes! Proud to zerg!!

Sanct16

@krathos

I think you might have interpreted some things into my post that I didn't actually say.

My intention was mostly to point out the differences between raidplay and smallscale - not to judge on it. At no point did I say that you don't need coordination in smallscale. I agree with most of what you say - however I do believe that in smallscale groups everyone is focussed more on himself than in a larger group, simply because you have much less dedicated healers - if you have any. It's not a negative thing tho, just a difference.

On a side note, I disagree with your conclusion that you can't use destro ult or have healers with earthgore. From my experience 5-6 pepple is enough to be effective as a destro train. 2-3 bomber, 2 templar, 1 stamsorc is very strong if you want to kill big stacks. If you also want be strong at XvX, you can run 3-4 magsorc, 1 stamsorc, 1 templar aswell. Its less aoe dmg but if the magsorcs go for storms and the stamsorc negates you can still wipe a big stack kinda fast and you still have a good setup for equal sized fights against other small groups.
Not using storms just feels so uneffective for open world fights as you can simply be overrun by some pugs if its enough of them. What do you do if you get 35 guys chasing you?

montiferus

krathos wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is misguided and i understand you weren't targeting Animosity specifically but... In animosity at least, we build to fill in each other's weaknesses all the time. Our builds are coordinated. Our comms are coordinated. Our movement HAS to be fast and precise. Our situational awareness has to be impeccable and a group effort. We have little room for mistakes when fighting a much larger group than us. We have to move faster, hit harder, and be able to take the beating a large group can put out - especially in this destro ult shower tactic that is popular in large groups. We run 4-6 normally and have a max of 8 in rare cases (only 12 on roster). We can't have multiple healers or multiple negates. We can't run a destro train (we don't run a single destro ult) or have multiple members wearing *** like earth gore to soak up negates. We fight the "raids" and the "zergs" as the OP decribes them. To say we don't have to be as coordinated or that we play for ourselves is extremely misguided and i reckon any proper small man group feels the same way. After all, OP makes a distinction between "zergs" and "raids" and there's a distinction between a group of friends playing around each other and what real small-man guilds do.

This is why we are able to wipe guilds like Blood of Daggerfall, LoM, Chuck Norris, Dominant Dominion, Knights of Nirn, etc, despite them having 3-4x our numbers in open field. Yes sometimes the large guilds win but more often than they should, they crumble despite having huge numbers advantage and still being what you define as a "raid" as opposed to a "zerg". We also actively avoid areas with other EP nearby and especially with EP zergs and raids so we don't really fall into that category/thinly veiled insult to ESO's pvp streamers. We run few in numbers because that's what we prefer. It's more fun. It's certainly not easier and this isn't an attempt to diminish the accomplishments of any of these guilds or any large guild trying to coordinate but to say that being in a small man doesn't require these sort of coordination skills is just a farce.

@montiferus thanks for the shout out.

You are quite welcome. I've seen your groups videos and they are first rate. Also agree with everything you said. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that there is simply way more margin for error in a large group. In fact if these large raids think it is harder to run large they should give small groups a try to prove how "easy" they are. lol.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

montiferus wrote: »

krathos wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is misguided and i understand you weren't targeting Animosity specifically but... In animosity at least, we build to fill in each other's weaknesses all the time. Our builds are coordinated. Our comms are coordinated. Our movement HAS to be fast and precise. Our situational awareness has to be impeccable and a group effort. We have little room for mistakes when fighting a much larger group than us. We have to move faster, hit harder, and be able to take the beating a large group can put out - especially in this destro ult shower tactic that is popular in large groups. We run 4-6 normally and have a max of 8 in rare cases (only 12 on roster). We can't have multiple healers or multiple negates. We can't run a destro train (we don't run a single destro ult) or have multiple members wearing *** like earth gore to soak up negates. We fight the "raids" and the "zergs" as the OP decribes them. To say we don't have to be as coordinated or that we play for ourselves is extremely misguided and i reckon any proper small man group feels the same way. After all, OP makes a distinction between "zergs" and "raids" and there's a distinction between a group of friends playing around each other and what real small-man guilds do.

