A plan to stop zergs

Deep_01

What if I started supplying my alliance zergs with resource poisons for free. Ask them to use it. Give them all cancer build advice in game. Ask them to run Destro and Resto ult etc.

This could lead to other alliance zergs using it too. In a few days or over time they might rage quit on each other and become toxic enough that they leave PvP altogether.

In the meantime, if players playing for love of PvP, keep up the etiquettes, we might later have an almost zerg free cyro.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Let me know if any other ideas to curb zerg groups exist.

Bhaal5

?? So you want small group stuff?? Isnt that what battlegrounds and dueling is for?

Deep_01

Bhaal5 wrote: »

?? So you want small group stuff?? Isnt that what battlegrounds and dueling is for?

4v4v4 and 1v1 hardly brings the full potential of small group play. Imagine never ending fights of 1v2v1 or 2v2 and more.

Juhasow

Deep_01 wrote: »

What if I started supplying my alliance zergs with resource poisons for free. Ask them to use it. Give them all cancer build advice in game. Ask them to run Destro and Resto ult etc.

This could lead to other alliance zergs using it too. In a few days or over time they might rage quit on each other and become toxic enough that they leave PvP altogether.

In the meantime, if players playing for love of PvP, keep up the etiquettes, we might later have an almost zerg free cyro.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Let me know if any other ideas to curb zerg groups exist.

It's good to have dreams.

Nogawd

I enjoy crazy big battles for keeps, but I guess that is not called "zerging" per say. Yeah we see large groups get together just to aim and mow down much smaller ones, which I don't understand how that makes them feel accomplished or better about themselves.

kyle.wilson

The only way to fix zerging at this point, is to shut down the servers permanently.
The games mechanics were intended for large scale fighting, granted the server is incapable of smoothly running.

Small scale can be found in the Imperial City and Battlegrounds.
As to the Ops original advice, it won't work. You are suggesting what was already done on PC/NA, and it didn't affect zerging or get people to quit.

Deep_01

Nogawd wrote: »

I enjoy crazy big battles for keeps, but I guess that is not called "zerging" per say. Yeah we see large groups get together just to aim and mow down much smaller ones, which I don't understand how that makes them feel accomplished or better about themselves.

By zergs I mean 24-player raids, formed via lfg in zone chat, follows the crown, is there for AP etc. Keeps can't be taken by small groups effectively unless its empty and the group size is 3+

I get good battles of 10 vs. 10 at keeps around 4 AM GMT in PC EU. those battles are purely skill based. No groups exist during that time. We port in, do our jobs without speaking anything, if we are better talented, we get to thin down and push the group as defenders. If we are sieging, its whole lot amazing when we win.

kyle.wilson

Deep_01 wrote: »

Nogawd wrote: »

I enjoy crazy big battles for keeps, but I guess that is not called "zerging" per say. Yeah we see large groups get together just to aim and mow down much smaller ones, which I don't understand how that makes them feel accomplished or better about themselves.

By zergs I mean 24-player raids, formed via lfg in zone chat, follows the crown, is there for AP etc. Keeps can't be taken by small groups effectively unless its empty and the group size is 3+

I get good battles of 10 vs. 10 at keeps around 4 AM GMT in PC EU. those battles are purely skill based. No groups exist during that time. We port in, do our jobs without speaking anything, if we are better talented, we get to thin down and push the group as defenders. If we are sieging, its whole lot amazing when we win.

"Do your jobs without speaking" that sounds like an incredibly boring way of playing.
Btw, the game better PvP guilds could easily wipe a 24 man pug with 6-8.

Deep_01

@kyle.wilson if I start playing as groups of 12 to 24, how to effectively dominate the map? Meaning wipe anything that comes my way. How should the team be?

kyle.wilson wrote: »

The only way to fix zerging at this point, is to shut down the servers permanently.
The games mechanics were intended for large scale fighting, granted the server is incapable of smoothly running.

