What exactly do those screens tell us on the subject? Fail indeed.
A large organized group of players following specific rules in order to overcome an objective vs throwing as many players as you can at the enemy because numbers will win regardless of organization.
The problem with this argument is that they're nothing alike. In EQ this is a group or raid of players teaming up to take down an NPC that REQUIRES this number of people and lots of organization to overcome. In Black Desert this is a pvp .. um.. arena area where they are pitting 100 vs 100 players against each other. Neither of these are actually zergs at all. IF in Black Desert this were open world PVP and one side gathered 100 people to fight against 10 just because numbers win, then that is a zerg.
What I believe the OP is trying to convey is the utter disastrous mess that ends up happening when having an arena pvp of this magnitude. Some people might like it. I personally find it pointless and not rewarding in any way.
That's really apples and oranges isn't it? Most MMOs I've played with open world PvP have zergs. Most MMOs I've played with instanced PvE raids have required coordination. The sky is blue and the grass is green.
I know GW2 was brought up and early on because you could infinitiely rez and there were multiple rez spots you could keep dieing and joining a fight in the dungeon. In effect you could zerg it. They changed it and at least up until I quit playing there were plenty of dungeon encounters that required so coordination to complete. Sure it didn't take an hour up front to describe but then again we are talking about 5 players vs 20+ so I would hope it would be easier. Sorry I don't know the current state of affairs and you just face roll dungeons in GW 2 now?
Raids in classic EQ were/ are highly organised. High numbers do not equal zerg.
Agreed. Raids in EQ were/are tightly organized and coordinated.
This.
Because you ran with every raid group in EQ ever put together? A Zerg is a tactic that is employed. I'm sure plenty of raids were zerged in EQ, just as it goes for any (non instanced) game.
The only thing you get from zerging raid bosses in EQ is a corpse run and experience loss.
Again you say that as if you were there for every raid that ever happened... And notice I said (non instanced)...I wasn't referring to instanced raids... How can you throw more numbers than intended at a instanced boss? that goes without saying right?... YEt to suggest that no groups ever completed a raid in an unorganized fashion is a tad over the top, sounds more like fanboi lingo than honest debate, we get it EQ was hardzzz....
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I could show you PvP videos from EQ that looked similar to those PvE scenarios. Strategy was important all around. It was different gameplay.
When you remove roles and relegate success in combat to dodging and aiming, that is always going to promote less tactical play and more zerg. Its not to say that a general strategy couldn't be utilized, but its mostly going to come down to the element of surprise, flanking and picking off smaller groups with larger ones.
Different isn't necessarily worse. I'm sure some will find it fun.
I could show you PvP videos from EQ that looked similar to those PvE scenarios. Strategy was important all around. It was different gameplay.
When you remove roles and relegate success in combat to dodging and aiming, that is always going to promote less tactical play and more zerg. Its not to say that a general strategy couldn't be utilized, but its mostly going to come down to the element of surprise, flanking and picking off smaller groups with larger ones.
Different isn't necessarily worse. I'm sure some will find it fun.
Standing in one spot spamming skills isnt more tactical or strategy rofl
Piece of advice: you first have to know what you talking about before talking about it otherwise you get posts like above ones and OP.
Do i want huge battles in my mmo? hell yes but it has to be well done or it will just be a boring zergfest.
- Lets have tactical squad based objectives that change after completion.
- Lets have Anti Zerg mechanics. How do you eliminate the front line enemies invading your territory? Bomb their buttz. Lets have heavy artillery and high defense mechanisms to obliterate and discourage zerging. I wouldnt survive such an attack, why should the zerg? bomb them all and if anyone survives it opens a chance for a team to end them.
- How do you bypass your enemies high defense mechanisms? small tactical squads can do the job, create diversions, lone wolves infiltrating to disable those mechanisms, etc etc etc.
Its all about ideas, share all your ideas and suggestions. If no ideas come out, we will keep having boring zergs plaguing big scale pvp in every mmo.
My opinion. It sounds easier on paper, but if you manage to create an entire mmo you should be able to create gameplay mechanics for it.
So basically zerg the zerg and if anyone makes it past that then zerg the survivors as well...
Well thought out...