This is why we are able to wipe guilds like Blood of Daggerfall, LoM, Chuck Norris, Dominant Dominion, Knights of Nirn, etc, despite them having 3-4x our numbers in open field. Yes sometimes the large guilds win but more often than they should, they crumble despite having huge numbers advantage and still being what you define as a "raid" as opposed to a "zerg". We also actively avoid areas with other EP nearby and especially with EP zergs and raids so we don't really fall into that category/thinly veiled insult to ESO's pvp streamers. We run few in numbers because that's what we prefer. It's more fun. It's certainly not easier and this isn't an attempt to diminish the accomplishments of any of these guilds or any large guild trying to coordinate but to say that being in a small man doesn't require these sort of coordination skills is just a farce.

@montiferus thanks for the shout out.

You are quite welcome. I've seen your groups videos and they are first rate. Also agree with everything you said. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that there is simply way more margin for error in a large group. In fact if these large raids think it is harder to run large they should give small groups a try to prove how "easy" they are. lol.

@montiferus you were saying

https://youtu.be/LX0aSfyO4iA

https://youtu.be/LXE6ki6AiQU

https://youtu.be/ZlmfDYUHtNI

Feel free to post your raid size vids for us to compare

Vilestride

montiferus wrote: »

krathos wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is misguided and i understand you weren't targeting Animosity specifically but... In animosity at least, we build to fill in each other's weaknesses all the time. Our builds are coordinated. Our comms are coordinated. Our movement HAS to be fast and precise. Our situational awareness has to be impeccable and a group effort. We have little room for mistakes when fighting a much larger group than us. We have to move faster, hit harder, and be able to take the beating a large group can put out - especially in this destro ult shower tactic that is popular in large groups. We run 4-6 normally and have a max of 8 in rare cases (only 12 on roster). We can't have multiple healers or multiple negates. We can't run a destro train (we don't run a single destro ult) or have multiple members wearing *** like earth gore to soak up negates. We fight the "raids" and the "zergs" as the OP decribes them. To say we don't have to be as coordinated or that we play for ourselves is extremely misguided and i reckon any proper small man group feels the same way. After all, OP makes a distinction between "zergs" and "raids" and there's a distinction between a group of friends playing around each other and what real small-man guilds do.

This is why we are able to wipe guilds like Blood of Daggerfall, LoM, Chuck Norris, Dominant Dominion, Knights of Nirn, etc, despite them having 3-4x our numbers in open field. Yes sometimes the large guilds win but more often than they should, they crumble despite having huge numbers advantage and still being what you define as a "raid" as opposed to a "zerg". We also actively avoid areas with other EP nearby and especially with EP zergs and raids so we don't really fall into that category/thinly veiled insult to ESO's pvp streamers. We run few in numbers because that's what we prefer. It's more fun. It's certainly not easier and this isn't an attempt to diminish the accomplishments of any of these guilds or any large guild trying to coordinate but to say that being in a small man doesn't require these sort of coordination skills is just a farce.

@montiferus thanks for the shout out.

You are quite welcome. I've seen your groups videos and they are first rate. Also agree with everything you said. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that there is simply way more margin for error in a large group. In fact if these large raids think it is harder to run large they should give small groups a try to prove how "easy" they are. lol.

Yeah I have to disagree. I have won just as many easy 1v4s as we have easy 10v40s It's not rocket surgery to know that it's less about the numbers you fight and more about the skill level of the opponent. Sure large group is easier if the fights you're undertaking are easy ones where you probably outnumber your opponents . But if you're running a proper raid you're not going to be fighting the kind of fights you do in solo or smallscale. The idea is to be able fight entire enemy factions or close to it.

I can assure you from a healing perspective at least that when you're raid is getting hit by another organised raid there is no room for error.

Earthewen

Soul_Demon wrote: »

CyrusArya wrote: »

Kill counter is about as telling of player skill as rank on the leaderboards. Completely useless. These are things that bad players use to evaluate their own performance. Im sure looking at a great kill counter score after a night of zerging makes you feel good, considering it rewards a kill for every person you tagged in a fight but only records deaths once. I've easily racked up 60:1 KDR running in larger groups before. More proud of a 6:1 in (true) solo play any day.