Small scale can be found in the Imperial City and Battlegrounds.
As to the Ops original advice, it won't work. You are suggesting what was already done on PC/NA, and it didn't affect zerging or get people to quit.

This answers my question. So, promoting small scale fights in IC and battle level fights in cyro might be the way to go? Or separate them via campaign rules will work (Is cyro too big for effective small scale, given large number of players play) ?

Deep_01

kyle.wilson wrote: »

"Do your jobs without speaking" that sounds like an incredibly boring way of playing.
Btw, the game better PvP guilds could easily wipe a 24 man pug with 6-8.

I mean focus on wiping enemy first. No yelling of a certain player is here and needs to die first, what to do, what not to do etc. Any new player, if there, learn by watching, mostly.

VaranisArano

Deep_01 wrote: »

Nogawd wrote: »

I enjoy crazy big battles for keeps, but I guess that is not called "zerging" per say. Yeah we see large groups get together just to aim and mow down much smaller ones, which I don't understand how that makes them feel accomplished or better about themselves.

By zergs I mean 24-player raids, formed via lfg in zone chat, follows the crown, is there for AP etc. Keeps can't be taken by small groups effectively unless its empty and the group size is 3+

I get good battles of 10 vs. 10 at keeps around 4 AM GMT in PC EU. those battles are purely skill based. No groups exist during that time. We port in, do our jobs without speaking anything, if we are better talented, we get to thin down and push the group as defenders. If we are sieging, its whole lot amazing when we win.

When last I checked, Cyrodiil was still designed for groups of 8 to 24 players...

Nor is there anyway to prevent multiple groups of 8 to 24 players from converging on the same objective without removing the very reasons that make that objective important in the first place.

Why would AD send multiple raids to protect Faregyl? That's the best way to protect their scrolls. Why would EP have multiple raids at Chalman to recapture or defend? Well, because its a home keep and that recapture or defense is an important objective on the map at that time. DC "zerging" from Aleswell to Bleakers? That's the best counterattack against an EP attack on Aleswell or Dragonclaw. Most "zergs" and "faction events" make sense in terms of objectives in the campaign.

When you see multiple raids + pugs converging into a zerg, ask yourself, Is this because they want to zerg or because strategically it makes sense that they all wound up here?

Or to put it another way, every faction has the same map strats and objectives for their own team that everyone can use, and every faction has about the same level of dysfunctional communication between guilds and the zone chat. Everyone has the same groups that stick on the ring keeps and the same guilds that strike out on their own and the same small man groups that support pushes, and the same PUGs that potato at the darndest times. Every single faction does this. When every faction does this, its not because EP is doing it strategically and AD and DC are doing it because they love to zerg, as biased as I am towards EP. Every faction does it because the objectives matter and smart play gets more players to the same objectives.

Large scale fighting around objectives, and "zergs" forming from multiple groups of various sizes +PUGs are a sign that Cyrodiil's campaign objective are working as intended. The objectives are worthwhile enough to attract players and the opposition is strong enough to make players work together in everything from 1 player to 24 man groups +PUGs in order to be effective. This is a GOOD thing! The alternative is valueless objectives and weak opposition.

generalmyrick

Deep_01 wrote: »

What if I started supplying my alliance zergs with resource poisons for free. Ask them to use it. Give them all cancer build advice in game. Ask them to run Destro and Resto ult etc.

This could lead to other alliance zergs using it too. In a few days or over time they might rage quit on each other and become toxic enough that they leave PvP altogether.

In the meantime, if players playing for love of PvP, keep up the etiquettes, we might later have an almost zerg free cyro.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Let me know if any other ideas to curb zerg groups exist.

a really popular person/youtuber/leader could destroy zerging as a strategic option = by advertising this.

about 4 minutes to evaluation break into 2-3 man teams and take every resource and then defend it until it until eval, if a zerg shows up, just back off and don't flip the resource.

1. your faction would quickly win the campaign...
2. the other side would be frustrated as f*** because they are not getting AP for kills/flipping and they would be bored for no fighting--this would probably lead them to bridge fighting etc.
3. other factions would quickly figure out they need to also break into small teams to win OR they would just lose.