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
I don't object to zerg/ blob content. It's what some people enjoy. I do get disenfranchised with a game when it is the exclusive play style used to control core content. For most games the easy answer is to enforce terrain and line of sight mechanics. If you are partial to large armies and zerg, make your stronghold in open space where large forces can be mounted. If you are more about small groups of elite, chose a cliff side or if you are more about stealth and draw strategy, heavy woods.
It isn't Zerg that is a problem. It's the one trick pony nature it tends to get delivered as.
I don't object to zerg/ blob content. It's what some people enjoy. I do get disenfranchised with a game when it is the exclusive play style used to control core content. For most games the easy answer is to enforce terrain and line of sight mechanics. If you are partial to large armies and zerg, make your stronghold in open space where large forces can be mounted. If you are more about small groups of elite, chose a cliff side or if you are more about stealth and draw strategy, heavy woods.
It isn't Zerg that is a problem. It's the one trick pony nature it tends to get delivered as.
Simply choosing a different base of operations doesn't change the power of that flood of players sweeping through the cliffside or forest.
The fact is, in games as in real-life, if players can ignore skill by focusing on superior population or progression (technology), then skill won't be an important aspect of PVP (and the game will be much shallower as a result.)
The closest thing to a hybrid you can achieve is something like Planetside 2:
Continents enforce a population limit which is easy for all factions to reach (resulting in a fair fight.)
Continents are big with many important objectives, so localized pop imbalances can happen but it's always the result of player skill (decisions made that session.) And the losing 20vs50 fight you're fighting here at base A means that there is a winning 50vs20 fight over at base B -- so even if you lose, if you're slower to lose you're still aiding your side in the overall game.
So you need some sort of population controls, or you're going to end up with open world PVP which is extremely casual ("no skill? No problem! Just bring more friends!")
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Its not just a matter of class and combat mechanics. Unless games have some way of encouraging smaller guilds by limiting the number of people that can benefit from guild accomplishments, you will continue to see the zerg become more and more popular.
If only a certain number of players gain serious benefits towards their personal progression from things like guild keeps or even items and crafting materials from raid content, all of a sudden being in that huge guild may lose some of its appeal. May not be entirely applicable to Black Desert, but speaking in general, if people stand to gain more by being in a small group, they will gravitate towards small groups and simply build alliances when they are necessary.
No, let's compare them, I don't mind. They want to prove Black Desert isn't a messy zerg.
Let's see.
EQ:
Black Desert
fail
EQ didn't have the tech to have so many people in one place. So sorry very bad comparison.
The amount of people even back in EQ who where excited about the future of MMO's having even bigger battles.
Now we are starting to get them and people already asume the bigger it seems then it must be a zerg instead of understanding all of it could still be very well coordinated by voice chat.
It's rather funny, Pantheon get's praised because it will bring hugh battle's. Yet something that is actually is working and is playable get's burned down......
How can anyone compare a large scale PvP fight to a PvE boss fight? PvE boss fights are completely predictable, the boss follows a script. Everyone stands in a certain position and moves when the warning bell tells them to. Boss fights can be rehearsed over and over again. PvP fights are very unpredictable. There's no threat meters, no script to follow, no mods to tell you when to act, no exploiting weak AI or anything of the kind. No two PvP fights are ever the same. Human players will do some crazy and strange things. Naturally PvP fights will look more chaotic.
Whenever someone talks about the challenge of PVE raiding, I always get a mental image of doing the "Hokey Pokey" or maybe the "Time Warp"
Let's do the Time Warp again.
(Narrator) It's just a jump to the left.
(Guests) And then a step to the right.
(Narrator) With your hand on your hips.
(Guests) You bring your knees in tight. But it's the pelvic thrust. They really drive you insane. Let's do the Time Warp again. Let's do the Time Warp again.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
No, let's compare them, I don't mind. They want to prove Black Desert isn't a messy zerg.
Let's see.
EQ:
...
fail
Are you seriously comparing a PvE Raid against an NPC
to a PvP 100 vs 100?
Yes. Yes, he did exactly that.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I don't object to zerg/ blob content. It's what some people enjoy. I do get disenfranchised with a game when it is the exclusive play style used to control core content. For most games the easy answer is to enforce terrain and line of sight mechanics. If you are partial to large armies and zerg, make your stronghold in open space where large forces can be mounted. If you are more about small groups of elite, chose a cliff side or if you are more about stealth and draw strategy, heavy woods.
