Zerg - And what that means?

[jepaul]

So I read, and agree with the posts, about zerg outfits this, zerg outfits that.

But what is a zerg? I understand the definition so no need to explain.

But in PS what is a zerg?

Is it 30 people? Is it 50? Is it 100?

If the goal of the game is to take territory and win wouldn't a "zerg", or superior numbers, be the best way to do that?

I ask because there seems to be such animosity towards "zergs". So I ask, what is a zerg, and what exactly is wrong with it?

If a group of 200 have fun playing together and they are able to manage those numbers are the groups that complain about them simply complaining because they can't compete against a "zerg"?

So the questions is. How many people in PS2 constitute a zerg?

[Espion]

It's when an outfit/empire relies solely on numbers to win rather than skill/teamwork (teamwork goes beyond someone on vent telling everyone to go through the same door). There's no specific count

[Landtank]

A zerg is generally the unorganized group of players who flock to the largest battle or nearest target, creating an absolute meatgrinder.

We suspect that the zerg will be clustered around Zurvan Amp Station, since its right in the middle of the three factions, but who knows.

The zerg could be 400 people per faction, in planetside it could be 60-70% of the continent population, it depends. I'm curious to see how large it gets, should be fun!

[SKYeXile]

yea zerg is the tactic of overwhelming the enemy with numbers by sending wave after wave of men at them.

http://iforce.co.nz/i/bnfdant4.wlu.jpg

[zomg]

I guess a MAX with flamers is a Firebat then ;)

On a sidenote, "The Reaver.. it reaves things." that made me laugh.

[Toppopia]

Zapp Branigans plan is to fly ships into the guns of the enemy mothership, untill the wreckage cloggs the barrels. That is what happens in Planetside, countless people run at the enemy until they get clogged up. (Either too much wreckage everywhere or enemy runs out of ammo or the game crashes with all the dead bodies).

[Immigrant]

Watch this:

800 ZERGLINGS???? (1080p test) - YouTube

It's a fancy gamer term for crowd (herd) mentality when playing games.

The term herd mentality is the word herd, meaning "group of animals," and mentality, implying a certain frame of mind. However the most succinct definition would be: "how large numbers of people act in the same ways at the same times."

I.e. Zerg groups will all change to HA or MAXes if they see other players doing it.

[Rexdezi]

actually can we have the definition too please

[Toppopia]

Watch this:
It's a fancy gamer term for crowd (herd) mentality when playing games.

So... we know what will happen when all 3 factions zergs meet up. Lag for everyone :D

[Xaine]

http://iforce.co.nz/i/bnfdant4.wlu.jpg

Zap for VS Commander.

[Rexdezi]

Zap for VS Commander.

nah hes more NC... stupid, slow

[Landtank]

nah hes more NC... stupid, slow

He's definitely VS, incompetent, weird, really short shorts/shirt, not really sure what that is. He's also a bad pilot, which also helps the VS affinity argument :D.

[jepaul]

actually can we have the definition too please


I would say a "zerg" would be anytime you attack something, or someone, with a numerical advantage of 10 to 1.

It might be an outpost in the middle of no where that you take with 10 people when one guy was defending. That one guy might call you a zerg.

It might be 500 people attacking a location defended by 50. Those 50 are going to say they got zerged.

But, again, if the goal of the game is to turn the world Purple, which we all agree is the goal, then how that is accomplished I personally don't think should matter.

[Rexdezi]

I would say a "zerg" would be anytime you attack something, or someone, with a numerical advantage of 10 to 1.

It might be an outpost in the middle of no where that you take with 10 people when one guy was defending. That one guy might call you a zerg.

It might be 500 people attacking a location defended by 50. Those 50 are going to say they got zerged.

But, again, if the goal of the game is to turn the world Purple, which we all agree is the goal, then how that is accomplished I personally don't think should matter.

thank you :) i never played PS1, and felt stupid asking :3

[Trafalgar]

Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_stalin) approved of zerging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_World_War_II). You don't want Joseph Stalin's approval, do you?

He's definitely VS, incompetent, weird, really short shorts/shirt, not really sure what that is. He's also a bad pilot, which also helps the VS affinity argument :D.

Nonense, he's wearing red and yellow. He's obviously some kind of TR-NC hybrid.

[jepaul]

Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_stalin) approved of zerging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_World_War_II). You don't want Joseph Stalin's approval, do you?



Nonense, he's wearing red and yellow. He's obviously some kind of TR-NC hybrid.

He won. Well sort of I guess. Communism argument ext.

[jepaul]

thank you :) i never played PS1, and felt stupid asking :3

Again just my thoughts. Veterans of PS could elaborate more I'm sure.

[SKYeXile]

Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_stalin) approved of zerging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_World_War_II). You don't want Joseph Stalin's approval, do you?



Nonense, he's wearing red and yellow. He's obviously some kind of TR-NC hybrid.

lol reminds me of enemy at the gates.

the part where they're attempting to zerg the germans and the commander is yelling something like "when the man with the rifle dies the other man picks up the rifle and continues to shoot!"

[super pretendo]

I don't think zerging will ever be a problem except for the people that do it, since if too many people are in one spot, they can lose other spots on the continent

[Khellendros]

In PS1, zerging didn't really have anything to do with numbers, just referred to unorganized play, along with certain characteristics, such as not really using vehicles at all/effectively and no coordinated tactics, just running at the enemy.

[noxious]

In PS1, zerging didn't really have anything to do with numbers, just referred to unorganized play, along with certain characteristics, such as not really using vehicles at all/effectively and no coordinated tactics, just running at the enemy.

This is a good definition.

People tend to call any large group a zerg, but those people are just rationalizing failure. A well organized group is likely to employ numerical superiority because it hastens the capture of objectives. Such organized efforts are not zergs even if they severely outnumber their opposition.

The zerg is the unorganized group that moves from one fight to the next without any concern for strategic objectives; they are interested only in pursuing the shortest path to engaging the enemy.

[Snipefrag]

Adding to the above post, 'foot zerging' also happened a lot in PS1. Where a bunch of unorganised members of 'the zerg' would walk between facilities instead of teaming up and moving together in transport, often in AA maxes as air vehicles were the real danger to the foot zerg. They were fun to farm !

[Espion]

People tend to call any large group a zerg, but those people are just rationalizing failure. A well organized group is likely to employ numerical superiority because it hastens the capture of objectives. Such organized efforts are not zergs even if they severely outnumber their opposition

Any group, outfit or not, that couldn't win a fight without a significant pop advantage (2:1 or more) was pretty much considered a zerg.

[Mr DeCastellac]

The Zerg are the second-born of the Xel'Naga.

[Landtank]

lol reminds me of enemy at the gates.

the part where they're attempting to zerg the germans and the commander is yelling something like "when the man with the rifle dies the other man picks up the rifle and continues to shoot!"

Best mission in Call of Duty II, running up the riverbank of Stalingrad waiting for someone to die so you can take a damn rifle.

I suspect epic zergs in PS2, not always a bad thing.

[Trafalgar]

As long as resources are per-person and not per-empire, I won't bemoan their existance too much as long as good outfits still exist. Though, if one empire ends up with vastly more people zerging aimlessly rather than operating in any kind of organized fashion, I could see things going badly for them as they are outmaneuvered by their enemies.

[Miir]

Heres my take on it:

The act of "Zerging" meant one empire(or outfit) would quickly mobilize a large group of players to attack a single target prior to the target being able to counter attack or defend (see Max Crash). The tactic was the trade mark of the play style for Planetside and many Zerg Outfits (Zergfits) became quite good at mobilizing and executing these types of battle plans. Many people argue that it takes little skill to overrun an enemy that does not have equal numbers to counter attack. And I admit when you are on the receiving end of a zerg it kind of sucks. But it is a valid and proven tactic of the game that works and I suspect that it be making a huge return in Planetside 2.

That being said one of the major side effects in the early days at least was lag produced when a zerg attack encountered a defense force of equal numbers. I believe this may no longer be a concern but back in the first couple years of Planetside it was the bane of players existence. Nothing killed the fun like lag and nothing brought the lag on like the Zerg.

So in a sense "The Zerg" was the lag.

So to some "Zerging" means steam rolling an empire with uneven numbers. To some "The Zerg" means large laggy battles.