Tan9oSuccka

With large scale combat, chances are you'll get outnumbered and vice-versa.

It happens.

Everyone cries foul when their group is bested by sheer number of another.

Yolo scrub: "OMG Zerg much, noobs!!"
Me: So, it's not a Zerg if you run in a large group?
Yolo scrub: "Nah, we have pure skill brah!"


Okay.

Deep_01

generalmyrick wrote: »

a really popular person/youtuber/leader could destroy zerging as a strategic option = by advertising this.

about 4 minutes to evaluation break into 2-3 man teams and take every resource and then defend it until it until eval, if a zerg shows up, just back off and don't flip the resource.

1. your faction would quickly win the campaign...
2. the other side would be frustrated as f*** because they are not getting AP for kills/flipping and they would be bored for no fighting--this would probably lead them to bridge fighting etc.
3. other factions would quickly figure out they need to also break into small teams to win OR they would just lose.

I once pulled this off with a pug. But after a few runs, player left to go siege at bleakers along with 40 others,quoting that guards are diificult, we are PvDooring and they dont get enough AP. I am all for this strategy, however couldnt find players do help. If I take this topic in zone chat, a lot of players bring out the hate that I am not there to help them at siege etc.

I would love underlying idea in your points to happen - Getting the faction to break up into small teams to win the campaign.

Deep_01

@VaranisArano That clarifies. I am aware of the fact that zergs win wars and sieges. However, what is the point of 40 players coming together and stampeding over enemies or wiping? Is there no skillful play if players just run around in a crowd? Is that all cyrodiil is?

Regarding grouping of players to assure victory, why should numbers matter and not skill of pvp? Is that Cyrodiil's design fundamentally?

technohic

Deep_01 wrote: »

Nogawd wrote: »

I enjoy crazy big battles for keeps, but I guess that is not called "zerging" per say. Yeah we see large groups get together just to aim and mow down much smaller ones, which I don't understand how that makes them feel accomplished or better about themselves.

By zergs I mean 24-player raids, formed via lfg in zone chat, follows the crown, is there for AP etc. Keeps can't be taken by small groups effectively unless its empty and the group size is 3+

I get good battles of 10 vs. 10 at keeps around 4 AM GMT in PC EU. those battles are purely skill based. No groups exist during that time. We port in, do our jobs without speaking anything, if we are better talented, we get to thin down and push the group as defenders. If we are sieging, its whole lot amazing when we win.

If your problem is large groups of disorganized pugs, you’re really missing the issue. LFG people are likely not all set up to ball together and not die. Actually; I think this is the target for streamers.

The real issue is 24 player raids that are organized to where set number of players have purge and healing, rapids, and some with EOTS and AOE spamming that then roll over those random players. That’s the group you can’t fight.

Eliminating pugs is about the most disastrous thing you could do for the future health of the game; actually. What are they supposed to do when new or just friends are not on against your preferred size of 10 or so experienced players?

generalmyrick

Deep_01 wrote: »

generalmyrick wrote: »

a really popular person/youtuber/leader could destroy zerging as a strategic option = by advertising this.

about 4 minutes to evaluation break into 2-3 man teams and take every resource and then defend it until it until eval, if a zerg shows up, just back off and don't flip the resource.

1. your faction would quickly win the campaign...
2. the other side would be frustrated as f*** because they are not getting AP for kills/flipping and they would be bored for no fighting--this would probably lead them to bridge fighting etc.
3. other factions would quickly figure out they need to also break into small teams to win OR they would just lose.

I once pulled this off with a pug. But after a few runs, player left to go siege at bleakers along with 40 others,quoting that guards are diificult, we are PvDooring and they dont get enough AP. I am all for this strategy, however couldnt find players do help. If I take this topic in zone chat, a lot of players bring out the hate that I am not there to help them at siege etc.

I would love underlying idea in your points to happen - Getting the faction to break up into small teams to win the campaign.

i found a strategic thinker! good luck! "be the change!"

