Rofl at the Vicious Death Set..

GRxKnight · February 2016

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I play in large groups and love this set...

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

I feel like we've been here before...like, anything passed the 4th person and you're no longer in group content because groups are created around the PvE raid dungeons and those are capped at 4, so thus it translates over to PvP that anything large than a 4 man group is zerging.

At least that's what I recall from whatever thread...IMO anything over than 24 is zerging for obvious reasons. Sometimes 24 can be zerging, but like you said it's all in context...if the 24 man kills the solo player, that player got zerged, but if 24 kill 24, then it was a large group fight.

Why are we discussing zerging when we're supposed to be instead talking about how this set is going to ruin change PvP?

Xsorus · February 2016

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

zyk · February 2016

Xsorus wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think that's because non-blob players think it's going to greatly benefit them. Like proxy det. They have not considered the ways in which it might impact us negatively.

Every death we die because another random player happened to die beside us will be extremely frustrating. I think it's going to create a lot of zone chat tension.

I prefer small groups and don't like it. I think it's too much of a novelty set. Kills from it will be amusing at first, but later will be meh.

I don't think this set or this patch is going to break large group play as much as people think. It will just change it and we will be back to square one. For meaningful change to occur, ZOS needs to make a meaningful effort. This is more half-assedness on the part of ZOS.

I've considered exactly how it might impact you negatively..Which is why I like it.

You've considered how it might impact me negatively?? You've considered that I might be in the middle of winning a 1v3 until a good intentioned player from the same faction jumps into the fight to help, dies right away and kills me in the process when his corpse explodes? You like that? I sure don't.

That kind of thing is going to happen. A lot.

Meanwhile, the blobs--who everyone seems to think are composed of only morons--will adapt. Some right away, some a few weeks later. Eventually, they will learn how to largely avoid this set.

In the end, its main use will be farming unexpecting "pugs" and random players at resources.

Satiar · February 2016

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

If zerging is a set number, than what number constitutes a zerg?

Scamandros · February 2016

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

If zerging is a set number, than what number constitutes a zerg?

2

Xsorus · February 2016

zyk wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think that's because non-blob players think it's going to greatly benefit them. Like proxy det. They have not considered the ways in which it might impact us negatively.

Every death we die because another random player happened to die beside us will be extremely frustrating. I think it's going to create a lot of zone chat tension.

I prefer small groups and don't like it. I think it's too much of a novelty set. Kills from it will be amusing at first, but later will be meh.

I don't think this set or this patch is going to break large group play as much as people think. It will just change it and we will be back to square one. For meaningful change to occur, ZOS needs to make a meaningful effort. This is more half-assedness on the part of ZOS.

I've considered exactly how it might impact you negatively..Which is why I like it.

You've considered how it might impact me negatively?? You've considered that I might be in the middle of winning a 1v3 until a good intentioned player from the same faction jumps into the fight to help, dies right away and kills me in the process when his corpse explodes? You like that? I sure don't.

That kind of thing is going to happen. A lot.

Meanwhile, the blobs--who everyone seems to think are composed of only morons--will adapt. Some right away, some a few weeks later. Eventually, they will learn how to largely avoid this set.

In the end, its main use will be farming unexpecting "pugs" and random players at resources.

If you see a well intentioned player run in to help..don't stand 5 meters next to him esp when he's about to die.

If you're arguing you have zero situational awareness..I can't help you there.

Xsorus · February 2016

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

If zerging is a set number, than what number constitutes a zerg?

If you don't know what zerging is after a year..After you've been told multiple times that you're zerging....Why would I bother to explain it to ya now?

Satiar · February 2016

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

If zerging is a set number, than what number constitutes a zerg?

If you don't know what zerging is after a year..After you've been told multiple times that you're zerging....Why would I bother to explain it to ya now?

Why are you dodging? Give me a number.

Xsorus · February 2016

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

If zerging is a set number, than what number constitutes a zerg?

If you don't know what zerging is after a year..After you've been told multiple times that you're zerging....Why would I bother to explain it to ya now?