Either way you can see why people don't like the term much.

[Blackwolf]

Zerg is pretty much a blank term. It has no real meaning because it is defined by everyone who assumes they know what it means from how others use it.

A lot of people in this thread use the term to describe a massive group of players who use superiority in numbers to win a battle, essentially describing 90% of the fights in PS1. If an outfit decided to, for example, go behind enemies lines and blow every spawn tube in towers and bases in order to completely kick an enemy presence of of one of new Oshur's maps while minimizing frontal assault, the response to this is outrage and mockery. So respecting an outfit that uses tactics to accomplish a victory clearly isn't high on the agenda.

In fact most people who are soundly beaten will refuse to admit it. This isn't limited to gaming btw. People can't accept losing in a fair and equal fight, someone once called it the "broken controller syndrome".

Anyway point is zergs don't actually exist, except to describe two or three empires clashing over the same base which, btw, was an event more or less forced onto said empires because of the lattice network. The lattice network gave everyone a limited number of choices for where to go next, and all it took was a CR5 cont. chatting "go here next". A lot of people will point at crap like "black ops" and "gen drops" saying they made major contributions towards the fight, but the simple fact is that their contributions would have meant squat without the so called "zerg" holding the front line, and there to take advantage.

I can see battles take major changes based on the number of snipers one side has over the other. How much air is out and who has what kind of AA platform out. I've seen a single burster make a huge impact on the battle just by taking out enemy aircraft in a very large field of fire. Given the very large number of changes that can affect the battle, a single black ops team can be about as effective as one solitary player who decides there isn't enough AA in the area. It's not like this is a particularly brilliant strategy, it's a basic tool.

Tactics like "back hacking" and "gen dropping (inside the target base)" were scoffed at, and mocked. You wouldn't believe the shit storms people would raise when someone mentioned dropping the enemy generators at a base. It was only tactics thought of, supported by, and performed by "vets" that were legit. Everything else was cheap or cheating.

So if someone were to start a zerg outfit (and I'm considering it), and knew how to control it, it would probably wipe the floor with everyone. And yes this is entirely based on sheer numbers, but would also mix in a considerable bit of strategy and tactics. Kinda like how modern military groups work.

I mean lets face it, superior training and superior weaponry is better then superior numbers, but when you look at even 2 to 1 odds against you, you're in a serious bind.

[CutterJohn]

Zerg is the name given to people who are just having fun playing the game for having the audacity to do whatever they please in a video game instead of following the orders of some blowhard.

:D

[Blackwolf]

Zerg is the name given to people who are just having fun playing the game for having the audacity to do whatever they please in a video game instead of following the orders of some blowhard.

:D

Exactly.

[Trafalgar]

In fact most people who are soundly beaten will refuse to admit it. This isn't limited to gaming btw. People can't accept losing in a fair and equal fight, someone once called it the "broken controller syndrome".
Or, "The Warrior Caste loves to win and hates to lose."

[Landtank]

Zerg is pretty much a blank term. It has no real meaning because it is defined by everyone who assumes they know what it means from how others use it.

A lot of people in this thread use the term to describe a massive group of players who use superiority in numbers to win a battle, essentially describing 90% of the fights in PS1. If an outfit decided to, for example, go behind enemies lines and blow every spawn tube in towers and bases in order to completely kick an enemy presence of of one of new Oshur's maps while minimizing frontal assault, the response to this is outrage and mockery. So respecting an outfit that uses tactics to accomplish a victory clearly isn't high on the agenda.

In fact most people who are soundly beaten will refuse to admit it. This isn't limited to gaming btw. People can't accept losing in a fair and equal fight, someone once called it the "broken controller syndrome".

Anyway point is zergs don't actually exist, except to describe two or three empires clashing over the same base which, btw, was an event more or less forced onto said empires because of the lattice network. The lattice network gave everyone a limited number of choices for where to go next, and all it took was a CR5 cont. chatting "go here next". A lot of people will point at crap like "black ops" and "gen drops" saying they made major contributions towards the fight, but the simple fact is that their contributions would have meant squat without the so called "zerg" holding the front line, and there to take advantage.

I can see battles take major changes based on the number of snipers one side has over the other. How much air is out and who has what kind of AA platform out. I've seen a single burster make a huge impact on the battle just by taking out enemy aircraft in a very large field of fire. Given the very large number of changes that can affect the battle, a single black ops team can be about as effective as one solitary player who decides there isn't enough AA in the area. It's not like this is a particularly brilliant strategy, it's a basic tool.

Tactics like "back hacking" and "gen dropping (inside the target base)" were scoffed at, and mocked. You wouldn't believe the shit storms people would raise when someone mentioned dropping the enemy generators at a base. It was only tactics thought of, supported by, and performed by "vets" that were legit. Everything else was cheap or cheating.

So if someone were to start a zerg outfit (and I'm considering it), and knew how to control it, it would probably wipe the floor with everyone. And yes this is entirely based on sheer numbers, but would also mix in a considerable bit of strategy and tactics. Kinda like how modern military groups work.

I mean lets face it, superior training and superior weaponry is better then superior numbers, but when you look at even 2 to 1 odds against you, you're in a serious bind.

Well said, and explained. If I could upvote, then I would. It's the thought that counts.

The "zerg" was usually where the best battle was at for me atleast, had a lot of fun working with random people and forming on the fly squads.

[Blackwolf]

Or, "The Warrior Caste loves to win and hates to lose."

It's human nature actually. The core of every argument isn't people trying to discover the truth. It's people trying to gain an edge or a victory.

We are a social species bent on conquest. Two of us in a room will find something to dispute, 3 in a room will result in two banding against the 3rd, 4+ can start to get violent. Only thing a warrior mindset brings to the table is that a warrior by himself can still get violent quickly.

[Xyntech]

I think that the zerg definition is twofold. They are both massive in number and unorganized. At least unorganized beyond the simple act of killing, respawning, and finding the closest battle.

A small group of unorganized players aren't a zerg, they are just a disgrace.

A large group who is organized is not a zerg, they are a force of nature.

The zerg can be an effective beast, but only through brute strength and superior numbers. A small skilled group of players can beat a zerg group that is several times larger, but give the zerg a large enough numerical advantage and no amount of skill or teamwork will stop them.

The really interesting part of Planetside is that during high population times, there is always a zerg on all sides. The fun comes when you have skilled groups and individuals working with and around the zerg to maximize their empires potential.

The zerg is generally a negative thing, but it can serve very positively in Planetsides meta game. It also offers an outlet for new players to come in and have some mindless fun, which will hopefully eventually expose them to the deeper parts of the game and turn them into more valuable members of the community.

Hail the zerg, it is a mighty yet stupid beast. It is less than the sum of it's parts, but it can still be a force to be reckoned with. Sometimes to the detriment of their own empire...

Get the fuck off Cyssor!

The "zerg" was usually where the best battle was at for me atleast, had a lot of fun working with random people and forming on the fly squads.

This. I usually didn't have as much fun when I went for mindless fun and joined the zerg mentality, but it was always more fun for me to fight around the zerg.

Cyssor was actually my favorite continent for that reason. Always a good battle to be had there. It's just too bad that the rest of the worldmap sometimes suffered because of people sticking it out in the stalemate there. I think the new continents will be interesting, because if an empire devotes all of their attention to the 3 way, they will lose the rest of their territory and eventually be forced out of the 3 way, so it will solve itself a little that way.

[Naz The Eternal]

Zerg = Quantity over quality.

[Trafalgar]

Obviously, the defenders should equip their troops with high-yield explosives rigged to detonate on death, the better to take out dozens of zergers (or do you just call them zerglings) on death. Just make sure they stand far away from each other and don't let the spawn tubes (or whatever) get destroyed.

[Khellendros]

I would like to clarify that my comments were not derogatory of the zerg, simply a definition.

There will always be an array of playstyles in a game like PS, and that is part of the beauty of it. Some want to just shoot at the enemy and not have to worry about the bigger picture, while others have set themselves on focused tasks. You can play how you like, there is nothing to force you to play in a certain way. I certainly hope that PS2 continues that freedom...

[Novacane]

I would like to clarify that my comments were not derogatory of the zerg, simply a definition.

