Alliance Point accumulation needs to be re-evaluated.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

All I read is "Rainbow-train wants more AP".

You couldn't be further from the truth. If you actually look through my post history, you would know I am opposed to cheap and silly tactics such as impulse spamming and the like.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

A. If you're going to try an educate someone on something, you might wanna have a clue about the issue at hand before doing it. The only thing you managed to say that was correct in the bold part, Was that Zerg came from starcraft, Everything else was completely wrong. The Specific type of "strategy" you're referring to was not using organized forces to overwhelm the enemy quickly, Nor was it a Blitzkrieg either, You could do both of those with Space Marines and Protoss, Its called "Zerging" because the strategy employed by the Zerg was to overwhelm the enemy with sheer Numbers. Its why when you used overwhelming numbers in any game to accomplish a goal, Its called Zerging... Please do not post again if you're going to spread what is blatantly wrong information across your posts.

B. Are you seriously trying to claim pugs banding together to capture an objective isn't a zerg? That is exactly what a zerg is..Pugs using overwhelming numbers to take an objective, that is Zerging..The fact that you don't know this, or understand this makes me question your ability to comprehend gaming terms. a 24 Man group is a zerg, You can try and say its not..But guess what..It will always be a zerg.

C. 15 people Running around together is a zerg, But not for the reason you think it is, You think it has to be an entire Guild group to constitute zerging in this game, That is incorrect, like pretty much everything you've said in this post and multiple posts before this. I just can't believe someone can make such long posts, and 90% of their posts just being flat out wrong.

D. That includes Soloing and Small Man Action, Again..You're incorrect.

E. Again, This game includes Soloing and Small Action, That's part of the massive pvp experience, I also didn't criticize the game for having large groups, I criticized you for only wanting to reward large groups for taking unmanned objectives, and your lack of general game knowledge all around. (Like thinking a Large Group of Pugs is not in fact a zerg)

F. You're aware this game is copying DAOC right? an entire game based around Multiple forms of pvp in its Realm vs Realm system....Solo/Group vs Group/Zerg vs Zerg... Oh wait..you're not aware...Despite being told a 1000 time already... Because you're generally just clueless about how this game works.

Pathetic.

Incorrect. Regardless of Starcraft, you miss the point that "zergs" are an organized force that overwhelms the opponent in a short amount of time. That sounds very much like blitzkrieg to me, but I digress. There is nothing "organized" about most "zergs" that you claim to dominate AvA. Most large groups are not organized, are filled with PuGs, and are extremely incompetent and predictable.

I am claiming that PuGs are not zergs because they are not organized or competent. There are plenty of guilds filled with former emperors that actually fit the description of a "zerg" spamming impulse and pushing their way through objectives. You assume, and quite incorrectly, that a PuG large party is actually capable of being effective in taking objectives. PuGs are exactly just that, PuGs. They have very little use and are best as a distraction.

You clearly do not know what a zerg is, as most people do not, and I'm not going to sit here and debate with you about it all day long. It's irrelevant anyways as I've proven time and time again that "zergs" as you call them are easy to repel because they aren't very good.

I've had plenty of situations of having scenarios where I was in a 8v30 or a 20v100 and I was the outnumbered party. Regardless of the numbers, proper strategy, proper use of the environment, and the right siege weapons and skills can cripple any "zerg." True zergs, on the other hand, are a much different beast and aren't really part of this discussion.

Cyrodiil is a large sandbox. It can accommodate all forms of PvP, whether large or small. That, however, still does not change the fact that the main objectives of AvA are based around taking keeps, crowning and emperor, and taking scrolls. That requires large parties to do, and to disagree just shows a complete lack of insight on your part of the game mechanics. My point above anything else is that kills should not be the main source of AP and that it is the objectives, of which most players are participating in, should provide the most AP.

You are truly a sad individual. Resorting to petty insults and trying to undermine the discussion of which you clearly cannot contribute to. This game isn't blatantly copying DAoC, for one. What ESO has done is taken a lot of inspiration for RvR in making their own form of 3-faction PvP. By the way, AvA stands for Alliance versus Alliance, which means more than one person or a few. Cyrodiil is capable of facilitating various types of PvP at times, yes. AvA, on the other hand, is a pure large scale open world PvP system.

quakedawg_ESO · July 2014

Lot of people have different definitions for a 'zerg'. It's simply a term used to label an uncoordinated 'large group'. Now, that is only my definition. Plenty of people will say they got 'zerged' when 8 people run them over when running solo. Is 8 people a zerg?

As with the term 'PUG', I don't see it as a negative term. Just my opinion though.

Xsorus · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

A. If you're going to try an educate someone on something, you might wanna have a clue about the issue at hand before doing it. The only thing you managed to say that was correct in the bold part, Was that Zerg came from starcraft, Everything else was completely wrong. The Specific type of "strategy" you're referring to was not using organized forces to overwhelm the enemy quickly, Nor was it a Blitzkrieg either, You could do both of those with Space Marines and Protoss, Its called "Zerging" because the strategy employed by the Zerg was to overwhelm the enemy with sheer Numbers. Its why when you used overwhelming numbers in any game to accomplish a goal, Its called Zerging... Please do not post again if you're going to spread what is blatantly wrong information across your posts.

B. Are you seriously trying to claim pugs banding together to capture an objective isn't a zerg? That is exactly what a zerg is..Pugs using overwhelming numbers to take an objective, that is Zerging..The fact that you don't know this, or understand this makes me question your ability to comprehend gaming terms. a 24 Man group is a zerg, You can try and say its not..But guess what..It will always be a zerg.

C. 15 people Running around together is a zerg, But not for the reason you think it is, You think it has to be an entire Guild group to constitute zerging in this game, That is incorrect, like pretty much everything you've said in this post and multiple posts before this. I just can't believe someone can make such long posts, and 90% of their posts just being flat out wrong.

D. That includes Soloing and Small Man Action, Again..You're incorrect.

E. Again, This game includes Soloing and Small Action, That's part of the massive pvp experience, I also didn't criticize the game for having large groups, I criticized you for only wanting to reward large groups for taking unmanned objectives, and your lack of general game knowledge all around. (Like thinking a Large Group of Pugs is not in fact a zerg)

F. You're aware this game is copying DAOC right? an entire game based around Multiple forms of pvp in its Realm vs Realm system....Solo/Group vs Group/Zerg vs Zerg... Oh wait..you're not aware...Despite being told a 1000 time already... Because you're generally just clueless about how this game works.

Pathetic.

Incorrect. Regardless of Starcraft, you miss the point that "zergs" are an organized force that overwhelms the opponent in a short amount of time. That sounds very much like blitzkrieg to me, but I digress. There is nothing "organized" about most "zergs" that you claim to dominate AvA. Most large groups are not organized, are filled with PuGs, and are extremely incompetent and predictable.