Why are you dodging? Give me a number.

I given you numbers multiple times

You can go look up your own post history or mine.

Its not my fault you have the memory of a goldfish.

Waylander · February 2016

It seems like a common ruleset for zergs is emerging.

A zerg is:
(1) Any number greater than your groups number and
(2) Your group personally doesn't zerg. Ever.

I personally like this definition as it sums up why I lost nearly every time without ever questioning my own gameplay or mistakes.

Satiar · February 2016

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

If zerging is a set number, than what number constitutes a zerg?

If you don't know what zerging is after a year..After you've been told multiple times that you're zerging....Why would I bother to explain it to ya now?

Why are you dodging? Give me a number.

I given you numbers multiple times

You can go look up your own post history or mine.

Its not my fault you have the memory of a goldfish.

If you want to argue this point, putting forward a simple number is easy to do. Why are you dodging?

Xsorus · February 2016

Waylander wrote: »

It seems like a common ruleset for zergs is emerging.

A zerg is:
(1) Any number greater than your groups number and
(2) Your group personally doesn't zerg. Ever.

I personally like this definition as it sums up why I lost nearly every time without ever questioning my own gameplay or mistakes.

This is incorrect.

For example DAOC.

8 people wasn't a zerg...However...

If you went into the "stealth" meta or gameplay 8 people would of been a zerg by most stealthers standards...They usually like 2-3 being the max number for Stealthers to run...So if ya ran 2 and fought 3 for example no one would say they zerged ya. If ya ran into 8 stealthers though you'd say they zerged it..Even though that was considered 1 normal group.

Xsorus · February 2016

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

If zerging is a set number, than what number constitutes a zerg?

If you don't know what zerging is after a year..After you've been told multiple times that you're zerging....Why would I bother to explain it to ya now?

Why are you dodging? Give me a number.

I given you numbers multiple times

You can go look up your own post history or mine.

Its not my fault you have the memory of a goldfish.

If you want to argue this point, putting forward a simple number is easy to do. Why are you dodging?

I'm waiting 30 seconds for you to repeat Why are you dodging again. I figure at this point you might be running in the Republican Primary soon if ya keep repeating yourself.

Satiar · February 2016

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

If zerging is a set number, than what number constitutes a zerg?

If you don't know what zerging is after a year..After you've been told multiple times that you're zerging....Why would I bother to explain it to ya now?

Why are you dodging? Give me a number.

I given you numbers multiple times

You can go look up your own post history or mine.

Its not my fault you have the memory of a goldfish.

If you want to argue this point, putting forward a simple number is easy to do. Why are you dodging?

I'm waiting 30 seconds for you to repeat Why are you dodging again. I figure at this point you might be running in the Republican Primary soon if ya keep repeating yourself.

I'll assume you have no number and don't want to share it.

Xsorus · February 2016

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

If zerging is a set number, than what number constitutes a zerg?

If you don't know what zerging is after a year..After you've been told multiple times that you're zerging....Why would I bother to explain it to ya now?

Why are you dodging? Give me a number.

I given you numbers multiple times

You can go look up your own post history or mine.

Its not my fault you have the memory of a goldfish.

If you want to argue this point, putting forward a simple number is easy to do. Why are you dodging?

I'm waiting 30 seconds for you to repeat Why are you dodging again. I figure at this point you might be running in the Republican Primary soon if ya keep repeating yourself.

I'll assume you have no number and don't want to share it.

Hell its quite possible i've posted the number in this very thread and you've skimmed right past it

Satiar · February 2016

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

If zerging is a set number, than what number constitutes a zerg?

If you don't know what zerging is after a year..After you've been told multiple times that you're zerging....Why would I bother to explain it to ya now?

Why are you dodging? Give me a number.

I given you numbers multiple times

You can go look up your own post history or mine.

Its not my fault you have the memory of a goldfish.

If you want to argue this point, putting forward a simple number is easy to do. Why are you dodging?

I'm waiting 30 seconds for you to repeat Why are you dodging again. I figure at this point you might be running in the Republican Primary soon if ya keep repeating yourself.