There will always be an array of playstyles in a game like PS, and that is part of the beauty of it. Some want to just shoot at the enemy and not have to worry about the bigger picture, while others have set themselves on focused tasks. You can play how you like, there is nothing to force you to play in a certain way. I certainly hope that PS2 continues that freedom...

Your definition is spot on. In any game, zerging is just unorganized movements of groups (usually large) towards a goal usually using brute force rather than tactics with no clear leader. As posted above, the term stems from the Zerg race in Starcraft.

[CuddlyChud]

The "Zerg" was an arbitrary definition created by people who felt they were above the "Zerg."

[SKYeXile]

The "Zerg" was an arbitrary definition created by people who felt they were above the "Zerg."

Its a great word.

[super pretendo]

The "Zerg" was an arbitrary definition created by people who felt they were above the "Zerg."

nope, it has a distinct meaning, just means lots of unorganized units/players

[proxy]

In PS1, zerging didn't really have anything to do with numbers, just referred to unorganized play, along with certain characteristics, such as not really using vehicles at all/effectively and no coordinated tactics, just running at the enemy.

Pretty much this.

Zerg is also SUBJECTIVE and is typically what you accuse "other" people working in large groups of doing. Particularly when you've been the victim of said large group. Regardless of if they were organized, unorganized, or if it just bad luck that all "those" people showed up at the same space.

[SKYeXile]

its also used to describe your or the enemys main force. typically "the zerg"

[GreatMazinkaise]

The Zerg, a dangerous weapon of mass destruction that only the greatest of CR5s could get moving in the right direction with any sort of success. Left to their own devices they might well dash their brains against an unyielding basewall until bored.

[Novacane]

Sounds about right.

Always was a head scratcher to me. GOTR was called a zerg outfit often. I used to run platoon deep, and alllllways called a zerg outfit. Yet it was my AMS in courtyard (still alive) My GG in the air, my BFRs, my tanks.

What cause I fucking find gen holds boring as hell, and I like big toys.

Meh.

If you are playing cooperative in an outfit and being proactive to move the battle, you are not a zerg. The ones that are a zerg are those that just move from base to base without purpose, reacting to the enemy movement rather than countering or assaulting strategic areas. Being a zerg isn't a bad thing. If everyone was snaking around behind each other, they wouldn't ever be huge battles.

[The Degenatron]

And what no one has talked about is what Zerging will mean in PS2.

Because think about it: Your empire pushes 600 players at a base, guess what that's going to do the rest of the front line. That's right, leave it completely undefended. The mass will move into enemy territory, but the enemy forces will easily closed the gap behind you and push into YOUR territory, unopposed. The pincers will close behind the zerg and cut it off from the bulk of its territory.

This didn't happen in PS1 because the fighting was funneled along the latic links from one base to another.

Now it will b imparitve that Empires spread out along the frontline to hold the line or they WILL lose ground.

Of course, there will be selective zerging - think "The Battle of the Bulge" - to attempt to break stalemates or try cut-off manuevers, but for the most part, I think we're going to see very wide areas of conflict across the entire continent.

Get your popcorn ready. It's going to be glorious.

[sumo]

Im amazed that noone actually mentioned where the term originated from. Pretty important part imo.

"Originates from Blizzard's game Starcraft where zerg were one of 3 playable races, aliens like appeareance, zerg were characterized by using large numbers of weak units to swarm the enemy, also another charasteristic of zerg were that everything was organic, ie, zerg didnt used machines or any artifacts, they would mutate their own buildings from special kind of larvae and advanced units were created by mutating basic ones. Units were cheap to make and it was possible to make extreme numbers in short period of time."source (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=zerg)

[Novacane]

And what no one has talked about is what Zerging will mean in PS2.

Because think about it: Your empire pushes 600 players at a base, guess what that's going to do the rest of the front line. That's right, leave it completely undefended. The mass will move into enemy territory, but the enemy forces will easily closed the gap behind you and push into YOUR territory, unopposed. The pincers will close behind the zerg and cut it off from the bulk of its territory.

This didn't happen in PS1 because the fighting was funneled along the latic links from one base to another.

Now it will b imparitve that Empires spread out along the frontline to hold the line or they WILL lose ground.

Of course, there will be selective zerging - think "The Battle of the Bulge" - to attempt to break stalemates or try cut-off manuevers, but for the most part, I think we're going to see very wide areas of conflict across the entire continent.

Get your popcorn ready. It's going to be glorious.

We don't know how the zerg will play out in PS2 because we don't know how the mission system will work with a few hundred people per side on the same continent yet. I'd assume that it will spread out people and avoid the mass clumping around one area that happens in PS1.

Im amazed that noone actually mentioned where the term originated from. Pretty important part imo.

"Originates from Blizzard's game Starcraft where zerg were one of 3 playable races, aliens like appeareance, zerg were characterized by using large numbers of weak units to swarm the enemy, also another charasteristic of zerg were that everything was organic, ie, zerg didnt used machines or any artifacts, they would mutate their own buildings from special kind of larvae and advanced units were created by mutating basic ones. Units were cheap to make and it was possible to make extreme numbers in short period of time."source (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=zerg)

There were a few posts, and a video on the first page, on its origins.

[DirtyBird]

An old pic I took in PS1 circa 2003/4 and I named it zerg.
It was just a wall of players moving from base to base.
As mentioned by The Degenatron due to the design of the links it was just a natural migration.

I think is PS2 you'll be able to rely on the extra large outfits to provide a strategical zerg.

[Novacane]

An old pic I took in PS1 circa 2003/4 and I named it zerg.
It was just a wall of players moving from base to base.
As mentioned by The Degenatron due to the design of the links it was just a natural migration.

I think is PS2 you'll be able to rely on the extra large outfits to provide a strategical zerg.

TR getting squeezed, NC being backhacked and VS taking multiple bases at once? I seem to remember that cluster f*%k. Oh wait, that was every day on Ishundar back then :lol:

[Crator]

So in a sense "The Zerg" was the lag.

So to some "Zerging" means steam rolling an empire with uneven numbers. To some "The Zerg" means large laggy battles.

Either way you can see why people don't like the term much.

There was a definite zerg on Amerish yesterday... I actually experience lag due to too much going on and hadn't had that happen in idk how long.

[Wahooo]

Zerging, The Zerg, and Zergfit all seem to have had different meanings at different times in PS1.

As has been said by a few mostly defined by the aimless attacking of the next closest target. The Zerg being the large uncontrolled mass of individuals just trying to shoot the closest target, by means of zerging. The only coordination zerging has is simply the coincidental proximity of all these people headed in the same direction.

Great examples of the Empire's zerg... zerging. Hitting a capitol with the dome up because it is the next closest base. TR zerg does the ALL the time when re-taking Hossin, capture Naum "ON TO VOLTAN!!!" Or from Anu straight to Ogma... um no link? No problem.

A zergfit? The use of large numbers and minimal organization. Everyone attacking 1 base, or pulling the same sort of vehicle and then running off in a group does not equal organization. Massing a bunch of people in one spot and accomplishing goals simply because everyone is fighting in the same spot pretty much defines a zergfit, as all they are really doing is picking up the people who otherwise would be shooting AV weapons from a tower at vehicles coming from a domed capitol and placing them at a more strategic location and turning them loose.

How will this play out in PS2? I think the zerg by PS1 definitions will pale in comparison to what occurs in PS2. It would appear 3-ways will be more prevalent as a main fight, with the number of single man vehicles, with the pure number of people and the huge influx of TDM mentality? The zerg will be a major part of this game, and as long as it can be fun to run and gun as a single entity in the game the zerg in PS2 will be a major factor for each empire.

[OutlawDr]

The lack of the lattice system will affect zergs. There will no longer be hand holding lattice lines directing the flow of zerg traffic to the next base. Players have a larger choice of targets, and to the average zergling, it won't be as obvious which one to attack next. I see this breaking up unorganized zergs a lot more than what we saw in PS1.

Plus since there are more targets, the affect of zerging one target is lessened. Zergfits can still direct the zerg to all pile in to capture just one area...but that means they'll leave many more areas undefended for small gourps of players to take uncontested. Major bases will probably be the main targets of zergs, but I wonder if thats optimal enough to encourage zergfit tactics.