Indeed, both large scale and small scale PvP can both demonstrate skillful and impressive play. But, that is seen in the fights themselves...not the AP gained or kill counter scores. Those metrics are meaningless without context.

montiferus wrote: »

This! The mere fact he brings up kill counters says a lot.

So, let me understand completely what you use to measure success in Cyro- not kill counter, not leaderboards (so not AP) and you managed to insult me by claiming "bad players" use kill counter, but then immediately go to ratio- You don't use ratio you use the players name who is stating they "won" the engagements in one night. Not sure why you would assume KDR ratio would even be considered. That appears to be a personal mindset that is incapable of thought prior to spewing out insults while simultaneously making assumptions to reinforce a false premise. Either that or you cant even show up on a competitive server and fight the map, the groups that are out and faction zergs.

Two groups meet repeatedly over one night playing the game in cyro, kill counter will show how many losses and wins via kills on a single player in that group- no "feel like we beat you more often" needs to be said, the number will be right there for you to view. You either got more kills on them or they got more on you with all other variables in Cyro being countered by each group throughout night on equal terms. You either chose poorly, or you made good choices- no excuses. Each group had opportunity to choose and engage at their discretion given all variables and other players on map that night.

Cyro wasn't created as a battlegrounds- its a war that never stops and is scored, has objectives, has leaderboards, has winning factions, ranks and AP rewards for those who participate in the way it was designed. Or- you can try to ignore basic mechanics and design of the game and come up with some other way to do things and claim that is a 'true measure' of skill. Up to you, but own that you want to disregard 90% of the game and what it was designed for and suggest others are "bad players" for embracing that concept.

I think the problem here, @Soul_Demon,. is the propensity of those who resort to insults to fail to think with their heads and logic and completely go on their feelings. What they are really saying is, "I feel like I won more than lost." You are using logic and sense and actual stats. Others fail to do that. I find you making a lot of sense in your assertions. I think a lot of the "I feel like I'm losing ... " folks have been pushing for a long time to limit the large scale game play because their stats are actually terrible. Let's face it. It's hard to take a keep by yourself. That what they would like to do. They want to "feel" better about their game, so "let's nerf the large scale groups". Not because the large groups work. Not because of the lag. Not because of fun that large groups can provide. Not because of the preference that others have for large groups. It's the same old, same old of today's "I feel like" people. "My way is the only way, and your way is wrong, and if you challenge me and point out there is another way, I'm just going to resort to insulting you."

I don't think you are delusional. As far as "zerging" goes: I find it odd that it is being used as a derogatory statement. A zerg is moving around with more than the 24-man raid. A 24-man raid is NOT a zerg. However, I don't care how many people you have on your screen being in group. The fact of the matter is, if you are a 4-man or an 8-man, and you are traveling around with another 8 groups of 4-man groups, you are still a group and therefore, probably a zerg as you have more then 24 players that you are traveling with and hitting a keep.

Just because you are only 4 players doesn't mean you aren't a zerg if you are running around with a bunch of 4 player groups. Call it small man if you want, but you're not small man. you're just living in denial of what you are really doing.

Rickter

Zerg- a number larger than necessary to accomplish the objective

Sanct16

Rickter wrote: »

Zerg- a number larger than necessary to accomplish the objective

Who defines what the objective is and what number would be neccessary to accomplish it?

manny254

Sanct16 wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Lol. Delusional post of the year award goes to you!!!! Keep on zerging!

So....make a statement, fail to back it up...throw insult to cover inability to defend point. Ok snowflake.

Here is a statement. You are a zeger who is so delusional he thinks it is harder to run in a gang of 24 than a gang of 4. Is that better? Do you feel good?

If you guys are so talented why don't you get the best and brightest from your herd to run in Animosity's GvG fights. This way we can all see how amazing you big groups really are and how terrible small scale players are....snowflake...

First, it is important to understand that we are comparing completly different playstyles. In smallscale everyone plays for himself kinda, whereas in a group you build your character in a way that will benefit the group the most.