I'll assume you have no number and don't want to share it.

Hell its quite possible i've posted the number in this very thread and you've skimmed right past it

You haven't, I loooked. Literally no reason for you not to post it, except you not wanting to discuss it.

Xsorus · February 2016

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

If zerging is a set number, than what number constitutes a zerg?

If you don't know what zerging is after a year..After you've been told multiple times that you're zerging....Why would I bother to explain it to ya now?

Why are you dodging? Give me a number.

I given you numbers multiple times

You can go look up your own post history or mine.

Its not my fault you have the memory of a goldfish.

If you want to argue this point, putting forward a simple number is easy to do. Why are you dodging?

I'm waiting 30 seconds for you to repeat Why are you dodging again. I figure at this point you might be running in the Republican Primary soon if ya keep repeating yourself.

I'll assume you have no number and don't want to share it.

Hell its quite possible i've posted the number in this very thread and you've skimmed right past it

You haven't, I loooked. Literally no reason for you not to post it, except you not wanting to discuss it.

Actually I have; i'm looking right at it right now.

Satiar · February 2016

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

Almost as if we actually play group content and understand what a mess this is going to be.

But sure, let's Ad Hom this up. Speaks volumes about the strength of your own arguments.

No you play Zerg Content...Lets not confuse it with actual Group Content

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Am I the only one that's noticing a trend on who's complaining about this set.

Pretty much everyone complaining runs a ball group of 16+ people.

I think you'll find that many of them not only 'run in 16 man groups', but in fact run the groups..... so, you know, they may just know what they are talking about.

I fairly certain that someone who actively partakes in an activity is far more qualified to analyze said activity, than someone who sits on the sidelines complaining about said activity.......

I actually play in group content..You're not playing group content..You're playing Zerg Content

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know I'll regret this but please, provide the class with your definitions of group play and Zerg play.

I've told you multiple times what i consider zerging and what I considered group play....Hell Lowbei has as well..If you've not figured it out after a year why would I repeat myself.

Hell if I recall...Half the time you spent trying to argue that you weren't zerging at all and that 6 groups is really just one.

If you're going to draw this distinction in this thread I think you should argue your definitions. As it stands, you seem to have two categories of "Zerg" and "not Zerg" that are entirely number based and not ratio based. I.e. A coordinated group of 20 is a Zerg, but also the random mob of 80 people they're attempting to fight is ALSO a Zerg (only bigger). Your definitions are bad. Your definitions lack context and thus any relevancy. 8 of you is not a Zerg by your standards, but to that 1-4 man you killed it is. To your 8 man my 20-24 is a Zerg, to my 20-24 man that 60-80 man horde is a Zerg.

I have respect for people and players in all group sizes, they all have thier distinct methods and strategies that are interesting and make for fun gameplay. You just hate on groups bigger than you.

So please share: when does a group become a Zerg? Is it the 8th player? The 9th? The 10th?

*sign*

You are all of a sudden not zerging just cause you run into a bigger Zerg.

If zerging is a set number, than what number constitutes a zerg?

If you don't know what zerging is after a year..After you've been told multiple times that you're zerging....Why would I bother to explain it to ya now?

Why are you dodging? Give me a number.

I given you numbers multiple times

You can go look up your own post history or mine.

Its not my fault you have the memory of a goldfish.

If you want to argue this point, putting forward a simple number is easy to do. Why are you dodging?

I'm waiting 30 seconds for you to repeat Why are you dodging again. I figure at this point you might be running in the Republican Primary soon if ya keep repeating yourself.

I'll assume you have no number and don't want to share it.

Hell its quite possible i've posted the number in this very thread and you've skimmed right past it

You haven't, I loooked. Literally no reason for you not to post it, except you not wanting to discuss it.

Actually I have; i'm looking right at it right now.

Sigh. Only you could argue based on your own personal definitions and than refuse to actually discuss or further clarify those definitions.