SydneyGrey

A large battle for a keep is awesome and fun, and more realistic than a small group of 5 or so people taking a keep by themselves.
I can completely understand why people don't like zergs, but they're more realistic for an open-field battle, or for conquering keeps and villages.

Deep_01

technohic wrote: »

Deep_01 wrote: »

If your problem is large groups of disorganized pugs, you’re really missing the issue. LFG people are likely not all set up to ball together and not die. Actually; I think this is the target for streamers.

The real issue is 24 player raids that are organized to where set number of players have purge and healing, rapids, and some with EOTS and AOE spamming that then roll over those random players. That’s the group you can’t fight.

Eliminating pugs is about the most disastrous thing you could do for the future health of the game; actually. What are they supposed to do when new or just friends are not on against your preferred size of 10 or so experienced players?

So, elimination of pugs will turn out to become groups of 24 experienced players vs 24 experienced players? We all need practice before we get experienced. A good way to do that is fighting on smaller scales.

If (new) players are ninterested in pvp, they will be out there fighting and learning. The pugs are there for AP and rewards. It feels like they ignore the effort to get them.

VaranisArano

Cyrodiil is about objectives. Capturing keeps, defending home keeps, reclaiming scrolls, crowning an emperor.
Cyrodiil is about AP. Killing players, repairing walls, farming Alessia bridge, chasing the o-tick, PVDooring undefended back keeps, faction-hopping players who go where the AP is.
Cyrodiil is about battle. Large scale clashes of army vs army, small group vs large group, large group vs small group, coordination vs the masses.
Cyrodiil is about skill. Skill using your abilities to best carry out whatever role you choose, whether that's a bomber, a ganker, a group healer, a raid lead, a small group player, a 1vXer, or a Xv1er, or whatever role you chose.
Cyrodiil is about strategy. When do you push to crown an emperor and when is it a lost cause, when do you strike the enemy back keeps and when do you protect your own, when do you focus on faction score, when and where do you hold fast, back off the fight, or strike deep, its all strategy.
Cyrodiil is about numbers. The guilds that coordinate offensives, the PUGs that support those offensives and hold the back lines, the small man groups who support the faction, the farmers and the bombers who make their AP off of those numbers, and the tireless PUGwranglers and zone generals who try to get everyone moving in what they think is the right direction. Too many numbers on one faction in one location will roll over a small er amount of skilled opposition, but not enough numbers in a location and it won't matter how skilled you are.

Cyrodiil contains multitudes. I acknowledge this. Cyrodiil's success is that all these playstyles can take place on the same map in the same campaign, though perhaps not all at the same time or in the same place. Not all of this are equally valuable for the faction, perhaps, but all are valid forms of gameplay in Cyrodiil.

Just because I prefer being in an organized raid that fights for the faction with 12-24 players does not invalidate your preference for small group play nor does it mean that I love PVP less, nor even that I have less skill at playing PVP in the manner I have chosen to play (not skill in general, skill in the manner I have chosen to play). Kindly, do not invalidate my preferred method because you prefer a different manner of PVP when the game is designed to support both.

Deep_01

SydneyGrey wrote: »

A large battle for a keep is awesome and fun, and more realistic than a small group of 5 or so people taking a keep by themselves.
I can completely understand why people don't like zergs, but they're more realistic for an open-field battle, or for conquering keeps and villages.

Keep capture/defense shouldn't be done by players. It shouldn't be done by 30 players who just die, rez and repeat till one side dominates other in a numbers game. Right now, all I see is that happening in prime time.

SydneyGrey

Deep_01 wrote: »

Keep capture/defense shouldn't be done by players. It shouldn't be done by 30 players who just die, rez and repeat till one side dominates other in a numbers game. Right now, all I see is that happening in prime time.

?????? If it's not done by players, then who would it be done by?
I agree it's not realistic for people to be able to resurrect and re-join the fight, though.

Chufu

My master plan against zergs: Avoid them!