[Ghoest9]

Its not about a specific number. Its when numbers and momentum are carrying the day instead of tactics.

[ParisTeta]

When a group of outfite or very large outfits start a fight, and happen to have some resistance, the battle draws the attention of solo players and smaller outfits who join in for the fight, then you have your zerg, which is normaly just a brute force in numbers, though sometimes solo and smaller outfits choose to do things more tactical.

The Zerg is not a bad thing per se, first anyone who plays a game wanna play it, and you need the action. Second, the Zerg is reinforcement, and give the enemy someone else to shot at. The Problem is with Zerg is, it`s as whole unorganized, when EA(enemy air) turns around you suddenly see alot of AA MAXes but no other and games like that.

[Shogun]

i consider those players zerglings, who play the game just like an arena shooter.
like find biggest battle, jump in, kill enemy, period.

sometimes it´s fun to do some mindless zerging, but organised teamplay is the only real thing.
but zergs will actually be a good thing because mindless fighting all around you will be the atmosphere this game needs! the zerg provides the epic war for those players who want to play a hollywood blockbuster tactical operations game. remember, ps2 has no scripted staged background battle! that´s what the zerg is for!

[IMMentat]

A zerg is generally the unorganized group of players who flock to the largest battle or nearest target, creating an absolute meatgrinder.


The zerg is the unorganized group that moves from one fight to the next without any concern for strategic objectives(#edit# IMO they knew the objectives but only cared about fighting a good fight); they are interested only in pursuing the shortest path to engaging the enemy.

I think that the zerg definition is twofold. They are both massive in number and unorganized. At least unorganized beyond the simple act of killing, respawning, and finding the closest battle.

A small group of unorganized players aren't a zerg, they are just a disgrace.

A large group who is organized is not a zerg, they are a force of nature.

The zerg can be an effective beast, but only through brute strength and superior numbers. A small skilled group of players can beat a zerg group that is several times larger, but give the zerg a large enough numerical advantage and no amount of skill or teamwork will stop them.

The really interesting part of Planetside is that during high population times, there is always a zerg on all sides. The fun comes when you have skilled groups and individuals working with and around the zerg to maximize their empires potential.

The zerg is generally a negative thing, but it can serve very positively in Planetsides meta game. It also offers an outlet for new players to come in and have some mindless fun, which will hopefully eventually expose them to the deeper parts of the game and turn them into more valuable members of the community.

Hail the zerg, it is a mighty yet stupid beast. It is less than the sum of it's parts, but it can still be a force to be reckoned with. Sometimes to the detriment of their own empire...

Get the fuck off Cyssor!

As above,
The Zerg was the term used by several organised outfits, players and "commanders" to define the playerbase described above.

From those players the term became a part of the Planetside language used to describe the armies that were happy to make their way to an base/objective/interfarm (interfarm = an interlink facility under attack they had an easily defendable generator plus the base benefit was full radar/minimap spotting around the base) usually solo or in smaller groups and run headlong at the nearest enemy/entrance.

As individuals they tended to prefer getting close to the enemy and doing what they could, usually without sufficient vehicle support (or any, in the case of foot-zergs).
Looked at as an entity, they acted like a swarm.
Hard to avoid, harder to take down and near impossible to direct. But also easy to spot, easy to hold off and easy to distract.

Frequently a zerg army would be defending the first/last base on a continent to the last man instead of backing off, forming up and counter-attacking effectively with vehicles. (It's one of the reasons I know the "home continents" demand will result in boring warpgate camps, the defenders will have local bases to launch defesive vehicles form, the attackers will have to attack in force or never survive to make a foothold).

[Blackwolf]

Sounds about right.

Always was a head scratcher to me. GOTR was called a zerg outfit often. I used to run platoon deep, and alllllways called a zerg outfit. Yet it was my AMS in courtyard (still alive) My GG in the air, my BFRs, my tanks.

What cause I fucking find gen holds boring as hell, and I like big toys.

Meh.

If you are playing cooperative in an outfit and being proactive to move the battle, you are not a zerg. The ones that are a zerg are those that just move from base to base without purpose, reacting to the enemy movement rather than countering or assaulting strategic areas. Being a zerg isn't a bad thing. If everyone was snaking around behind each other, they wouldn't ever be huge battles.

His point was that his outfit was called a zergfit by ignorant masses who don't know better. This happens because, let's face it, there is no hard concrete definition of what a zerg actually is. I say laser, you know what one is. I say zerg, you have an idea of what it is, and it might not match my idea of what it is.

People say "zerging isn't tactics, it's just brute force". Sorry but the decision to use brute force is a tactical decision. And it's an effective one, like it or not.

And what no one has talked about is what Zerging will mean in PS2.

Because think about it: Your empire pushes 600 players at a base, guess what that's going to do the rest of the front line. That's right, leave it completely undefended. The mass will move into enemy territory, but the enemy forces will easily closed the gap behind you and push into YOUR territory, unopposed. The pincers will close behind the zerg and cut it off from the bulk of its territory.

This didn't happen in PS1 because the fighting was funneled along the latic links from one base to another.

Now it will b imparitve that Empires spread out along the frontline to hold the line or they WILL lose ground.

Of course, there will be selective zerging - think "The Battle of the Bulge" - to attempt to break stalemates or try cut-off manuevers, but for the most part, I think we're going to see very wide areas of conflict across the entire continent.

Get your popcorn ready. It's going to be glorious.

It will definitely be chaotic. Without empire wide unity it will be all but impossible to keep defense along the entire front line. I suspect that "zerg" battles will form out of convenience rather then naturally (as they did with the lattice network). One empire will make a move and the other might or might not block it, depending on whether or not an organized outfit spots the move and acts on it's own. The free formed sandbox design that the DEVs are implementing is definitely not "zerg" friendly though. Outfits will play a larger part, and soloers will have to learn how to follow others quickly, or just join an outfit and get in the loop.

Im amazed that noone actually mentioned where the term originated from. Pretty important part imo.

"Originates from Blizzard's game Starcraft where zerg were one of 3 playable races, aliens like appeareance, zerg were characterized by using large numbers of weak units to swarm the enemy, also another charasteristic of zerg were that everything was organic, ie, zerg didnt used machines or any artifacts, they would mutate their own buildings from special kind of larvae and advanced units were created by mutating basic ones. Units were cheap to make and it was possible to make extreme numbers in short period of time."source (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=zerg)

Actually someone did mention it. The word has since been used to describe any mass unit movement in most RTS games that came out after starcraft, and many other "tactical" games such as PS1. The infamous "zerg rush" was effective and brutal.

As above,
The Zerg was the term used by several organised outfits, players and "commanders" to define the playerbase described above.

From those players the term became a part of the Planetside language used to describe the armies that were happy to make their way to an base/objective/interfarm (interfarm = an interlink facility under attack they had an easily defendable generator plus the base benefit was full radar/minimap spotting around the base) usually solo or in smaller groups and run headlong at the nearest enemy/entrance.

As individuals they tended to prefer getting close to the enemy and doing what they could, usually without sufficient vehicle support (or any, in the case of foot-zergs).
Looked at as an entity, they acted like a swarm.
Hard to avoid, harder to take down and near impossible to direct. But also easy to spot, easy to hold off and easy to distract.

Frequently a zerg army would be defending the first/last base on a continent to the last man instead of backing off, forming up and counter-attacking effectively with vehicles. (It's one of the reasons I know the "home continents" demand will result in boring warpgate camps, the defenders will have local bases to launch defesive vehicles form, the attackers will have to attack in force or never survive to make a foothold).

What you and most other people fail to understand is that organized outfits operated inside the zerg. The zerg you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the so called zerg that actually existed. A typical "zerg" assault was actually several outfits, squads, or individuals following their own path to dominating the base. Instead you lump the whole mass into one term that is often spoken with scorn for whatever bs reason you care to pull out of your arse. And why? Because you couldn't see the value or the "tactics". I swear people, you all act like it's as simple as a freaking game of chess.

Can't wait for PS2 to launch. Watching all the elitist outfits that thought they used tactics flounder around because their back hacks and gen camps are virtually useless will be epic. Leaders might actually have to figure out how to use strategy and deploy assets in specific locations! I wonder how long it will take for them to realize that they have just become a slightly more organized "zerg" though.