This is just inaccurate. This may be the case for how you play, but for my group if we play small scale the expectation is that everyone can handle them selves and support one another. People do not run what they run solo or dueling. They make and adjust their build based on who is in the group and what we are fighting. It is ignorant to think that small scale does not build to support the group. In fact it is even more difficult than building to be in a larger group. Because I have to build to support others, but not neglect every other aspect of my build.

asneakybanana

Sanct16 wrote: »

Rickter wrote: »

Zerg- a number larger than necessary to accomplish the objective

Who defines what the objective is and what number would be neccessary to accomplish it?

The objective is whatever the group is currently trying to do whether it be take a keep, a resource, farm a bridge or a gate or simply just kill a couple people. I would say once you are outnumbered to a point where you cannot win no matter how spilled you are or what build you run you are getting zerged. But the number needed will fluctuate based on many factors such as number of defenders or people you're fighting.

For instance if you're playing solo and 6 people chase you for a minute and you are totally separate from any allies then I would reckon those 6 players zerged you down, they could have likely accomplished the same feat with 3 players but the solo player would have at least had a chance. However let's say you have an 8 man farming Alessia bridge and those same 6 people go and fight your 8 man I would not say either group is zerging. But if you were to take 24-30 and fight just that 6 man then I would say the 6 man got zerged. However, once you go to 36-48 people around you then I would say you are zerging no matter how many people you are fighting, but at that point both sides could be zerging. Let's take a last EMP keep for example, you have 50+ allies stacked inside the keep and there are 60-80 enemies out in the courtyard trying to take the keep. Both sides are zerging there.

Just my 2c tho and I'm sure many people would disagree with me.

Elong

A zerg is defined as below:

Z = Z + 1

Horowonnoe

Some of us who are casual pvp'rs can't get into organized groups because guilds won't have non-guild people, so we have no option but to form our zergling groups. So i do.

Earthewen

Horowonnoe wrote: »

Some of us who are casual pvp'rs can't get into organized groups because guilds won't have non-guild people, so we have no option but to form our zergling groups. So i do.

This has been a problem that I have seen as well, which is precisely why I pick up new people to the pvp aspect of the game. It is hard to play by yourself out there. Grouping helps to give you a place where you can at least survive longer than 5 minutes in a fight.

zyk

The way I see it, when I get 'zerged down', it's always my fault because I put myself in that situation. Either I chose to sacrifice myself or I miscalculated.

I do not expect opponents to give me a break because I'm outnumbered. It's the risk of biting off more than one can chew that makes solo and small group play interesting to me.

Chasing is also fine to me. We're all fair game. I don't think the opposition should let me go to hunt freely in their territory just because I'm just one player and chose not to engage them.

Likewise, I'll zerg anyone down shamelessly. There are plenty of structured games that guarantee an equal number of opponents. This isn't one of them. This is open world AvA. My POV is that that any enemy force, regardless of numbers, should be wiped ASAP. If it makes you feel better, I probably get zerged down more often than you. (when I play, which hasn't been the case lately.)

I think it's kind of ridiculous to look for outnumbered fights, but complain when they are too outnumbered.

VaranisArano

I tend to define a zerg as 1 or more organized raids + PUGs at the same objective. Which happens very naturally and organically in Cyrodiil because Cyrodiil is designed by its very nature to make that happen. In fact, its a sign that Cyrodiil is working as intended.

How so? Objectives in Cyrodiil are worth something. Home keeps, outposts, enemy keeps, ring keeps, and scrolls are all worth something to the faction and to faction players. Smart play will bring more players to the most important objectives, which naturally creates a "zerg" of organized raids and PUGs at that important objective. This happens organically, mostly unintentionally, and is a sign that a faction has good organized raids and PUGs who can read the map and respond appropriately to objectives. Whenever I've found myself in a "zerg" it was rarely intentional, but it was a result of playing the map and being at important objectives.

The only way for ZOS to disperse the zergs is to make objectives worth less so that players have less reasons to focus on objectives. All that will do is diminish the the very gameplay structure that keeps players responding to fights. Players, organized raids, and faction-supporting small groups have a lot more options to make an enemy faction "zerg" break up.

In other words, a "zerg", defined as 1 or more organized raids + PUGs at the same objective, is a sign that the faction has a healthy population that can respond appropriately to objectives.

Talcyndl

I run in an organized group.

You run in a zerg.

That is all.