My second master plan: Thinking about implementing the skill "using hands" and only allow characters without clothes to join Cyrodiil and to fight only with their fists against eachother.

Even my second plan shows that a zerg will always win a situation. The more people are there, the more normal it is that they will fin the fight. That's also with your suggestion @Deep_01 to have cancer there: The side with more cancers will win

The very interesting thing is it when two zergs are running against eachother: What will they do? Who will win? Tactic is very useful then.

But yeah, this orc doesn't like zergs. He just like to smash things. Alone things.

Deep_01

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cyrodiil is about objectives. Capturing keeps, defending home keeps, reclaiming scrolls, crowning an emperor.
Cyrodiil is about AP. Killing players, repairing walls, farming Alessia bridge, chasing the o-tick, PVDooring undefended back keeps, faction-hopping players who go where the AP is.
Cyrodiil is about battle. Large scale clashes of army vs army, small group vs large group, large group vs small group, coordination vs the masses.
Cyrodiil is about skill. Skill using your abilities to best carry out whatever role you choose, whether that's a bomber, a ganker, a group healer, a raid lead, a small group player, a 1vXer, or a Xv1er, or whatever role you chose.
Cyrodiil is about strategy. When do you push to crown an emperor and when is it a lost cause, when do you strike the enemy back keeps and when do you protect your own, when do you focus on faction score, when and where do you hold fast, back off the fight, or strike deep, its all strategy.
Cyrodiil is about numbers. The guilds that coordinate offensives, the PUGs that support those offensives and hold the back lines, the small man groups who support the faction, the farmers and the bombers who make their AP off of those numbers, and the tireless PUGwranglers and zone generals who try to get everyone moving in what they think is the right direction. Too many numbers on one faction in one location will roll over a small er amount of skilled opposition, but not enough numbers in a location and it won't matter how skilled you are.

Cyrodiil contains multitudes. I acknowledge this. Cyrodiil's success is that all these playstyles can take place on the same map in the same campaign, though perhaps not all at the same time or in the same place. Not all of this are equally valuable for the faction, perhaps, but all are valid forms of gameplay in Cyrodiil.

Just because I prefer being in an organized raid that fights for the faction with 12-24 players does not invalidate your preference for small group play nor does it mean that I love PVP less, nor even that I have less skill at playing PVP in the manner I have chosen to play (not skill in general, skill in the manner I have chosen to play). Kindly, do not invalidate my preferred method because you prefer a different manner of PVP when the game is designed to support both.

That moment of realisation! I should learn to acknowledge all play styles. Thank you for this comment. It is true that cyro has multitudes. I just couldn't understand why players join as huge groups. Guess its the way. I should redesign my play style and attitude, I guess. This has given me new ideas.

VaranisArano

SydneyGrey wrote: »

I agree it's not realistic for people to be able to resurrect and re-join the fight, though.

Players can't resurrect and rejoin the fight. At least not the same way you can in PVE.

They can:
A. Be resurrected by players of their faction. This encourages players on the faction supporting each other and organized raids using tatical resurrections. Pulled off, this can turn the tide of the fight. Not pulled off, this is where gorups die. I've been in both situations. Likewise, small groups can have a player hide and rez group members after the larger group has left and continue on to their objective.
B. Resurrect at a nearby or faraway keep as long as the keep is not flagged. This helps defenders, who can defend a keep without fear until it flags, but have to become very careful once it does flag. Porting to faraway keeps helps enable movement across the map in a zone that is huge. Porting to a nearby keep that isn't flagged requires players to ride back to the fight.
C. Resurrect at a nearby Forward Camp set down by members of their faction. These cost AP, have a limited range, and can be burned by the enemy. They also have a time limit of 5 minutes where if you die before your respawn timer is up, you can rez at a Forward camp until your timer is up. This prevents people from dying and rezzing, dying and rezzing once a keep is flagged. Small groups and farming groups will also use these when they expect to die and don't want to ride back from the nearest keep or outpost.