Waylander · February 2016

Xsorus wrote: »

Waylander wrote: »

It seems like a common ruleset for zergs is emerging.

A zerg is:
(1) Any number greater than your groups number and
(2) Your group personally doesn't zerg. Ever.

I personally like this definition as it sums up why I lost nearly every time without ever questioning my own gameplay or mistakes.

This is incorrect.

For example DAOC.

8 people wasn't a zerg...However...

If you went into the "stealth" meta or gameplay 8 people would of been a zerg by most stealthers standards...They usually like 2-3 being the max number for Stealthers to run...So if ya ran 2 and fought 3 for example no one would say they zerged ya. If ya ran into 8 stealthers though you'd say they zerged it..Even though that was considered 1 normal group.

Not sure if trolling the thread or you really are labouring the point that there is actually a magical number which constitutes a zerg but that number is dependent on reference to DAOC and approval by you?

Satiar · February 2016

Waylander wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Waylander wrote: »

It seems like a common ruleset for zergs is emerging.

A zerg is:
(1) Any number greater than your groups number and
(2) Your group personally doesn't zerg. Ever.

I personally like this definition as it sums up why I lost nearly every time without ever questioning my own gameplay or mistakes.

This is incorrect.

For example DAOC.

8 people wasn't a zerg...However...

If you went into the "stealth" meta or gameplay 8 people would of been a zerg by most stealthers standards...They usually like 2-3 being the max number for Stealthers to run...So if ya ran 2 and fought 3 for example no one would say they zerged ya. If ya ran into 8 stealthers though you'd say they zerged it..Even though that was considered 1 normal group.

Not sure if trolling the thread or you really are labouring the point that there is actually a magical number which constitutes a zerg but that number is dependent on reference to DAOC and approval by you?

He isn't kidding

Unfortunately

Sharee · February 2016

Satiar wrote: »

RE Lag: I can tell if a keep is empty or if a stealth bomb is waiting simply by looking at my ping. People in one area makes lag. Most groups these days kite until ping settles because fights in lag are no fun and it is usually the surrounding masses causing it.

The whole cyrodiil is one area. You cannot tell if a keep is empty or not by looking at your ping because your ping might increase from two groups fighting four keeps away:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For Cyrodiil the answer is simply that it's one zone and if anything floods the server with requests from that zone, regardless of where it occurred in the zone, will effect the entire zone. There may have been a battle at Alessia bridge, but it could effect what happens at Fort Warden.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/2571859#Comment_2571859 (3rd dev post down the page)

HoloYoitsu · February 2016

Sharee wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

RE Lag: I can tell if a keep is empty or if a stealth bomb is waiting simply by looking at my ping. People in one area makes lag. Most groups these days kite until ping settles because fights in lag are no fun and it is usually the surrounding masses causing it.

The whole cyrodiil is one area. You cannot tell if a keep is empty or not by looking at your ping because your ping might increase from two groups fighting four keeps away:

Except you can tell. Yes lag exists Cyrodiil wide, but local influences also have a very large impact on their vicinity.

Sharee · February 2016

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

And please, relieving the load on the server by making everything die super fast?

Not everything - only the indestructible blobs stacked on crown that, until now, were capable of standing still on top of each other, spamming AOEs without anyone dying for minutes. That AOE spam is what causes those 999+ numbers we all know and love. With this set, should these spamfests still happen, they will at least be over sooner.

Sharee wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

RE Lag: I can tell if a keep is empty or if a stealth bomb is waiting simply by looking at my ping. People in one area makes lag. Most groups these days kite until ping settles because fights in lag are no fun and it is usually the surrounding masses causing it.

The whole cyrodiil is one area. You cannot tell if a keep is empty or not by looking at your ping because your ping might increase from two groups fighting four keeps away:

Except you can tell. Yes lag exists Cyrodiil wide, but local influences also have a very large impact on their vicinity.

There is no 'local' influence. Any influence, whether created next to you, or on the other end of cyrodiil, affects the whole cyrodiil globally.