I am claiming that PuGs are not zergs because they are not organized or competent. There are plenty of guilds filled with former emperors that actually fit the description of a "zerg" spamming impulse and pushing their way through objectives. You assume, and quite incorrectly, that a PuG large party is actually capable of being effective in taking objectives. PuGs are exactly just that, PuGs. They have very little use and are best as a distraction.

You clearly do not know what a zerg is, as most people do not, and I'm not going to sit here and debate with you about it all day long. It's irrelevant anyways as I've proven time and time again that "zergs" as you call them are easy to repel because they aren't very good.

I've had plenty of situations of having scenarios where I was in a 8v30 or a 20v100 and I was the outnumbered party. Regardless of the numbers, proper strategy, proper use of the environment, and the right siege weapons and skills can cripple any "zerg." True zergs, on the other hand, are a much different beast and aren't really part of this discussion.

Cyrodiil is a large sandbox. It can accommodate all forms of PvP, whether large or small. That, however, still does not change the fact that the main objectives of AvA are based around taking keeps, crowning and emperor, and taking scrolls. That requires large parties to do, and to disagree just shows a complete lack of insight on your part of the game mechanics. My point above anything else is that kills should not be the main source of AP and that it is the objectives, of which most players are participating in, should provide the most AP.

You are truly a sad individual. Resorting to petty insults and trying to undermine the discussion of which you clearly cannot contribute to. This game isn't blatantly copying DAoC, for one. What ESO has done is taken a lot of inspiration for RvR in making their own form of 3-faction PvP. By the way, AvA stands for Alliance versus Alliance, which means more than one person or a few. Cyrodiil is capable of facilitating various types of PvP at times, yes. AvA, on the other hand, is a pure large scale open world PvP system.

A. Again, you're incorrect about it needing to be organized. It doesn't have to be organized at all.

Here, I'll even be nice about it

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/zerg-rush

Zerg Rush is an online gaming term used to describe an overwhelming scale of attack carried out by one player against another in real time strategy (RTS) games. The term originates from the popular RTS game Starcraft, in which the “Zerg” race is notoriously known for its ability to mass-produce offensive units within a short time frame, thus allowing the player to overpower the opponent by sheer number.

Has nothing to do with being organized, You basically would create a crap ton of them, then spend them at the enemy base, usually within the first 60 seconds. Hence why the term was used in later games. You can search the internet for what Zerging is, and it will all say the same thing, Overwhelming your opponent with numbers. It has nothing to do with organization.

B. Again, Organization has nothing to do with Zerging...Zerging is simply Overwhelming your enemy with Numbers.

C. No...you clearly have no idea what it is, I can point you to multiple sites that will back up what I say, You will not find anyone on the internet who will agree that Zerging is only an organized force, and not an organized force, That's simply wishful thinking on your part to excuse yourself while zerging.

D. You beating the Zerg doesn't change the fact of what a Zerg is. Like I said, and multiple people have said, Zerging can be an organized force or an unorganized force. Its simply using overwhelming numbers to take an objective.

E. That would be the wrong way to go about things, I shot down that silly idea in your other silly posts. All that leads to is Keep Swapping, We have countless games that i've pointed out countless times that shows this to be true. What you want is for your Zerg to get more realm points then someone who's killing more people because you like to take undefended objectives.

F. I'm sorry, its not blatantly trying to copy DAOC? Its 3 Separate Sides, Blue/Red/Yellow in DAOC it was Blue/Red/Green, Red was Albion, Some of its races were Saracen, Aka Redguard.... Briton, Aka Breton, and Half Ogres (Orcs). Blue was Midgard, Which was Norse aka Nord, Frostalf aka Dark Elf.. (Nothing was similar to Argonian), Green was Hibernia, which had Elves though nothing similar to Khajiit. Lets go even further... Each Keep in DAOC New Frontiers had 3 towers, like you have 3 Objectives around each keep in this game...You had Relics which are Scrolls in this game, Even the bloody Relic gates are similar in appearance. You had a Realm Rank system that is basically the Alliance Rank System in this game, and Realm points work exactly like they do in this game. Its a blatant copy of DAOC, no one thinks differently...except for the guy who thinks zerging is only an organized force. Oh and as for AvA standing for Alliance vs Alliance, DAOC was RvR, which stood for Realm vs Realm (Can you guess how Realm and Alliance are similar) , and that included 8v8 and 1v1 just like it is in this game.

If you want to come back for a 3rd round of me completely demolishing your poor arguments, by all means.. keep coming back, this is bloody hilarious at this point.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

quakedawg_ESO wrote: »

Lot of people have different definitions for a 'zerg'. It's simply a term used to label an uncoordinated 'large group'. Now, that is only my definition. Plenty of people will say they got 'zerged' when 8 people run them over when running solo. Is 8 people a zerg?

As with the term 'PUG', I don't see it as a negative term. Just my opinion though.

Many consider a zerg to just be an uncoordinated blob of bad players. That is not what the term actually meant. Either way, as you suggested, people will say they were zerged regardless of how many numbers. We can debate whether a "zerg" is 8, 15, 24, etc.

When I say PuG I merely mean a "Pick up Group" which is generally random players invited to a party. This group doesn't necessarily have to be bad, but the likelihood they will be coordinated and efficient like a guild in voice comms isn't likely to occur.

My entire point is that most "zergs" are generally "PuGs," of which are rarely challenging and do not actually achieve anything, even with their supposed superior numbers. Debating about terms is really trivial, however, as this is a thread about the pitfalls of the current AP system.

Xsorus · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

quakedawg_ESO wrote: »

Lot of people have different definitions for a 'zerg'. It's simply a term used to label an uncoordinated 'large group'. Now, that is only my definition. Plenty of people will say they got 'zerged' when 8 people run them over when running solo. Is 8 people a zerg?

As with the term 'PUG', I don't see it as a negative term. Just my opinion though.

Many consider a zerg to just be an uncoordinated blob of bad players. That is not what the term actually meant. Either way, as you suggested, people will say they were zerged regardless of how many numbers. We can debate whether a "zerg" is 8, 15, 24, etc.

When I say PuG I merely mean a "Pick up Group" which is generally random players invited to a party. This group doesn't necessarily have to be bad, but the likelihood they will be coordinated and efficient like a guild in voice comms isn't likely to occur.

My entire point is that most "zergs" are generally "PuGs," of which are rarely challenging and do not actually achieve anything, even with their supposed superior numbers. Debating about terms is really trivial, however, as this is a thread about the pitfalls of the current AP system.