It's kind of funny though. The popular meaning of "zerg" is, boiled down, "the ignorant unwashed masses using brute force and momentum to win rather then tactics governed by a leader". In reality, brute force is a form of tactics that relies on momentum for a strategy and the whole thing is tied together by a leader. Who is that leader? The Lattice Network. THAT is what kept "zergs" organized and moving forward. It's the only reason why PS1 had strong battles and it is, quite frankly, what made the game.

So stop defining the "zerg" as an unorganized mass of peons mindlessly going from target to target. Yes it's on the same level as a swarm of ants but who cares? It's effective and a lot more fun then huddling in a generator behind enemy lines believing that what you are doing is actually useful.

[Toppopia]

I swear people, you all act like it's as simple as a freaking game of chess.

Exactly, we need to play like Go. Like Sun Tzu says. Be a go player, not a chess player. Something along those lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)

[Blackwolf]

Exactly, we need to play like Go. Like Sun Tzu says. Be a go player, not a chess player. Something along those lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)

Not sure Go applies any better. Both games rely on strict rules that balance the sides evenly. War doesn't. Both games will teach you to plan your moves, but both sides start off with very similar advantages/disavantages and it's a test of whether or not you can hold the advantage longer then your opponent. Warfare requires that you turn your disadvantage to your advantage, because opposing sides are rarely evenly matched to start. Sun Tzu wrote of many ways to do this using everything from terrain to the sun, and board games are poor representations to practice with.

Just ask yourself if zerging is possible, and if so then it's an accurate representation of actual warfare. Because it is brutal and totally unfair.

And I'm sorry for spouting like a lunatic.

[Malorn]

Zerg is like "fuck" and "shit" - it has a lot of meanings and uses.


A unique PlanetSide meaning that I used a lot was to refer to the large mass of otherwise unguided players that would move like a mob across the map from one facility to another, taking the simplest and most direct route to the next objective and capturing all towers along the way.

These player blobs were a combination of solo players, small squads, and outfits of all sizes. They gravitated together and were largely self-guided, but CR5s could direct them to various degrees of success, provided there weren't a lot of conflicting requests from different CR5s.

They were often the blind leading the blind but they had a basic understanding of how the strategic game was played and a programmed pattern of attack tower, attack base, move to next base, rinse & repeat. Not very responsive of smarter enemy tactics, they'd often get bogged down and stuck at a single insignificant base while more valuable bases were lost.

Often called "The Zerg on <continent>"

[Toppopia]

Not sure Go applies any better. Both games rely on strict rules that balance the sides evenly. War doesn't. Both games will teach you to plan your moves, but both sides start off with very similar advantages/disavantages and it's a test of whether or not you can hold the advantage longer then your opponent. Warfare requires that you turn your disadvantage to your advantage, because opposing sides are rarely evenly matched to start. Sun Tzu wrote of many ways to do this using everything from terrain to the sun, and board games are poor representations to practice with.

Just ask yourself if zerging is possible, and if so then it's an accurate representation of actual warfare.

I can imagine the really hard core outfit leaders knowing everything about Sun Tzu and using everything like that, and talking about it and most of the people thinking ..
Soldier 1: "Huh?? Do you understand what hes saying?"
Soldier 2: "Don't worry, as long as you do what he says, you'll be fine"
Soldier 3: "Shut up! This stuff is going to be on the exam..
Soldier 1: "What!! Theres gonna be an exam?? Oh god!!" *Jumps out window*
Soldier 2: "Did he know we were 100 metres in the air?"
Soldier 3: "Well, if he didn't know, he does now."
*Soldier 2 walks in*
Soldier 2: "Hey guys."
Soldier 1: "Wait... shouldn't you be dead?"
Soldier 2: "Nah, i had a jetpack."
Soldier 3: "Damn, i had dibs on your money in the secret safe under your bed"
Soldier 2: "How do you know about that?"
Soldier 3: "Oh. I know many things..."

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Typically people use the word "zerg" or phrase "being zerged" in a derogatory way to lift their broken self esteem after having been victim of an organized operation.

[Graywolves]

The Zerg in planetside is the mass of unguided players who go from fight to fight without any organization. It's basically a giant mob of players who just go straight to the biggest fights or biggest experience farms.

Sometimes players will talk about directing or supporting the zerg.


A Zergfit (Zerg/Outfit) is a very large outfit. Zergfit is used to make fun of large outfits, claiming that they are just a large group of unorganized players who use Zap Brannigan war tactics of sending wave after wave of men until the killbots reach their preset kill limit.

[SKYeXile]

Typically people use the word "zerg" or phrase "being zerged" in a derogatory way to lift their broken self esteem after having been victim of an organized operation.

On the other hand, some zergs typically think they're organised because they get 100 people in a generator and have everybody focusing on a single door.

[GreatMazinkaise]

A Zergfit (Zerg/Outfit) is a very large outfit. Zergfit is used to make fun of large outfits, claiming that they are just a large group of unorganized players who use Zap Brannigan war tactics of sending wave after wave of men until the killbots reach their preset kill limit.

Can't argue with the results. Admittedly I wouldn't use most of Brannigan's other Big Book of War strategies, but...

[BuzzCutPsycho]

On the other hand, some zergs typically think they're organised because they get 100 people in a generator and have everybody focusing on a single door.

Luckily in PS1 things of zero importance (like an air tower in the middle of no where) didn't have generators for organized players to drop.

Phew!

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Well you see in an MMOFPS where the developers boast about 2000+ players fighting all at once people get very, very upset when they don't abide by their CoD/BF 8v8 arena rules.

It sounds stupid I know.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

That's the kind of thing I love to do.

[Wahooo]

LOL go look at that thread in the PS1 forums here where NC are whining VS uses numbers to achieve objectives. Kinda like Robo said, "what in the hell you want us to do? Tell our players to sit in sanc so we can make sure enemy have an even fight?" Silly. If you can't adapt to numbers then get out of the way. Improvise, adapt and overcome.

To many it has nothing to do with numbers winning. It has to do with winning by overwhelming numbers and being proud like it was an accomplishment.

It is good to win. It is fine to win with numbers, but practically ghosting continents and swooping in to a pretty close fight and changing the odds to 3:1 THEN go on to brag about it like it was something special?

Yeah that is pretty much on the same level as getting a V-V-B from a dude that jumped out from behind two corner humping scat maxes and got in the last shot with his JH.

[SKYeXile]

LOL go look at that thread in the PS1 forums here where NC are whining VS uses numbers to achieve objectives. Kinda like Robo said, "what in the hell you want us to do? Tell our players to sit in sanc so we can make sure enemy have an even fight?" Silly. If you can't adapt to numbers then get out of the way. Improvise, adapt and overcome.

i dont fear the zerg or zerg guilds, they pad my stats fairly well. Just don't try to play a zerg off as been "organised" because somebody rallied a whole bunch of no pulse retards to the one location.

[SKYeXile]

No pulse retards? Hmmmm...

Having no pulse is the standard most zerg guilds recruit by.

[Wahooo]

So what do you to counter this? Come to forums and whine?

Go look at my responses in that thread pointman started whining about it. I"m a pretty mediocre player but feel like a friggen all star when AT is running a full platoon or if I didn't have other commitments on GOTR outfit night. I say bring it on. Yeah a large enough group of mouthbreathers can do quite a bit. If it is fun, more power to you, I see nothing wrong with it, just as I said being proud of it and bragging about it is simply sad.

[Crator]

Boy, you can just feel the love in this thread :lol:

[BuzzCutPsycho]

i dont fear the zerg or zerg guilds, they pad my stats fairly well. Just don't try to play a zerg off as been "organised" because somebody rallied a whole bunch of no pulse retards to the one location.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

[Crator]

What's to remedy? It's just how it is, in people's mind. I'm reading this entire thread like it should be in the wiki. :P One could take all the info here with all the point of views and the Zerg wiki would be pretty complete....

[BuzzCutPsycho]

If you don't like it you could always play BF3 or the upcoming Black Ops 2. Just don't get upset if you get killed 2v1, okay?

[Wahooo]

So what do you to counter this? Come to forums and whine?

