Skill VS Zerg
- Thread starter Phen
- Start date
More complicated than that. A lot of people tried to put together "guilds" of people who all do the same thing. Notable example, keeping up with the kraneshians. Trying to make a guild where EVERYONE is a footfighter main whos really sick at jumping on roofs, is inferior to a guild with a diverse "portfolio" of players who
A) fight
B) run boulders
C) farm a lot
D) have some social skills
e)like building TC.
Lol sounds like your talking about a skilled group of players though... not so much a zerg.
Now i wanna hear everyone's idea on what a "Zerg" is. Seems like the definition is misunderstood by people.
The war winners or the battle winners?
Not quite, the former group was very skilled but only at one thing. Undiversified is the word I used and I think its accurate.
Where did you say that? But you did prove the point, they are skilled players... even if its something dumb like jumping... Lots of players couldn't maneuver in MO1 and I see it in MO2 already. I'll call that footwork and its is a skill. Though not as effective in MO2 as MO1 but still is a skill.
I think a zerg is a medium sized guild that wins a few major victories. Then all the joiners come in.
Well I've watched plenty of Kranesh fights. Usually the Kranesh kids did very well for a bunch of jumpers with no skill.
I'm confused I said they were very skilled, but not diverse. Meaning their guild isn't adaptable to shocks, like say weeks with no pvp. A Tyrannosaurus isn't weak because it can't take on meteors, but a crocodile that can submerge, bury itself, go for a year without eating?
I think a zerg is diverse, which can sustain shocks, win fights, and otherwise attract players due to their advantages.
In my opinion a zerk is a group that is relative to the other group a lot bigger.
Zerks can also contain skilled players.
If skilled players slaughter other player in a 6 vs 2 I would say that they are zerking, regardless if they are "skilled" or not.
Is this why people are complaining about zergs? Cause it makes all the sense in this style of game. More people better odds in the fight. Though let's talk bigger numbers. 25 vs 40, is that still a zerg?
What gets me about this question. Is we have many people acting like numbers shouldn't matter ( 1vX ) as well as numbers always matter following 6v2, 6 always wins. Sense the game is skill based combat i feel this still hinders on how high the skill ceiling is. With MO its not very high skill ceiling. To learn a few swings, blocks and techniques just takes practice. Although isn't this game about relations between players anyways?
I can see your side of a zerg. I've ways viewed zergs as the same technique used in SC. Quickly out number and keep pressure, though downfall is they are weak and pop with no problems.
Having a large numbers on your side is what a zerg would be. Though with a game like this what is the drawing line of a zerg?
Zerging is more viable in MO 2.
Also "zergs" can mean having one extra person than the enemy team its just how it goes people will use that as an excuse and people will believe them since its hard to count exact numbers in a battle if no one recorded thoroughly. (Even if they did propaganda kicks in)
A skilled group can beat a zerg group but generally skill alone wont take them there (Sometimes skill does take you about 80% of the way depends) They will need the right counters to the enemy group like certain weapons that affect heavier armor or lighter weapons that affect lighter armor magic etc.
Using terrain is a big one too separating the zerg and stamming them out with faster characters and picking them off by a couple at a time until you are even numbers or outnumber them.
Communication is also very important when trying to outskill a zerg everyone needs to be in sync and want to fight and kill the other team no backsies.
So zerging takes less skill and is easier and if the skilled team does not rely on other mechanics other than their personal skill their chances of losing the fight go higher than the zerg team. There are so many factors at play so this is all a generalized statement.
Also "zergs" can mean having one extra person than the enemy team its just how it goes people will use that as an excuse and people will believe them since its hard to count exact numbers in a battle if no one recorded thoroughly. (Even if they did propaganda kicks in)
A skilled group can beat a zerg group but generally skill alone wont take them there (Sometimes skill does take you about 80% of the way depends) They will need the right counters to the enemy group like certain weapons that affect heavier armor or lighter weapons that affect lighter armor magic etc.
Using terrain is a big one too separating the zerg and stamming them out with faster characters and picking them off by a couple at a time until you are even numbers or outnumber them.
Communication is also very important when trying to outskill a zerg everyone needs to be in sync and want to fight and kill the other team no backsies.
So zerging takes less skill and is easier and if the skilled team does not rely on other mechanics other than their personal skill their chances of losing the fight go higher than the zerg team. There are so many factors at play so this is all a generalized statement.
I couldn't agree more to this, though I'm still confused on why people complain about zergs in a war game.
So far my outcome is skill wins over simple zerg. Two zergs going at it does really make sense, so ima go back to the idea that people who complain about zergs are unskilled fighters who need bodies to win.
There are certain mechanics in place that do not always result more people better odds.
Let's assume a group of 5 Vets vs 5 Vets + 2 noobs.
In MO1 there were decent chances that the group with the 2 noobs would loose, in case the noobs hand out "free parrys" that can be used for additional damage, or even team damage by the noobs.
Numbers of cause matter. With more players you got more "total" stamina and more total health, and therefore the larger group should be able to deal more damage and endure more.
However, the amount of features that favor bigger groups should be minimized.
To name a few features that favor the bigger group:
- ability's with long trigger time, that get interrupted by damage. The smaller group does not have the number to leave somebody out of fight, and therefore only the bigger group is able to use those abilities.
- stamina penalty's based on the number of hits e.g. 3 people attack you all from the same direction, and you parry them all with one block. You loose 3x stamina, while gaining only the advantage of one parry attack.
- crowd control abilities e.g. disease in MO1 (spell that drained stamina). If you got enough of people casting those spells the smaller group can't do shit, cause they got constantly low stamina.