Is 8 people a zerg? Lets see, In DAOC for example you had a stealth group of on Merlin server that was around 8 people (sometimes they only ran 6) since most stealthers were soloers or duo's, 8 people in that sense was zerging them down, They were relying on sheer numbers to win the fight, which is generally what zerging means..To rely on numbers to win the fight. So yes... 8 people can be a zerg....hell 3 people can be a zerg to some extent again 1 person.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

A. Again, you're incorrect about it needing to be organized. It doesn't have to be organized at all.

Here, I'll even be nice about it

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/zerg-rush

Zerg Rush is an online gaming term used to describe an overwhelming scale of attack carried out by one player against another in real time strategy (RTS) games. The term originates from the popular RTS game Starcraft, in which the “Zerg” race is notoriously known for its ability to mass-produce offensive units within a short time frame, thus allowing the player to overpower the opponent by sheer number.

Has nothing to do with being organized, You basically would create a crap ton of them, then spend them at the enemy base, usually within the first 60 seconds. Hence why the term was used in later games. You can search the internet for what Zerging is, and it will all say the same thing, Overwhelming your opponent with numbers. It has nothing to do with organization.

B. Again, Organization has nothing to do with Zerging...Zerging is simply Overwhelming your enemy with Numbers.

C. No...you clearly have no idea what it is, I can point you to multiple sites that will back up what I say, You will not find anyone on the internet who will agree that Zerging is only an organized force, and not an organized force, That's simply wishful thinking on your part to excuse yourself while zerging.

D. You beating the Zerg doesn't change the fact of what a Zerg is. Like I said, and multiple people have said, Zerging can be an organized force or an unorganized force. Its simply using overwhelming numbers to take an objective.

E. That would be the wrong way to go about things, I shot down that silly idea in your other silly posts. All that leads to is Keep Swapping, We have countless games that i've pointed out countless times that shows this to be true. What you want is for your Zerg to get more realm points then someone who's killing more people because you like to take undefended objectives.

F. I'm sorry, its not blatantly trying to copy DAOC? Its 3 Separate Sides, Blue/Red/Yellow in DAOC it was Blue/Red/Green, Red was Albion, Some of its races were Saracen, Aka Redguard.... Briton, Aka Breton, and Half Ogres (Orcs). Blue was Midgard, Which was Norse aka Nord, Frostalf aka Dark Elf.. (Nothing was similar to Argonian), Green was Hibernia, which had Elves though nothing similar to Khajiit. Lets go even further... Each Keep in DAOC New Frontiers had 3 towers, like you have 3 Objectives around each keep in this game...You had Relics which are Scrolls in this game, Even the bloody Relic games are similar in looks an appearance. You had a Realm Rank system that is basically the Alliance Rank System in this game, and Realm points work exactly like they do in this game. Its a blatant copy of DAOC, no one thinks differently...except for the guy who thinks zerging is only an organized force. Oh and as for AvA standing for Alliance vs Alliance, DAOC was RvR, which stood for Realm vs Realm (Can you guess how Realm and Alliance are similar) , and that included 8v8 and 1v1 just like it is in this game.

If you want to come back for a 3rd round of me completely demolishing your poor arguments, by all means.. keep coming back, this is bloody hilarious at this point.

"The term originates from the popular RTS game Starcraft, in which the “Zerg” race is notoriously known for its ability to mass-produce offensive units within a short time frame, thus allowing the player to overpower the opponent by sheer number."

This is organization. This isn't a mindless blob of PuGs hitting a wall. You have a large force that overwhelms quickly via strategy. This is a blitzkrieg in which rapid build up of military is the primary goal. For you not to recognize this is somewhat troubling. The "zergs" you keep on suggesting do not fit this definition at all, as they are not organized, are not efficient, and generally do not succeed.

At best we could say most of what you call "zergs" are poor imitations of what the actual term means. Again with your silly nonsense about keep swapping and accusing me of preferring PvD instead of actual PvP. Blah blah blah. You are a broken record. I am interested in an AP system that actually compliments AvA. The current system does not. It's littered with abusers and exploiters. Making it more objective-oriented would be the right first step.

Obviously, there would have to be measures in place to prevent keep swapping and the like. I never said this would be an easy fix, but it's certainly achievable and better than the current system, of which nobody cares about objectives and players just want to farm PuGs for AP.

If you want a game that is blatantly "copying" DAoC, Camelot Unchained is a better example. Considering it's actually being made by Mark Jacobs (the guy who created DAoC) and is even grounded in much of the same universe, it's much more close to what DAoC was. ZOS took liberties with RvR and made changes to it to better fit ESO. Obviously there are similarities, but it is not identical as you claim.

Again, just because players organized 1v1 and 8v8 was not the main system of RvR. You needed your actual Realm to help you dominate the map in order to gain access to Darkness Falls. It is a faction-wide effort. That is the main point of the system. To ignore this is to just live in a fantasy world. I am perplexed by your responses as I'm wondering if you are just clueless or really don't know much about ESO at all.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Is 8 people a zerg? Lets see, In DAOC for example you had a stealth group of on Merlin server that was around 8 people (sometimes they only ran 6) since most stealthers were soloers or duo's, 8 people in that sense was zerging them down, They were relying on sheer numbers to win the fight, which is generally what zerging means..To rely on numbers to win the fight. So yes... 8 people can be a zerg....hell 3 people can be a zerg to some extent again 1 person.

You would be better apt to use the term "ganking." Many scenarios you describe are actually situations where ganking is happening rather than a "zerg." This may alleviate some of your confusion as you do not seem to be able to discern these two words properly.

Xsorus · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

A. Again, you're incorrect about it needing to be organized. It doesn't have to be organized at all.

Here, I'll even be nice about it

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/zerg-rush

Zerg Rush is an online gaming term used to describe an overwhelming scale of attack carried out by one player against another in real time strategy (RTS) games. The term originates from the popular RTS game Starcraft, in which the “Zerg” race is notoriously known for its ability to mass-produce offensive units within a short time frame, thus allowing the player to overpower the opponent by sheer number.

Has nothing to do with being organized, You basically would create a crap ton of them, then spend them at the enemy base, usually within the first 60 seconds. Hence why the term was used in later games. You can search the internet for what Zerging is, and it will all say the same thing, Overwhelming your opponent with numbers. It has nothing to do with organization.

B. Again, Organization has nothing to do with Zerging...Zerging is simply Overwhelming your enemy with Numbers.

C. No...you clearly have no idea what it is, I can point you to multiple sites that will back up what I say, You will not find anyone on the internet who will agree that Zerging is only an organized force, and not an organized force, That's simply wishful thinking on your part to excuse yourself while zerging.

D. You beating the Zerg doesn't change the fact of what a Zerg is. Like I said, and multiple people have said, Zerging can be an organized force or an unorganized force. Its simply using overwhelming numbers to take an objective.

E. That would be the wrong way to go about things, I shot down that silly idea in your other silly posts. All that leads to is Keep Swapping, We have countless games that i've pointed out countless times that shows this to be true. What you want is for your Zerg to get more realm points then someone who's killing more people because you like to take undefended objectives.