I'm just basically trying to understand how we go about remedying this? Are we just going to whine ad-nauseum but oh wait I got it, if you don't like it there's always 32v32 or less, matchplay type games? I play solo mostly or occasionally join squads of re-secure specialists as that is how I play. I do love the challenge of re-secures against superior numbers. But you guys whining are just fueling the fire. Seriously. It's been this way since 2003. Like I said get used to it or just leave because there isn't enough cheese in the world for all this whine.

Fix it and people will find something else to whine about.
If I get a kill its skill
If it kills me its cheap
If I win it is superior tactics
If they win it is HAX/Zerg/Cheap/Luck/Lag

Meh. It is the way of the Interwebz.

[IMMentat]

You do realise I was generalising yes?
My post was long enough without going into the meat, bone and muscle description of what happens within the zerg/blob/army swarm.

#edit#
Just noticed 2 paghes since my post, but meh, the piont stands.

The use of a simple label for a complex system was bound to cause confusion and backlash.

[Toppopia]

Fix it and people will find something else to whine about.
If I get a kill its skill
If it kills me its cheap
If I win it is superior tactics
If they win it is HAX/Zerg/Cheap/Luck/Lag

Meh. It is the way of the Interwebz.

And you forgot the paradox of "I use a weapon, it sucks. Enemy uses same weapon against me, kicks my butt."

I really hate that paradox... :mad:

[jepaul]

So we have this so far from this thread.

-- A zerg is a large group of unorganized players moving as a group to capture point after point regardless of what is going on elsewhere.
-- A zerg is an outfit that moves in large groups and doesn't use vehicles or classes to compliment whatever it is they might be doing.
-- A zerg can be any number of players, organized or not, if the group they are attacking have significantly less players than the attacking group. What constitutes significantly less is simply a matter of opinion and varies greatly but is usually based on winning vs losing.
-- A zerg can be any number of people, organized or not, that takes and holds a point, with even numbers or not, and the defenders look for a reason why if the attacking group seems to be unorganized.
-- A zerg is wherever the main focus is of the enemy and the majority of the enemies players are there. Organized, even numbers, or not.
-- A zerg is any outfit, that when moving, organized or not, routinely have more players than the outfit or outfits they are attacking. This group is still called a zerg even in battles where they don't have overwhelming numbers simply because they have at times had overwhelming numbers.

So, albeit I might be more confused now than ever, but a zerg, or zerg outfit, can be anywhere, at anytime, with any number of players?

So, in my opinion, a zerg can be anyone, at anytime, regardless of their intent if the enemy is simply looking for an excuse to why they lost?

[SKYeXile]

That's pretty offensive to a lot of players don't you think?

Nah, probably only about 31% of players.

[Trafalgar]

I think you hit it right on the head. Best thing I can figure for some types is to have this instanced cowboy type street fight where people go 1v1 to determine who has the most leet skills. :lol:

I think they've added that to CoD:MW3.

[Sabot]

The term originates from Star Craft, where zerging was a tactic used to very early destroy the enemys production by simply overwhelming him with units that were practicly useless in small numbers. It has then been adpoted into the whole gaming community to describe just that... quantity over quality.

In PS1 specificly I guess the ones zerging was the remainder of the factions players who didn't use any "finer" means of beating an opponent than baning their heads against the front lines... people doing max crashes, gen drops, back hacks, actively searching for enemy spawn points etc. was still part of the zerg, but they weren't zerging, so to speak.

[Stew]

So I read, and agree with the posts, about zerg outfits this, zerg outfits that.

But what is a zerg? I understand the definition so no need to explain.

But in PS what is a zerg?

Is it 30 people? Is it 50? Is it 100?

If the goal of the game is to take territory and win wouldn't a "zerg", or superior numbers, be the best way to do that?

I ask because there seems to be such animosity towards "zergs". So I ask, what is a zerg, and what exactly is wrong with it?

If a group of 200 have fun playing together and they are able to manage those numbers are the groups that complain about them simply complaining because they can't compete against a "zerg"?

So the questions is. How many people in PS2 constitute a zerg?

This is the perfect exemple of Zerg players they want High TTK and they want to relies on Numbers and huge team instead of relying on Skills and true team work ennemies spotting etc.. they just want to ran over people like a steamroller ! these technics are noobs friendly and required No skills Proove here »»»» http://yfrog.com/mtwlfdp
THATS WHATS HE SAID READ CAREFULLY :


There's no point in playing with a large group if they're going to get destroyed by 3 guys sitting in a base. This game is about LARGE SCALE COMBAT, not 3 players sitting and killing an entire outfit because they happen to be good at the game. It shouldn't be about small groups of people winning against huge groups.

If I take a hundred guys to fight ten, I should not expect to lose, EVER. I might take some casualties if those ten guys have prepared and planned very well, but I should still win.

Hotstarthefaggot en réponse à : Hotstarthefaggot(Afficher le commentaire) il y a 3 jours

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is whats i reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
its seams your lack of skills is obvious if your afraid to loose agains 3 of us ;) if your clan mates are garbage enough to loose in a low ttk 10 vs 3 you deserve to get destroy !

stew360 en réponse à : Hotstarthefaggot il y a 15 heures dans la liste de lecture Uploaded videos


Planetside 2 TTK ( Time To Kill ) why its better medium Low than High - YouTube

[Sabot]

This is the perfect exemple of Zerg players they want High TTK and they want to relies on Numbers and huge team instead of relying on Skills and true team work ennemies spotting etc.. they just want to ran over people like a steamroller ! these technics are noobs friendly and required No skills Proove here »»»» http://yfrog.com/mtwlfdp
THATS WHATS HE SAID READ CAREFULLY :


There's no point in playing with a large group if they're going to get destroyed by 3 guys sitting in a base. This game is about LARGE SCALE COMBAT, not 3 players sitting and killing an entire outfit because they happen to be good at the game. It shouldn't be about small groups of people winning against huge groups.

If I take a hundred guys to fight ten, I should not expect to lose, EVER. I might take some casualties if those ten guys have prepared and planned very well, but I should still win.

Hotstarthefaggot en réponse à : Hotstarthefaggot(Afficher le commentaire) il y a 3 jours

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is whats i reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
its seams your lack of skills is obvious if your afraid to loose agains 3 of us ;) if your clan mates are garbage enough to loose in a low ttk 10 vs 3 you deserve to get destroy !

stew360 en réponse à : Hotstarthefaggot il y a 15 heures dans la liste de lecture Uploaded videos


Planetside 2 TTK ( Time To Kill ) why its better medium Low than High - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_0ski53cig&list=UUuTiThRSnCLeSxGWCflI93w&index=1&feature=plcp)

No... also, what?

You can't balance TTK in an uneven fight with regards to number of people, m'kay? Also.. headshots... find cover and L2Aim... the TTK will be really effing low.

Now stop hijacking threads, and stay on topic.

[Stew]

No... also, what?

You can't balance TTK in an uneven fight with regards to number of people, m'kay? Also.. headshots... find cover and L2Aim... the TTK will be really effing low.

Now stop hijacking threads, and stay on topic.

Iam on topic perfectly on topic ! High ttk is in the Zerg clan mentality they want it they figth for it and ive proove it rigth their »»»»»

THE ZERG WORDS
__________________________________________________ ________

There's no point in playing with a large group if they're going to get destroyed by 3 guys sitting in a base. This game is about LARGE SCALE COMBAT, not 3 players sitting and killing an entire outfit because they happen to be good at the game. It shouldn't be about small groups of people winning against huge groups.

If I take a hundred guys to fight ten, I should not expect to lose, EVER. I might take some casualties if those ten guys have prepared and planned very well, but I should still win.

Hotstarthefaggot en réponse à : Hotstarthefaggot(Afficher le commentaire) il y a 3 jours
__________________________________________________ ____________
MY WORDS
__________________________________________________ ____________
its seams your lack of skills is obvious if your afraid to loose agains 3 of us ;) if your clan mates are garbage enough to loose in a low ttk 10 vs 3 you deserve to get destroy !

stew360 en réponse à : Hotstarthefaggot il y a 15 heures dans la liste de lecture Uploaded videos

With a high ttk the Zerg will be impossible to stop even if your Twice or 3 times as good as they are Numbers will always win and this should never happen !

