Zerg - And what that means?

[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

[Novacane]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Dogbolta

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

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Miir

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]

Originally Posted by Landtank

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

Originally Posted by noxious

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.

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

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.

Originally Posted by Novacane

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by IMMentat

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]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

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]

Originally Posted by Toppopia

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.