F. I'm sorry, its not blatantly trying to copy DAOC? Its 3 Separate Sides, Blue/Red/Yellow in DAOC it was Blue/Red/Green, Red was Albion, Some of its races were Saracen, Aka Redguard.... Briton, Aka Breton, and Half Ogres (Orcs). Blue was Midgard, Which was Norse aka Nord, Frostalf aka Dark Elf.. (Nothing was similar to Argonian), Green was Hibernia, which had Elves though nothing similar to Khajiit. Lets go even further... Each Keep in DAOC New Frontiers had 3 towers, like you have 3 Objectives around each keep in this game...You had Relics which are Scrolls in this game, Even the bloody Relic games are similar in looks an appearance. You had a Realm Rank system that is basically the Alliance Rank System in this game, and Realm points work exactly like they do in this game. Its a blatant copy of DAOC, no one thinks differently...except for the guy who thinks zerging is only an organized force. Oh and as for AvA standing for Alliance vs Alliance, DAOC was RvR, which stood for Realm vs Realm (Can you guess how Realm and Alliance are similar) , and that included 8v8 and 1v1 just like it is in this game.

If you want to come back for a 3rd round of me completely demolishing your poor arguments, by all means.. keep coming back, this is bloody hilarious at this point.

"The term originates from the popular RTS game Starcraft, in which the “Zerg” race is notoriously known for its ability to mass-produce offensive units within a short time frame, thus allowing the player to overpower the opponent by sheer number."

This is organization. This isn't a mindless blob of PuGs hitting a wall. You have a large force that overwhelms quickly via strategy. This is a blitzkrieg in which rapid build up of military is the primary goal. For you not to recognize this is somewhat troubling. The "zergs" you keep on suggesting do not fit this definition at all, as they are not organized, are not efficient, and generally do not succeed.

At best we could say most of what you call "zergs" are poor imitations of what the actual term means. Again with your silly nonsense about keep swapping and accusing me of preferring PvD instead of actual PvP. Blah blah blah. You are a broken record. I am interested in an AP system that actually compliments AvA. The current system does not. It's littered with abusers and exploiters. Making it more objective-oriented would be the right first step.

Obviously, there would have to be measures in place to prevent keep swapping and the like. I never said this would be an easy fix, but it's certainly achievable and better than the current system, of which nobody cares about objectives and players just want to farm PuGs for AP.

If you want a game that is blatantly "copying" DAoC, Camelot Unchained is a better example. Considering it's actually being made by Mark Jacobs (the guy who created DAoC) and is even grounded in much of the same universe, it's much more close to what DAoC was. ZOS took liberties with RvR and made changes to it to better fit ESO. Obviously there are similarities, but it is not identical as you claim.

Again, just because players organized 1v1 and 8v8 was not the main system of RvR. You needed your actual Realm to help you dominate the map in order to gain access to Darkness Falls. It is a faction-wide effort. That is the main point of the system. To ignore this is to just live in a fantasy world. I am perplexed by your responses as I'm wondering if you are just clueless or really don't know much about ESO at all.

A. No..... Just no..." thus allowing the player to overpower the opponent by sheer number." What part of that says Organization to you? Overpower by sheer Number...That's a pretty simple concept. Also Blitzkrieg is not a Rapid build up of military. Blitzkrieg doesn't even have to do with overwhelming your enemy by numbers either. Its simply overwhelming a surprised enemy. As in your enemy has an equal number of troops to you, But you attack at day break and run blitzkrieg directly on top of them, and hit multiple objectives in quick order. It has nothing to do with having superior numbers. Being Successful with Zerging also has nothing to do with the term either. There were plenty of Zerging attempts in Starcraft that failed horribly.

B. No, it would do exactly what it did in the previous games that tried it, result in keep swapping...Just like when everyone of us who played previous games pointed out that the AOE cap would result in stacking, and just like in previous games, it resulted in exactly that... Your ideas are not new, they've been tried, and they've failed every time. The second Objectives are worth more then player kills, is the second people start avoiding one another and taking undefended objectives all day long. Its called the Path of Least resistance for a reason... Its why you have AOE groups in Craglorn right now leveling instead of doing quests in the main veteran zones.

C. There is no method..Its been tried.

D. Camelot Unchained is copying DAOC, i never said it wasn't, Also you bring up Mark Jacobs...Do you know who Matt Firor is? what about Brian Wheeler?

http://www.zenimaxonline.com/about.html

http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/by_genre/developerId,349081/

No one thinks ESO is not trying to copy DAOC, No one....

E. You actually didn't need the entire realm to gain access to Darkness Falls, All you needed was have more keeps then the other Realms, an 8man could take a keep in DAOC just like an 8man could take a Keep in this game. it is not a faction wide effort, Nor was it ever a Faction Wide Effort.

quakedawg_ESO · July 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Is 8 people a zerg? Lets see, In DAOC for example you had a stealth group of on Merlin server that was around 8 people (sometimes they only ran 6) since most stealthers were soloers or duo's, 8 people in that sense was zerging them down, They were relying on sheer numbers to win the fight, which is generally what zerging means..To rely on numbers to win the fight. So yes... 8 people can be a zerg....hell 3 people can be a zerg to some extent again 1 person.

I actually used the number 8 because of Daoc. We'd run a stealth group on Lancelot and 'gank' or 'zerg'. We weren't concerned about the term it was great fun. Camping Mile gates with stealthers ..........good times. Especially when other realm stealthers would come along.

Okay, not trying to derail this thread. Sorry! Carry on!

Damn flashbacks

Xsorus · July 2014

i'm bout to blow your mind even more Clydus about how much of a copy this game is to DAOC

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Dark_Age_of_Camelot_cover.jpg

Transplant Cyrodiil ontop of that DAOC Symbol

Still not blowing your mind of how much a copy it is?

http://www.valmerwolf.com/mappe/NewFrontiers/newalbionmap.jpg

Notice the number of keeps?

apostate9 · July 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Where in that quote did I say cutting off reinforcements and occupying choke points is not a part of AvA? Please do not make assumptions. Clearly these tactics are very advantageous towards taking or defending keeps/resources and further pushing your alliance's goals.

Farming kills is ganking lowbies questing or camping elder scrolls gates waiting for prey to come by. My explanation is purely based on activities that do not actually benefit your alliance in the Alliance War. The system encourages and endorses these activities more so than actually participating in AvA.

Too large a group? ZOS has built ESO and their engine to sustain up to 200 players on the screen. They openly want and encourage huge battles. That is really the crux of the AvA system and while I'm not arguing that small groups or solo should be irrelevant, they shouldn't be significantly better AP-wise than large groups. Just because you happen to be in a small group doesn't necessarily mean the battle is harder or requires more skill. That is a fallacy.

Everybody should definitely gain more AP for playing objectively, large and small groups (especially for offense). AP for kills should be reduced significantly, especially for small groups or solo players. This isn't an arena or a death match. Killing players is not what will win the Alliance War. Taking keeps/resources, maintaining them, stealing elder scrolls, and crowning an emperor is what will win the war. These are all objectives. The entire AP system should be based around these principles.