Iam on topics ive show the ZERG MENTALITY and whats they want this game to become Noobs friendly and not skilled based they want number to win over anything

[Sabot]

I don't follow you logic... how can a higher TTK with headshots be noob fiendly? It doesn't matter if you're in the zerg or not, you still have to aim better than avarage in a game with a TTK of 12-13, than in one with TTK of 3-4.

To me it seems you are the one that is afraid of losing to superior numbers, as you want them to die instantly from your Jackhammer or spraying of the Gauss Rifle. If you'd actually have to use cover and aim for the head to be effective against a superior force, that'd be a show skill.. not a "who fires first" scenario.

I don't even know what you think a low TTK is? Is it 2-3 bullets? 5-6? 9-10? A 9-10 bullet TTK might be absolutely fine, I don't know I haven't played the game... But I do know that 2-4 TTK is not skill, it's just about whoever sees who first, and it effectively makes headshots useless.

[Stew]

I don't follow you logic... how can a higher TTK with headshots be noob fiendly? It doesn't matter if you're in the zerg or not, you still have to aim better than avarage in a game with a TTK of 12-13, than in one with TTK of 3-4.

To me it seems you are the one that is afraid of losing to superior numbers, as you want them to die instantly from your Jackhammer or spraying of the Gauss Rifle. If you'd actually have to use cover and aim for the head to be effective against a superior force, that'd be a show skill.. not a "who fires first" scenario.

I don't even know what you think a low TTK is? Is it 2-3 bullets? 5-6? 9-10? A 9-10 bullet TTK might be absolutely fine, I don't know I haven't played the game... But I do know that 2-4 TTK is not skill, it's just about whoever sees who first, and it effectively makes headshots useless.

I explain it in my video if you can make like 10 % damage in 3 sec and your outnumber these guys will shot at you even if you make 20 % damage on one of them it dosent matter because they will each make a 10 % damage and kill you winthin a 3 sec and you will not even able to kill one of them at least with a low ttk your able to kill 1 or 2 of them until the rest of them can get you if they can ;)

Also you cant stop them to flank you or jump at you because their is not nough punisement in your fire so they will all run at you jump on you and empty their magazine in your face

Also iam all for decent hitbox thats mean different part of the body make different damage Legs HIP chest and head each having a specifics damage ration so the most acurate players and fast will win over numbers also squad who use communication instead of just Zerging !

Also if you start a figth with High ttk more time it take to kills more chance thats youll see another guys joining the figth before you even kill the first one and since it take to much to kills it will be exponential everytime you ad one players the Time to kills them will grow exponentially !


ZERG WANT THIS
1guys = 12 seconds ?
2 guys = 24 seconds ?
4 guys = 48 seconds ?
8 guys = 1 minutes 60 seconds ?

and so on
Headshot like a pro( HEAD SHOT AS TO BE 2 HIT IN THE HEAD )
Low ttk anti zerg
1 guys = 3 seconds
2 guys = 6 seconds
4 guys = 12 seconds
8 guys = 24 seconds
Or medium low ttk like i want



ANTI ZERG ITS ALL IN HITBOX AND MEDIUM LOW TTK

and so on

[xnorb]

No matter if high TTK or low TTK, higher numbers will always win.

Low TTK simply allows noob-spraying whilst high TTK needs more aiming skills
and enables more aggressive gameplay.

No clue what you want here, but if 100 guys encounter 10, there is absolutely
no way the 10 will win. If you beat 100 guys with only 9 comrades around,
then you were encountered by a horde of 3-year olds and dogs accidently
touching random keys on the keyboard while PS2 was running.

[maddoggg]

Let me explain what zerg means in FPS gaming.
So first of,the zerg is one of the races of the famous RTS game called star craft.
They are an organic race which rellies on masses of cheap and weak units and to win over the enemy by pure numbers.

So in FPS gaming zerg are the unorganized players that just clump up together like one big mindless mass of people.
A typical example of zerg behavior would be B flag on grand bazar on battlefield 3.
The map have 5 flags on conquest large and yet in a 64 player server atleast 48 players would just flood over B and join the clusterf*ck instead of using their brain to flank the enemy.

There is A BIG difference between mindless zerg swarm,and organized team play :)

PS:*sight*anyone else tyred of stew trying to force his obviesly rong understanding of how high TTK works?

[Stew]

No matter if high TTK or low TTK, higher numbers will always win.

Low TTK simply allows noob-spraying whilst high TTK needs more aiming skills
and enables more aggressive gameplay.

No clue what you want here, but if 100 guys encounter 10, there is absolutely
no way the 10 will win. If you beat 100 guys with only 9 comrades around,
then you were encountered by a horde of 3-year olds and dogs accidently
touching random keys on the keyboard while PS2 was running.

Wrong ive win multiple time in smallers group of awesome players IN MAG with 256 players and also in BF3 taking out 20 + guys with only 4 squad members

So its more than doable if the TTK is not to high and your skills are pretty much good !

If their is equally skills players 10 skills players will win over 3 skills players

But 10 garbage players in a low ttk win loose over 3 good players !

In a high ttk senarios ZERG will always win no matters how good both side are !

[SKYeXile]

No matter if high TTK or low TTK, higher numbers will always win.

Low TTK simply allows noob-spraying whilst high TTK needs more aiming skills
and enables more aggressive gameplay.

No clue what you want here, but if 100 guys encounter 10, there is absolutely
no way the 10 will win. If you beat 100 guys with only 9 comrades around,
then you were encountered by a horde of 3-year olds and dogs accidently
touching random keys on the keyboard while PS2 was running.

its free to play, we should be able to see it.

[Stew]

No matter if high TTK or low TTK, higher numbers will always win.

Low TTK simply allows noob-spraying whilst high TTK needs more aiming skills
and enables more aggressive gameplay.
.

300 first battle - YouTube

300 spartiates Vs 1 000 000 Zerg persian

Skills and teamwork and coordination and tactics win over numbers with Low tkk

[Toppopia]

As long as there is 1-2 entrances to a base with long firing lines, i think i could hold out for a while with 10-20 others.

[SKYeXile]

...thats a movie.

without interlink radar and now with the maps designed for more skirmish style gameplay its gonna be alot harder for afew people to take on larger numbers. The TTK thing may go either way. you can take down 6 people at once regularly in PS1, how many times have you taken down 6 people at the same time in a tactical shooter? you might be able to if you flank em and get the jump on them, but unless theres stun grenades or something to that effect i cant see somebody waltzing into a room and taking down multiple people like in PS1...maybe a shielded HA with grenades...well see how that plays out.

[Canaris]

yea zerg is the tactic of overwhelming the enemy with numbers by sending wave after wave of men at them.

http://iforce.co.nz/i/bnfdant4.wlu.jpg

ah the perfect tactic with no flaws, want a job as a TR general?

[xnorb]

No matter if high or low TTK, good player will always manage to take on
a few enemies. But once the amount of enemies if overwhelming, it's
absolutely of no intereset if high or low TTK.

Just imagine 20 grenades flying your direction while you're surpressed by
never ending enemy gunfire and maybe even some rockets coming in.
Pointless discussion.


And BF3 ?
Aw come on, without any communication tools and complete casuals
enjoying the noobified gameplay it's no problem slaying 20+ players alone
if you're willed to invest enough time to get used to the weapons and maps.


To me it's only important to keep a high TTK.
Low TTK only favors spraying, and makes people camp more.

[Stew]

No matter if high or low TTK, good player will always manage to take on
a few enemies. But once the amount of enemies if overwhelming, it's
absolutely of no intereset if high or low TTK.

Just imagine 20 grenades flying your direction while you're surpressed by
never ending enemy gunfire and maybe even some rockets coming in.
Pointless discussion.


And BF3 ?
Aw come on, without any communication tools and complete casuals
enjoying the noobified gameplay it's no problem slaying 20+ players alone
if you're willed to invest enough time to get used to the weapons and maps.


To me it's only important to keep a high TTK.
Low TTK only favors spraying, and makes people camp more.

MAG as the best VOIP and comunication and it was doable it all depends on skills with a high ttk its simply impossible good or not it dosent matter

In a low ttk ZERG CANT WIN over skills !

And also grenade flying in planetside 2 wont happen like BF3

People who want high ttk are people who are part of Huge Zerg clans ! or people who want to get shot and after getting shot been able to point out from where and reacts !