All of these methods are situational, not a guaranteed resurrection, and are absolutely necessary to deal with the dreaded Horse Riding Simulator 3000 that is Cyrodiil. Removing them would harm solo players, small groups, large groups, and zergs alike.

For a PVE equivalent, its similar to players being unable to rez themselves if they die during a boss fight during a group dungeon or trial. There is a penalty for dying, but not one that prevents them from being able to rejoin the fight after a period of time or when a player can help them.

Deep_01

Chufu wrote: »

My master plan against zergs: Avoid them!

My second master plan: Thinking about implementing the skill "using hands" and only allow characters without clothes to join Cyrodiil and to fight only with their fists against eachother.

Even my second plan shows that a zerg will always win a situation. The more people are there, the more normal it is that they will fin the fight. That's also with your suggestion @Deep_01 to have cancer there: The side with more cancers will win

The very interesting thing is it when two zergs are running against eachother: What will they do? Who will win? Tactic is very useful then.

But yeah, this orc doesn't like zergs. He just like to smash things. Alone things.

Ignoring the zerg was the first thing that came to my mind after reading the comment by @VaranisArano
Next would be building a better community that would share my playstyles. It does encourage with other new ideas. One of which will be getting like-minded players to play in non zergy campaigns

Deep_01

SydneyGrey wrote: »

Deep_01 wrote: »

Keep capture/defense shouldn't be done by players. It shouldn't be done by 30 players who just die, rez and repeat till one side dominates other in a numbers game. Right now, all I see is that happening in prime time.

?????? If it's not done by players, then who would it be done by?
I agree it's not realistic for people to be able to resurrect and re-join the fight, though.

I meant to say small group of players. Typo !

eso_nya

Question: The history of zerging.
I remember shortly after launch, there seemed to be far far more ppl in cyrodiil. was it 90 days campaigns, 9 of them?
In older screenshots, there were amounts of players marching together, that made it feel like a frickin army.

Amount, length and players in/of campaigns became less and less over time.

I heard the word "zerging" for the first time around the time when IC launched. mostly used by solo gankers who got overrun by a full raidgroup in the sewers.

As for now, the amount of players needed for a zerg seems to be less than 10.

Is that correct so far?

What is different now, that running with 50~100 ppl after launch was "cool", while running with 24 now is not cool?
Concerning general complains in pvp: Players who r able to take on a zerg alone seem to be not cool and a zerg stomping a single player seems to be not cool aswell.

Deep_01

eso_nya wrote: »

Question: The history of zerging.
I remember shortly after launch, there seemed to be far far more ppl in cyrodiil. was it 90 days campaigns, 9 of them?
In older screenshots, there were amounts of players marching together, that made it feel like a frickin army.

Amount, length and players in/of campaigns became less and less over time.

I heard the word "zerging" for the first time around the time when IC launched. mostly used by solo gankers who got overrun by a full raidgroup in the sewers.

As for now, the amount of players needed for a zerg seems to be less than 10.

Is that correct so far?

What is different now, that running with 50~100 ppl after launch was "cool", while running with 24 now is not cool?
Concerning general complains in pvp: Players who r able to take on a zerg alone seem to be not cool and a zerg stomping a single player seems to be not cool aswell.

That is insightful. <10 wouldn't be a zerg imo, you can escape or corner and fight one or two players, if you are 1 to 3. With some 20 players against 1 to 4 players, you become powerless unless we have one or two dedicated healer + LoS advantage or escape plan like invisibility pot.

eso_nya

Is actually hard to find vids that or old enough.

pts before launch

shortly after launch

Have no clue how to embed, sry.

For me, that was what made pvp awesome and special, hadnt seen anything like that in a mmo before.

Deep_01

eso_nya wrote: »

Is actually hard to find vids that or old enough.

pts before launch

shortly after launch

Have no clue how to embed, sry.

For me, that was what made pvp awesome and special, hadnt seen anything like that in a mmo before.

Just came to realise that Cyro is for large scale fights (via this post's comments) and its me who needs to move xD
I have seen both videos long ago.