There is no way to differentiate the kills unrelated to AvA and related to AvA was my point and honestly ganking lowbies does not net you lots of points in the first place. Punishing all of the highly valuable to AvA activities because there is a handful of folks fighting off in some corner earning points seems entirely counter productive for the long term diversity of AvA.

Because we can support 200 people on a screen does not mean every fight needs to be 200 people on a screen. If you are in a group of 24 fighting only groups of 10 then obviously you can make less AP or you can split up so you get more rewarding and challenging fights. That is obviously your decision, and I understand why zergs prefer to have the advantage, but asking the system to be changed so that you can earn lots of points while dominating, seems counter productive to AvA being anything but a blob fest.

Killing people needs to be the focus of AP system, because it will be exploited in any other fashion. Early days of WAR and GW2 shows clearly what happens when you tie your point gains to objectives.

What I want is quality play and that means folks need to be willing to spread out across the map. Flanks, ambushes, ninja grabs, hindering reinforcements, finding and destroying camps, all stuff that happens away from the blob of players. The moment you start hindering the AP gains of small groups you will end up with nothing but blobs of folks running around pretending they are doing something more than a big game of follow the leader.

In short, if you want to have low risk zerg play great, have it, you just wont be rewarded for it and you shouldnt be.

Not true at all. Would it be difficult? Yes. Is it impossible? No.

Diversity of would happen regardless of incentive. Cyrodiil is a large sandbox. If people want to hunt other and kill them while they are questing, they would do it regardless of AP gains. What you don't want to do is give more benefits to those not actually contributing in AvA than the players who do. That completely contradicts the entire system and is a large turn-off.

I will say this one final time. A large group is not a zerg. You do not understand what a zerg is. To say smaller groups require more skill is just as ignorant as saying large groups are easy. This is completely dependent on the context of the situation and what these groups are doing. It doesn't require a lot of skill for a solo VR10 vamp to kill a lowbie questing. That isn't challenging. One single large group successfully holding off many large groups attacking a keep requires a lot of skill and coordination.

You are using your previous experiences to limit and confine AvA. Just because Warhammer and Guild Wars 2 failed, largely because they were bad games, does not mean ESO would fail as well. AvA is about objectives. It is objectives that win the campaign for your alliance. The AP system completely contradicts AvA and rewards those who do not contribute over those who do. This applies to large and small groups who focus on objectives.

The big blobs of players already happens because of how AP works. If you are in a large group, the only way of obtaining decent AP is either defending against a large mass of players or farming large masses of players. My point is what you fear is already happening in the game. You just are too blind to see it.

You don't know what a zerg is. To assume that AvA will be harder for a smaller group is silly and a lack of understanding the system. I want to discourage the zerg. I want people to actually play AvA and not farm kills. The game currently contradicts its own philosophies.

Ok...at this point..I have to wonder..do you even know what a Zerg is?

Because a Large Group is a zerg.

I decided to bold the second part..

One 6man Group doing the same thing requires a lot more skill and coordination then 24 people circle jerking one another...

OMFG, this guy is a bit pompous, but he ain't wrong about this. A large group is not by default, a zerg. You are the one who is butchering the term and you should stop.

Yes... a 24 man group is a zerg...If you're running in a 24 man group, You are in fact zerging..You trying to pretend you aren't, still doesn't change that fact.

I swear..The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid.

Well, funny thing is...no it isn't. And I don't play WOW. never spent an hour playing WOW, though you reveal a lot about your own fixation with it. Fact is, the term comes from Starcraft, a game that I DO play, and which is way too hard for you. Had you the chops for it, you would know WTF a "zerg rush" actually is. You are wrong, stop talking. Unless you like looking like a moron.

Halrloprillalar · July 2014

AP gain is slow on low pop campaigns. They need to cut down the # of campaigns, that is all.

Xsorus · July 2014

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Where in that quote did I say cutting off reinforcements and occupying choke points is not a part of AvA? Please do not make assumptions. Clearly these tactics are very advantageous towards taking or defending keeps/resources and further pushing your alliance's goals.

Farming kills is ganking lowbies questing or camping elder scrolls gates waiting for prey to come by. My explanation is purely based on activities that do not actually benefit your alliance in the Alliance War. The system encourages and endorses these activities more so than actually participating in AvA.

Too large a group? ZOS has built ESO and their engine to sustain up to 200 players on the screen. They openly want and encourage huge battles. That is really the crux of the AvA system and while I'm not arguing that small groups or solo should be irrelevant, they shouldn't be significantly better AP-wise than large groups. Just because you happen to be in a small group doesn't necessarily mean the battle is harder or requires more skill. That is a fallacy.

Everybody should definitely gain more AP for playing objectively, large and small groups (especially for offense). AP for kills should be reduced significantly, especially for small groups or solo players. This isn't an arena or a death match. Killing players is not what will win the Alliance War. Taking keeps/resources, maintaining them, stealing elder scrolls, and crowning an emperor is what will win the war. These are all objectives. The entire AP system should be based around these principles.

There is no way to differentiate the kills unrelated to AvA and related to AvA was my point and honestly ganking lowbies does not net you lots of points in the first place. Punishing all of the highly valuable to AvA activities because there is a handful of folks fighting off in some corner earning points seems entirely counter productive for the long term diversity of AvA.

Because we can support 200 people on a screen does not mean every fight needs to be 200 people on a screen. If you are in a group of 24 fighting only groups of 10 then obviously you can make less AP or you can split up so you get more rewarding and challenging fights. That is obviously your decision, and I understand why zergs prefer to have the advantage, but asking the system to be changed so that you can earn lots of points while dominating, seems counter productive to AvA being anything but a blob fest.

Killing people needs to be the focus of AP system, because it will be exploited in any other fashion. Early days of WAR and GW2 shows clearly what happens when you tie your point gains to objectives.

What I want is quality play and that means folks need to be willing to spread out across the map. Flanks, ambushes, ninja grabs, hindering reinforcements, finding and destroying camps, all stuff that happens away from the blob of players. The moment you start hindering the AP gains of small groups you will end up with nothing but blobs of folks running around pretending they are doing something more than a big game of follow the leader.

In short, if you want to have low risk zerg play great, have it, you just wont be rewarded for it and you shouldnt be.

Not true at all. Would it be difficult? Yes. Is it impossible? No.

Diversity of would happen regardless of incentive. Cyrodiil is a large sandbox. If people want to hunt other and kill them while they are questing, they would do it regardless of AP gains. What you don't want to do is give more benefits to those not actually contributing in AvA than the players who do. That completely contradicts the entire system and is a large turn-off.

I will say this one final time. A large group is not a zerg. You do not understand what a zerg is. To say smaller groups require more skill is just as ignorant as saying large groups are easy. This is completely dependent on the context of the situation and what these groups are doing. It doesn't require a lot of skill for a solo VR10 vamp to kill a lowbie questing. That isn't challenging. One single large group successfully holding off many large groups attacking a keep requires a lot of skill and coordination.