Team work covering angles open up your eyes help a lots to not been Jump ;)

they is no point in tactical gameplay if their is a High ttk no matter whats the plan or suprise it will simply fails since the first guys getting shot will run away prevent all their team mates and any sorte of infiltration operation will fails !

Zerg will win and thats it

High ttk favor ZERG gameplay ZERG noob spraying and preying in target in outnumbers so they will always win because more time it take to kill more DPS you need to suceed HIgh ttk = only way to have a good DPS is multiply the numbers of players This MEAN ZERGGGGGGGGG all the way ;)

Also remeber BF3 as 3d spotting so its easy as hell to be spot and be chase ;)

[Stew]

...thats a movie.

without interlink radar and now with the maps designed for more skirmish style gameplay its gonna be alot harder for afew people to take on larger numbers. The TTK thing may go either way. you can take down 6 people at once regularly in PS1, how many times have you taken down 6 people at the same time in a tactical shooter? you might be able to if you flank em and get the jump on them, but unless theres stun grenades or something to that effect i cant see somebody waltzing into a room and taking down multiple people like in PS1...maybe a shielded HA with grenades...well see how that plays out.

Battlefield 3: Operation Metro Massacre - YouTube

this map layout is the one who is the most like Ps1 base ;) tigth corridor and few open rooms

http://youtu.be/nxkYhs5IZVU?t=6m4s also this is me and ive been doing the same multiple time in everygame i play with low medium low ttk

[SKYeXile]

this map layout is the one who is the most like Ps1 base ;) tigth corridor and few open rooms

not what i had in mind, in PS1 you can walk into a room(aka:CC), solo, with them all shooting at you and you can kill them. most of those guys in the BF3 arnt even aware he's there.

[xnorb]

Stew, i wonder if you're only trolling here ...
Metro ?
Dude, serious ?
Metro is even worse than CoD ...

@TTK:
Both modes got their up- and downsides, but in the end i always prefer
personal skill over teamwork. I hate nothing more than some guys sitting
in a corner mowing down hordes of enemies by simply spraying.
(That's what you see in Metro all the time)

High TTK forces you to place your shots.

Yes, you can react once you are shot at.
What's the downside of that ? Except that if the attacker is a bad player
he will get killed - i could imagine that's what you fear. Losing gunfight
after gunfight because Spray'n'pray or camp-sniping is your thing.


But we'd need to define what low and high TTK is ...
BF3's TTK is way too low. Reduce bullet damage by 25% (in normal mode)
and we're were i'd say it's spot on.

[Stew]

not what i had in mind, in PS1 you can walk into a room(aka:CC), solo, with them all shooting at you and you can kill them. most of those guys in the BF3 arnt even aware he's there.

Wrong he take 4 guys in a row with a pistole and those guys were aware he was their also with is LMG while using the bipod they were just no fast enough to take him out first !

Also did you watch my own video ? these guys where aware i was their and guess whats ? they got own all in a row ;)

So yeah and i doubt you willshow me a clip where you take 6 guys in a close room while they all shoot at you lolll proove it to me or take it back

[Toppopia]

this map layout is the one who is the most like Ps1 base ;) tigth corridor and few open rooms

http://youtu.be/nxkYhs5IZVU?t=6m4s also this is me and ive been doing the same multiple time in everygame i play with low medium low ttk

So many times me and my friends hold that and the surrounding area and can hold off the advancing enemies till they are all basically spamming rockets and grenades. Thats basically the only way good defenders will be beaten, is being spammed by grenades, which will cost resources so hopefully the enemy will out of those fairly quickly, then it will create epic last stand situations.

[asdar]

I thought the definition of a Zerg was what people complained about when they lost a battle. :)

Everyone's got skill and everyone else is lucky or cheap.

Play to win, play to have fun.

[Stew]

Stew, i wonder if you're only trolling here ...
Metro ?
Dude, serious ?
Metro is even worse than CoD ...
on.

Metro is the only BF3 maps who can be compare to Planetside 1 base Have yyou ever play PS1 ? Tigth corridor and few close square rooms Ps1 was all about corner camping in 3rd person view and corridor figth and square rooms and door way figth

Exactly like operation metro Both could be fun tho Metro is cluster fuck but funny as hell same for Ps1 ;)

Battlefield 3 Gameplay: 64 Player Metro Conquest [HD] - YouTube

Ps1
Planetside 1 - Session two Base Defense Fight Part 1 - YouTube

[xnorb]

Okay, if you like low TTK clusterfuck, then i already know which game i
will not play if you get your way.

[LightningDriver]

A zerg in planetside is something every other outfit does except for the one you are in. The one you belong to uses a tactical numerical advantage to complete the objective.

[jepaul]

A zerg in planetside is something every other outfit does except for the one you are in. The one you belong to uses a tactical numerical advantage to complete the objective.

HAHA! Winner, mods please lock the thread.

[noxious]

Any group, outfit or not, that couldn't win a fight without a significant pop advantage (2:1 or more) was pretty much considered a zerg.
I did not assert anything contrary to this. An outfit does not necessarily equal a well organized group.

[fishirboy]

Zerging is when a "large amount of units" (anything much bigger then the opponents team) charges in blindly with out use of cover or tactical ideas. There is no copoeration between each other and always follow the leader for example ► WTF Is... - Realm of the Mad God ? (WTF-a-thon Game 6) - YouTube watch from 1:40 and watch as they build up and follow TB as he kills anything in his way. That is an example of zerging. If 1 person is defending a position and is killed by having 3 guys go into a room and 2 die well 1 lives that is NOT zerging. Being over whelmed by a bigger party is not zerging. There needs to be no cooperation in the party and mindless running from point to point. :doh: :D

[Noivad]

lol at all the Zerg definitions. I'll give you a example of a PS1 Zerg. Its when you have Organized and Unorganized Outfits, so called eleet types, with Solo non experienced players, and so called Squad Leaders, Platoon Leaders, Outfit Leaders, and CR5s that lead them, to attack a Capitol Building that cannot be hacked for lack of links to bring down the shields.

Thats is an example of zerglings in PS1 that historically still happens everyday in the game. Mindless, non tactical, non experienced players who do not know what the (insert expletive) they are doing. But do it cause it either seems to be the right thing to do, or because other lemmings are doing it. Kind of like the insects of the Starcraft that the term orginally came from, and is now used to describe players in many games.

Ya know this post is like the zerg too. A bunch of mindless people who came up with mindless answers, to something they could have looked up in google. lol :evil:

PS. To those of you who are not mindless, or at least think they are not disregard the last paragraph and carry on.
Very funny posts, funny read, good job. lol.

[LightningDriver]

HAHA! Winner, mods please lock the thread.

That was a general "you", not a "you" pointed at you or your outfit. Try not to take the game so seriously. And you know very well, the zerg will win, after all the organized outfit are dust, the zerg remains.

[fishirboy]

why are so many people on this tread not giving good answers and just talking non sense?

[fishirboy]

That was a general "you", not a "you" pointed at you or your outfit. Try not to take the game so seriously. And you know very well, the zerg will win, after all the organized outfit are dust, the zerg remains.

See "Zerg Outfits" are people that don't have tactical cooperation with each other (no mic, no chat) they just follow each other like ducks in a row and go were ever the wind takes them. They have high death ratio and don't use cover pretty much at all. That is what I define a zerg as.

[Gwartham]

A zerg is something that people who shouldnt be playing MMO's say when people playing a MMO, actually play a MMO.

Apparently there is a fine line between hey this is great look at all the people fighting and "this zergfest sucks".

[Naz The Eternal]

why are so many people on this tread not giving good answers and just talking non sense?

You sir, are not very familiar with the interwebs are you? :eek:

[Evahn]

Honestly, from what I've seen, the "Zerg" is just an overused terminology, so much so that there is no single set answer.

On a side note, I wholly promote zerging, at least in the sense of attacking with large, unorganized force. I mean, how else am I going to rack up BEP fast lol? Besides, dropping gens in the middle of some base no one can capture in order to cut off supply lines (a.k.a. black ops missions) may help the zerg win, but it isn't really all that rewarding (BEP or CEP wise), not to mention incredibly boring while waiting for somone to actually show up and give you a challenge.

So, yeah, bring on the zerging - I always did love a good target rich environment.