If you are closing on a keep without seeing any enemies and you suddenly get lag, the lag might be created by an enemy group fighting inside that keep you cannot see yet, but it might as well be created by two blobs crashing ito each other at a different keep, and there is no way for you to tell the difference. See Wheeler's quote.

Elong · February 2016

Xsorus wrote: »

Waylander wrote: »

It seems like a common ruleset for zergs is emerging.

A zerg is:
(1) Any number greater than your groups number and
(2) Your group personally doesn't zerg. Ever.

I personally like this definition as it sums up why I lost nearly every time without ever questioning my own gameplay or mistakes.

This is incorrect.

For example DAOC.

8 people wasn't a zerg...However...

If you went into the "stealth" meta or gameplay 8 people would of been a zerg by most stealthers standards...They usually like 2-3 being the max number for Stealthers to run...So if ya ran 2 and fought 3 for example no one would say they zerged ya. If ya ran into 8 stealthers though you'd say they zerged it..Even though that was considered 1 normal group.

THIS ISNT DAOC OR HELLO KITTY ONLINE THIS IS ESOOOOOOOOOO

Xsorus · February 2016

Waylander wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Waylander wrote: »

It seems like a common ruleset for zergs is emerging.

A zerg is:
(1) Any number greater than your groups number and
(2) Your group personally doesn't zerg. Ever.

I personally like this definition as it sums up why I lost nearly every time without ever questioning my own gameplay or mistakes.

This is incorrect.

For example DAOC.

8 people wasn't a zerg...However...

If you went into the "stealth" meta or gameplay 8 people would of been a zerg by most stealthers standards...They usually like 2-3 being the max number for Stealthers to run...So if ya ran 2 and fought 3 for example no one would say they zerged ya. If ya ran into 8 stealthers though you'd say they zerged it..Even though that was considered 1 normal group.

Not sure if trolling the thread or you really are labouring the point that there is actually a magical number which constitutes a zerg but that number is dependent on reference to DAOC and approval by you?

No I was pointing out your statement is false; which is was. I used DAOC as a reference to show it was false because it was a good example. Next time spend more time reading and understanding instead of doubling down on false premises

Elong · February 2016

Seriously, how many is a zerg? Just answer the question.

Xsorus · February 2016

Elong wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Waylander wrote: »

It seems like a common ruleset for zergs is emerging.

A zerg is:
(1) Any number greater than your groups number and
(2) Your group personally doesn't zerg. Ever.

I personally like this definition as it sums up why I lost nearly every time without ever questioning my own gameplay or mistakes.

This is incorrect.

For example DAOC.

8 people wasn't a zerg...However...

If you went into the "stealth" meta or gameplay 8 people would of been a zerg by most stealthers standards...They usually like 2-3 being the max number for Stealthers to run...So if ya ran 2 and fought 3 for example no one would say they zerged ya. If ya ran into 8 stealthers though you'd say they zerged it..Even though that was considered 1 normal group.

THIS ISNT DAOC OR HELLO KITTY ONLINE THIS IS ESOOOOOOOOOO

Well let's be honest; a lot of ESO players would fit quite well in hello kitty online. Seeing how they're all a bunch of well ya know.

Xsorus · February 2016

Elong wrote: »

Seriously, how many is a zerg? Just answer the question.

Anything more then a group technically

Though I should clarify that steathers might consider something like 4 a Zerg if there is a stealther meta in the game. Since everyone stealths in this game it's harder to say

Elong · February 2016

Xsorus wrote: »

Elong wrote: »

Seriously, how many is a zerg? Just answer the question.

Anything more then a group technically

Though I should clarify that steathers might consider something like 4 a Zerg if there is a stealther meta in the game. Since everyone stealths in this game it's harder to say

But a group is 24 people.

Xsorus · February 2016

Elong wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Elong wrote: »

Seriously, how many is a zerg? Just answer the question.

Anything more then a group technically

Though I should clarify that steathers might consider something like 4 a Zerg if there is a stealther meta in the game. Since everyone stealths in this game it's harder to say

But a group is 24 people.

That's 6 groups.