You are using your previous experiences to limit and confine AvA. Just because Warhammer and Guild Wars 2 failed, largely because they were bad games, does not mean ESO would fail as well. AvA is about objectives. It is objectives that win the campaign for your alliance. The AP system completely contradicts AvA and rewards those who do not contribute over those who do. This applies to large and small groups who focus on objectives.

The big blobs of players already happens because of how AP works. If you are in a large group, the only way of obtaining decent AP is either defending against a large mass of players or farming large masses of players. My point is what you fear is already happening in the game. You just are too blind to see it.

You don't know what a zerg is. To assume that AvA will be harder for a smaller group is silly and a lack of understanding the system. I want to discourage the zerg. I want people to actually play AvA and not farm kills. The game currently contradicts its own philosophies.

Ok...at this point..I have to wonder..do you even know what a Zerg is?

Because a Large Group is a zerg.

I decided to bold the second part..

One 6man Group doing the same thing requires a lot more skill and coordination then 24 people circle jerking one another...

OMFG, this guy is a bit pompous, but he ain't wrong about this. A large group is not by default, a zerg. You are the one who is butchering the term and you should stop.

Yes... a 24 man group is a zerg...If you're running in a 24 man group, You are in fact zerging..You trying to pretend you aren't, still doesn't change that fact.

I swear..The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid.

Well, funny thing is...no it isn't. And I don't play WOW. never spent an hour playing WOW, though you reveal a lot about your own fixation with it. Fact is, the term comes from Starcraft, a game that I DO play, and which is way too hard for you. Had you the chops for it, you would know WTF a "zerg rush" actually is. You are wrong, stop talking. Unless you like looking like a moron.

Yes...Its a zerg, and you clearly don't play Starcraft, otherwise you'd know what a Zerg is. You'd also know this if you developed the ability to read, Since I posted the meme for it up above for you to actually you know.. read...

I stand by my original statement, The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid, and you've proven that just now.

ferzalrwb17_ESO · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

All I read is "Rainbow-train wants more AP".

You couldn't be further from the truth. If you actually look through my post history, you would know I am opposed to cheap and silly tactics such as impulse spamming and the like.

Your posts were too long dude. I'm too bent to read all the wordies. But, in any case, any bunched-up, bubbley group is a zerg is a rainbow train to me.

I pick off some poor bugger on the outer edge then run like a coward. Then I come back to pick off another caboose. Then run like a coward. Then I get distracted by my reefer and I die. In that time your choo-choo-train has got way more AP than me.

But we're both having fun right?

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

i'm bout to blow your mind even more Clydus about how much of a copy this game is to DAOC

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Dark_Age_of_Camelot_cover.jpg

Transplant Cyrodiil ontop of that DAOC Symbol

Still not blowing your mind of how much a copy it is?

http://www.valmerwolf.com/mappe/NewFrontiers/newalbionmap.jpg

Notice the number of keeps?

ESO's AvA is inspired by DAoC's RvR. Do you not comprehend what that means? I'm quite aware that Matt Firor was a Producer on DAoC and Brian Wheeler also helped develop the game. It is still not a blatant copy as you continue to ridiculously claim.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

Halrloprillalar wrote: »

AP gain is slow on low pop campaigns. They need to cut down the # of campaigns, that is all.

AP gains are fundamentally broken. Killing being the primary revenue is the issue. Change how AP gains works and it wouldn't have to worry about accumulating AP on a dead campaign. Hopefully there won't be any dead campaigns in the future anyways.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Yes...Its a zerg, and you clearly don't play Starcraft, otherwise you'd know what a Zerg is. You'd also know this if you developed the ability to read, Since I posted the meme for it up above for you to actually you know.. read...

I stand by my original statement, The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid, and you've proven that just now.

What's ironic about your failed attempts to insult others and claim how stupid they are, is the fact that you are likely the only one here who actually played WoW and is part of that generation.

I came from Star Wars Galaxies myself, which existed before WoW, if you do your homework. Really, you should stop derailing the topic, making yourself look like an idiot, and not contributing anything in the slightest productive to the thread.

AP gains are an ongoing issue. The rampant emperor trading and the failure of many actually caring about their alliance doing well and a lack of incentive to succeed is destroying Cyrodiil. That is the concern this thread addresses and what ZOS needs to resolve.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

All I read is "Rainbow-train wants more AP".

You couldn't be further from the truth. If you actually look through my post history, you would know I am opposed to cheap and silly tactics such as impulse spamming and the like.

Your posts were too long dude. I'm too bent to read all the wordies. But, in any case, any bunched-up, bubbley group is a zerg is a rainbow train to me.

I pick off some poor bugger on the outer edge then run like a coward. Then I come back to pick off another caboose. Then run like a coward. Then I get distracted by my reefer and I die. In that time your choo-choo-train has got way more AP than me.

But we're both having fun right?

You are making a lot of assumptions here. First and foremost, large parties have to kill a lot of players in comparison to your one or two to break even. Based on their kill/death ratio, sometimes it takes a hundred kills to equalize what a solo killer can obtain.

You continue to claim "solo killing requires more skill." This is highly inaccurate especially if you have a class built for 1v1s and quickly killing unsuspecting enemies. We'll use a nightblade as an example, which excels at stun-locking and bursting down enemies before they can respond to the situation.

Now take into consideration a large party competing against another large party, where both have a healthy combination of tanks, dps, and healers, are using siege as well as fortifications for defense, and are held at a stalemate. No one is dying, and no AP is being generated. In this scenario, this fight is actually harder because it's more difficult to organize larger groups and you are competing against an equally skilled party.

So please, lets stop with the "solo players are more skilled than large groups" argument. Only those who do not understand basic PvP mechanics are foolish enough to believe that nonsense.

There is this ridiculous assumption from solo players and those who run smaller groups that every group larger than theirs is a "zerg" and all they do is clash with other zergs with zero tactics, coordination, or skill. Wake up and smell the roses. You are living in a fantasy world.

Xsorus · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Yes...Its a zerg, and you clearly don't play Starcraft, otherwise you'd know what a Zerg is. You'd also know this if you developed the ability to read, Since I posted the meme for it up above for you to actually you know.. read...

I stand by my original statement, The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid, and you've proven that just now.

What's ironic about your failed attempts to insult others and claim how stupid they are, is the fact that you are likely the only one here who actually played WoW and is part of that generation.

I came from Star Wars Galaxies myself, which existed before WoW, if you do your homework. Really, you should stop derailing the topic, making yourself look like an idiot, and not contributing anything in the slightest productive to the thread.

AP gains are an ongoing issue. The rampant emperor trading and the failure of many actually caring about their alliance doing well and a lack of incentive to succeed is destroying Cyrodiil. That is the concern this thread addresses and what ZOS needs to resolve.