People complain about getting outnumbered in any game. It's just the way it is. MO in the past was one of the few MMOs where double the numbers doesn't mean you easily win. Over time however, mechanics have been added to make that not as true. Over the lifetime of MO, fighting outnumbered became harder and harder. Much due to people complaining until SV changed things because skilled groups of 5 players could kill 15 players using tactics and better swordplay. Even though the 15 players had access to the exact same things the 5 did...people just couldn't handle losing like that.
Things became more zerg friendly. Sprint breaks were a thing, turtleing, moving faster in combat mode, breeding mounts, removal of dice roll, increased fall damage, crafted potions, getting knocked by an idiot with a molva, OP pets, necromancy, more equalized movement speed for all races, etc.
The list is quite long...that's why quite a few of us have to speak up when people suggest new mechanics that even further hinder small scale play. Any mechanic that helps small scale play also helps large scale play...but not the other way around.
And the skill ceiling is high when you are talking about group play. 1v1s in this game are so ping related its not even funny. There aren't many people who even care for that. I sure dont...
Things became more zerg friendly. Sprint breaks were a thing, turtleing, moving faster in combat mode, breeding mounts, removal of dice roll, increased fall damage, crafted potions, getting knocked by an idiot with a molva, OP pets, necromancy, more equalized movement speed for all races, etc.
The list is quite long...that's why quite a few of us have to speak up when people suggest new mechanics that even further hinder small scale play. Any mechanic that helps small scale play also helps large scale play...but not the other way around.
And the skill ceiling is high when you are talking about group play. 1v1s in this game are so ping related its not even funny. There aren't many people who even care for that. I sure dont...
Heathens zerg. It´s pretty simple really.
@Teknique
Also the one thing the kranesh kids were good at was duping, being banned and coming back. Hilarious stuff. Much skill.
Idiots complain about getting zergt on when even slightly outnumbered, which is obviously stupid. Literally it means a vast number of drones lead by a hive mind. Not something you would find exactly in MO.
More on the mark are alliances that continue, continue and only stop when the game is dead. This leads to vast groups responding to any thread and non of the clans fighting on their own anymore. People like to call it "diplomacy", but anyone whos ever been on a heathen teamspeaks know it has as much to do with diplomacy, as putting your dicks in a mixers has with sex. It just a lack of reasons to fight each other and the fact that most people are cowards.
This however can only change if TC is redone in a major way, which I don´t see coming.
More interesting is the idea of small well organized groups resisting big unorganized hordes. This is where fighting outnumbered and winning comes in.
@Teknique
Also the one thing the kranesh kids were good at was duping, being banned and coming back. Hilarious stuff. Much skill.
Idiots complain about getting zergt on when even slightly outnumbered, which is obviously stupid. Literally it means a vast number of drones lead by a hive mind. Not something you would find exactly in MO.
More on the mark are alliances that continue, continue and only stop when the game is dead. This leads to vast groups responding to any thread and non of the clans fighting on their own anymore. People like to call it "diplomacy", but anyone whos ever been on a heathen teamspeaks know it has as much to do with diplomacy, as putting your dicks in a mixers has with sex. It just a lack of reasons to fight each other and the fact that most people are cowards.
This however can only change if TC is redone in a major way, which I don´t see coming.
More interesting is the idea of small well organized groups resisting big unorganized hordes. This is where fighting outnumbered and winning comes in.
I like being simple trooper,large well organized groups are fascinating to be in.
Would be cool to see more formation tactics used in MO2 compering to just getting numbers of players running loosely.
That is very difficult thing to achieve I don't think I have seen it any mmo yet.Mayby giving the commanders some set of skills like marking the field so
players can synch their movements or giving banners some bonuses so players move as a teams protecting them would help.
It could be done without any other tools but it would require a large group of dedicated players which I would love to be part of.
Any players who would like to get together formation using company of troops should try to form a guild based on that goal.
Would be cool to see more formation tactics used in MO2 compering to just getting numbers of players running loosely.
That is very difficult thing to achieve I don't think I have seen it any mmo yet.Mayby giving the commanders some set of skills like marking the field so
players can synch their movements or giving banners some bonuses so players move as a teams protecting them would help.
It could be done without any other tools but it would require a large group of dedicated players which I would love to be part of.
Any players who would like to get together formation using company of troops should try to form a guild based on that goal.
Tactics are a real thing so is morale on the battlefield
Being in a group that communicates and leads together is probably the most enjoying part of this game.
Now there are battle lines inside a group but usually its depending on what type of player you have and their playstyle. It could be called a formation but its more chaotic than a straight up formation.
Formations never really worked they take way too much managing from everyone in the group and end up costing you the fight or your fun.
Just find a group that knows what they are doing and pay attention to where players stand you will see the battle lines or FORMATION whatever.
Being in a group that communicates and leads together is probably the most enjoying part of this game.
Now there are battle lines inside a group but usually its depending on what type of player you have and their playstyle. It could be called a formation but its more chaotic than a straight up formation.
Formations never really worked they take way too much managing from everyone in the group and end up costing you the fight or your fun.
Just find a group that knows what they are doing and pay attention to where players stand you will see the battle lines or FORMATION whatever.
The 1vX thing is about already being at a disadvantage due to numbers. The game shouldn’t be in a state where this advantage is amplified by the mechanics of the game. For example sensitivity drags and turn caps that limit say someone with superior aim and bogs down more of their time trying to overcome the resistance in the game than actually thinking about their moves, or accel nerfs which again limit the speed that a solo player can deal damage with and then disengage, or spammy hits with linear/fast charges that make parrying multiple enemies difficult. To cite just a few random non specific examples.