Ah yes, the old "I never played WoW, my opinion just mimics everything a WoW player would say"

By the way, UO generation, followed by EQ, Followed By DAOC... and I even have my old SWG beta cd's (which by the way, was an awful game)

Xsorus · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

i'm bout to blow your mind even more Clydus about how much of a copy this game is to DAOC

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Dark_Age_of_Camelot_cover.jpg

Transplant Cyrodiil ontop of that DAOC Symbol

Still not blowing your mind of how much a copy it is?

http://www.valmerwolf.com/mappe/NewFrontiers/newalbionmap.jpg

Notice the number of keeps?

ESO's AvA is inspired by DAoC's RvR. Do you not comprehend what that means? I'm quite aware that Matt Firor was a Producer on DAoC and Brian Wheeler also helped develop the game. It is still not a blatant copy as you continue to ridiculously claim.

Its a blatant copy, You can go on and on about how its not, But it is...

saying its "inspired" is a joke...GW2 WvW is inspired....AVA is a flat out copy (which is a good thing)

ZOS_CarolusS · July 2014

Greetings!
We'd like to remind you that we do encourage debate and it is absolutely okay to disagree, but please get back to topic and keep your disagreements civil and constructive.
If you have any questions, be sure to review the Code of Conduct and our guide on How to be a Community Hero.
Thank you for your understanding!

apostate9 · July 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Where in that quote did I say cutting off reinforcements and occupying choke points is not a part of AvA? Please do not make assumptions. Clearly these tactics are very advantageous towards taking or defending keeps/resources and further pushing your alliance's goals.

Farming kills is ganking lowbies questing or camping elder scrolls gates waiting for prey to come by. My explanation is purely based on activities that do not actually benefit your alliance in the Alliance War. The system encourages and endorses these activities more so than actually participating in AvA.

Too large a group? ZOS has built ESO and their engine to sustain up to 200 players on the screen. They openly want and encourage huge battles. That is really the crux of the AvA system and while I'm not arguing that small groups or solo should be irrelevant, they shouldn't be significantly better AP-wise than large groups. Just because you happen to be in a small group doesn't necessarily mean the battle is harder or requires more skill. That is a fallacy.

Everybody should definitely gain more AP for playing objectively, large and small groups (especially for offense). AP for kills should be reduced significantly, especially for small groups or solo players. This isn't an arena or a death match. Killing players is not what will win the Alliance War. Taking keeps/resources, maintaining them, stealing elder scrolls, and crowning an emperor is what will win the war. These are all objectives. The entire AP system should be based around these principles.

There is no way to differentiate the kills unrelated to AvA and related to AvA was my point and honestly ganking lowbies does not net you lots of points in the first place. Punishing all of the highly valuable to AvA activities because there is a handful of folks fighting off in some corner earning points seems entirely counter productive for the long term diversity of AvA.

Because we can support 200 people on a screen does not mean every fight needs to be 200 people on a screen. If you are in a group of 24 fighting only groups of 10 then obviously you can make less AP or you can split up so you get more rewarding and challenging fights. That is obviously your decision, and I understand why zergs prefer to have the advantage, but asking the system to be changed so that you can earn lots of points while dominating, seems counter productive to AvA being anything but a blob fest.

Killing people needs to be the focus of AP system, because it will be exploited in any other fashion. Early days of WAR and GW2 shows clearly what happens when you tie your point gains to objectives.

What I want is quality play and that means folks need to be willing to spread out across the map. Flanks, ambushes, ninja grabs, hindering reinforcements, finding and destroying camps, all stuff that happens away from the blob of players. The moment you start hindering the AP gains of small groups you will end up with nothing but blobs of folks running around pretending they are doing something more than a big game of follow the leader.

In short, if you want to have low risk zerg play great, have it, you just wont be rewarded for it and you shouldnt be.

Not true at all. Would it be difficult? Yes. Is it impossible? No.

Diversity of would happen regardless of incentive. Cyrodiil is a large sandbox. If people want to hunt other and kill them while they are questing, they would do it regardless of AP gains. What you don't want to do is give more benefits to those not actually contributing in AvA than the players who do. That completely contradicts the entire system and is a large turn-off.

I will say this one final time. A large group is not a zerg. You do not understand what a zerg is. To say smaller groups require more skill is just as ignorant as saying large groups are easy. This is completely dependent on the context of the situation and what these groups are doing. It doesn't require a lot of skill for a solo VR10 vamp to kill a lowbie questing. That isn't challenging. One single large group successfully holding off many large groups attacking a keep requires a lot of skill and coordination.

You are using your previous experiences to limit and confine AvA. Just because Warhammer and Guild Wars 2 failed, largely because they were bad games, does not mean ESO would fail as well. AvA is about objectives. It is objectives that win the campaign for your alliance. The AP system completely contradicts AvA and rewards those who do not contribute over those who do. This applies to large and small groups who focus on objectives.

The big blobs of players already happens because of how AP works. If you are in a large group, the only way of obtaining decent AP is either defending against a large mass of players or farming large masses of players. My point is what you fear is already happening in the game. You just are too blind to see it.

You don't know what a zerg is. To assume that AvA will be harder for a smaller group is silly and a lack of understanding the system. I want to discourage the zerg. I want people to actually play AvA and not farm kills. The game currently contradicts its own philosophies.

Ok...at this point..I have to wonder..do you even know what a Zerg is?

Because a Large Group is a zerg.

I decided to bold the second part..

One 6man Group doing the same thing requires a lot more skill and coordination then 24 people circle jerking one another...

OMFG, this guy is a bit pompous, but he ain't wrong about this. A large group is not by default, a zerg. You are the one who is butchering the term and you should stop.

Yes... a 24 man group is a zerg...If you're running in a 24 man group, You are in fact zerging..You trying to pretend you aren't, still doesn't change that fact.

I swear..The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid.

Well, funny thing is...no it isn't. And I don't play WOW. never spent an hour playing WOW, though you reveal a lot about your own fixation with it. Fact is, the term comes from Starcraft, a game that I DO play, and which is way too hard for you. Had you the chops for it, you would know WTF a "zerg rush" actually is. You are wrong, stop talking. Unless you like looking like a moron.

Yes...Its a zerg, and you clearly don't play Starcraft, otherwise you'd know what a Zerg is. You'd also know this if you developed the ability to read, Since I posted the meme for it up above for you to actually you know.. read...

I stand by my original statement, The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid, and you've proven that just now.

And I stand by mine. I don't need to read your copy/pasted memes, I know what a zerg rush is, I defend them all the time. You do know that both Terran and Protoss can maintain armies of more than 24 units...right? Are they "zerging"? Actually anyone who doesn't play SC should prolly just not use the word at all in the context of ESO, and that goes double for you.

apostate9 · July 2014

Let me know your BNET ID and I'll show you a zerg. We'll advertise our experiment on this forum, so interested parties can observe the game and take notes. I look forward to getting your friend request, and I can set up a 1v1 anytime this week in the evenings in lieu of PVPing with my guild. I will play Zerg, and will plan to "zergling/baneling all-in". I will be well under my maximum number of units, and may even have less than you--which should rule out the theory that just having more guys=zerging. and I will of course be supply capped at 200 just like you, but I am sure you knew that. At around 5 minutes into the game, I will run-by your mineral line, and using micro and skill, I will murder your workers right before your eyes, using a small number of units and careful timing. You will try to fight me with your slow zealots or slow marines, and I will murder them too, and set your structures on fire. My small number will grow larger and larger, through macro-management, but your army will not. Finally, having had all the time in the world to figure out a counter and do something ingenious and strategic with your small group of Nightblades-- er, Marines...I will swarm you under, and crush you with baneling busts, using technology I had to research at the same time I was attacking you somewhere else on the map and managing my own economy. Easy right?

I will then say "gg, you've been zerged".

It will be nothing like how you currently PVP against inexperienced 24 man PUGS in Cyrodiil at all (except for the rage and gnashing of teeth). I am telling you all this stuff in advance, but you still won't stop me from doing it except by not playing, which of course, will say everything that needs to be said about your vast knowledge and experience on the subject.

At this point the object lesson made clear, you can then go to Blizzard's forums (after you ragequit) and troll them like you do ZOS. You can blame the slightest imbalance in the game mechanics for your untimely (and grisly) end.They will likely give you the same sort of reception there you are getting here. But you can still write a novel on the forum, explaining your clear mastery of all PVP tactics, and refuse to acknowledge you just don't know what you're talking about.

But, I'll have the replay recorded. :-)

And one way or another this thread can friggin' end, and we can stop calling every gaggle of more than 2 players in ESO a "zerg". Here, since it is so non-strategic and stupid, try to keep up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKmapFkWzrc

VS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bShN6OorF6U

A picture is worth...well you get it.

Renuo · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Incorrect. Regardless of Starcraft, you miss the point that "zergs" are an organized force that overwhelms the opponent in a short amount of time. That sounds very much like blitzkrieg to me, but I digress. There is nothing "organized" about most "zergs" that you claim to dominate AvA. Most large groups are not organized, are filled with PuGs, and are extremely incompetent and predictable.

I am claiming that PuGs are not zergs because they are not organized or competent...

You don't understand the term at all, so stop using it this way...

ferzalrwb17_ESO · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

All I read is "Rainbow-train wants more AP".

You couldn't be further from the truth. If you actually look through my post history, you would know I am opposed to cheap and silly tactics such as impulse spamming and the like.

Your posts were too long dude. I'm too bent to read all the wordies. But, in any case, any bunched-up, bubbley group is a zerg is a rainbow train to me.

I pick off some poor bugger on the outer edge then run like a coward. Then I come back to pick off another caboose. Then run like a coward. Then I get distracted by my reefer and I die. In that time your choo-choo-train has got way more AP than me.

But we're both having fun right?

You are making a lot of assumptions here. First and foremost, large parties have to kill a lot of players in comparison to your one or two to break even. Based on their kill/death ratio, sometimes it takes a hundred kills to equalize what a solo killer can obtain.

You continue to claim "solo killing requires more skill." This is highly inaccurate especially if you have a class built for 1v1s and quickly killing unsuspecting enemies. We'll use a nightblade as an example, which excels at stun-locking and bursting down enemies before they can respond to the situation.

Now take into consideration a large party competing against another large party, where both have a healthy combination of tanks, dps, and healers, are using siege as well as fortifications for defense, and are held at a stalemate. No one is dying, and no AP is being generated. In this scenario, this fight is actually harder because it's more difficult to organize larger groups and you are competing against an equally skilled party.

So please, lets stop with the "solo players are more skilled than large groups" argument. Only those who do not understand basic PvP mechanics are foolish enough to believe that nonsense.

There is this ridiculous assumption from solo players and those who run smaller groups that every group larger than theirs is a "zerg" and all they do is clash with other zergs with zero tactics, coordination, or skill. Wake up and smell the roses. You are living in a fantasy world.

Blah. Too many words duuude!

But I think I got the gist. Bit of a flaw.. I never said solo players are necessarily more skilled than any individual in a choochoo. But it's not that relevant anyway. It's risk/reward and some other factors you like to omit.

Playing as a single or a duo I/we actually have to get our hooks into a target - quite often on our own. Your whole choochoo benefits from anything killed in its path whether they touched it or not.

Have you played smallgroup? It's not so easy to rack up that AP facing down zergs every day.

Tintinabula · July 2014

It seems they're changing ap gain in order to get emperor. The patch is on PTS..Dont know the specifics. =/

apostate9 · July 2014

Renuo wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Incorrect. Regardless of Starcraft, you miss the point that "zergs" are an organized force that overwhelms the opponent in a short amount of time. That sounds very much like blitzkrieg to me, but I digress. There is nothing "organized" about most "zergs" that you claim to dominate AvA. Most large groups are not organized, are filled with PuGs, and are extremely incompetent and predictable.

I am claiming that PuGs are not zergs because they are not organized or competent...

You don't understand the term at all, so stop using it this way...

See above. You don't understand.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

Blah. Too many words duuude!

But I think I got the gist. Bit of a flaw.. I never said solo players are necessarily more skilled than any individual in a choochoo. But it's not that relevant anyway. It's risk/reward and some other factors you like to omit.

Playing as a single or a duo I/we actually have to get our hooks into a target - quite often on our own. Your whole choochoo benefits from anything killed in its path whether they touched it or not.

Have you played smallgroup? It's not so easy to rack up that AP facing down zergs every day.

The flaw with your premise is the assumption that small groups or solo players have to fight PuG armies. I, in fact, have run small groups on a variety of occasions. It's obviously not tactically sound to just charge a large group of players, unless you have a plan and proper fortification. A small group is most powerful when killing stragglers, using the element of surprise, hunting down forward camps, etc.

There are so many scenarios that small groups can excel in without needing to attack large groups that they can accumulate plenty of AP just fine. Again, lets end this assumption that a small group or solo player has to work harder to gain AP. That is not a true statement and there are a variety of reasons why large group play can actually be harder to accumulate AP.

This thread has become less about large group versus small group, however, and more about having a better AP system in general. Having it solely based on kills is leading to a lot of abuses and balancing problems that the current system currently shows. What the AP system should be doing is encouraging quality play, caring about the objectives, and seeing one's alliance succeed.

Tintinabula · July 2014

I like to gank..I like getting the jump on folks. I like someone getting the jump on me if its a small or equal number size. Smaller skirmishes have less lag and allow me to actually think about what my next move should be "if"..or what I need to do now "that".

I dont know what my ap gain is in comparison to ppl in large groups. But i hate even being near large groups of my own alliance.