It isn't Zerg that is a problem. It's the one trick pony nature it tends to get delivered as.
Simply choosing a different base of operations doesn't change the power of that flood of players sweeping through the cliffside or forest.
The fact is, in games as in real-life, if players can ignore skill by focusing on superior population or progression (technology), then skill won't be an important aspect of PVP (and the game will be much shallower as a result.)
The closest thing to a hybrid you can achieve is something like Planetside 2:
Continents enforce a population limit which is easy for all factions to reach (resulting in a fair fight.)
Continents are big with many important objectives, so localized pop imbalances can happen but it's always the result of player skill (decisions made that session.) And the losing 20vs50 fight you're fighting here at base A means that there is a winning 50vs20 fight over at base B -- so even if you lose, if you're slower to lose you're still aiding your side in the overall game.
So you need some sort of population controls, or you're going to end up with open world PVP which is extremely casual ("no skill? No problem! Just bring more friends!")
I am missing your point here, Axe. This was advertised as 100 vs 100. So there is a pop control in play here.
Does not mean one side can't have 50 while the other side has 100, does it? That would be the definition of zerg, although technically the group with larger numbers should also be weaker individually, which allows the balance.
But no, people here just look at a mass number of players on screen and call it a zerg. Or they look at something that seems disorganized or chaotic and assume that it must be.
No one here has stated how any type of pvp involving large not numbers is not a zerg. The term has lost meaning just like so many others that get tossed around like gospel, in these forums.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I am missing your point here, Axe. This was advertised as 100 vs 100. So there is a pop control in play here.
Does not mean one side can't have 50 while the other side has 100, does it? That would be the definition of zerg, although technically the group with larger numbers should also be weaker individually, which allows the balance.
But no, people here just look at a mass number of players on screen and call it a zerg. Or they look at something that seems disorganized or chaotic and assume that it must be.
No one here has stated how any type of pvp involving large not numbers is not a zerg. The term has lost meaning just like so many others that get tossed around like gospel, in these forums.
Is population controlled and policed to consistently be 100 vs 100? If so, then it's exactly the sort of more skill-focused PVP that makes Planetside's massive battles work well and I have no problem with it. Otherwise, it's letting pop imbalances cause the game to be less about skill.
I don't really have an issue with zerging when all it means is large-scale combat, but the key is that things are balanced so that skill is what decides battles. I'm not sure there's a scale of combat where
Only really tightly balanced games can manage to make uneven sides feel balanced. Evolve is the only example I know of a game making uneven-pop feel remotely balanced, and even that's a bit shaky.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
[Disclaimer: I just skimmed the thread, so I don't know everything that's been said.]
1.) A major part of the problem in these large PVP battles today is the pace of the combat in many of these action focused games.
The combat mechanics themselves aren't necessarily the problem, but moreso the health and death mechanics. When you get dropped in just a few hits(in the blink of an eye), there simply isn't time to counter or strategize effectively.
Now, add in 100 players on each side, all blowing each other up before you can breathe a word, and strategy essentially becomes impossible once the fight starts.
Take a look at early-era WoW, for instance, compared to later-days Arena-gear WoW.
In the early days, you had people basically running around one or two-shotting each other.
Later on with all the PvP-focused armor, when players could last much longer amounts of time, player-skills and reactions and tactics found a foothold(granted class/comp imbalances and overcompensating on survivability still made it terrible).
Personally, I thought WoW PvP was pretty terrible, but it's a good example of how fight duration majorly affects the ability to use battle strategies.
2.) I saw a couple folks disputing the benefits of AoE bombing. I just thought I'd point out that this, imo, would be a great solution to masses of mindless swarmers, IF (and it's a big if), organized groups had viable mechanics to counter AoE blasts.
For example:
a.) Zerg Scenario:
Group_A is a mindless, sloppy zerg charging at Group_B. Group_B has a bunch of archers that fire off volleys into the blob that is Group_A, and Group_A is devastated.
b.) Organized large group:
Group_A is a coordinated guild charging at Group_B. Group_B fires said arrow volleys, as above. However, thanks to being an organized team, Group_A is able to correctly position themselves and their shields into a nice shield wall that protects them.
The catch is that the game mechanics need to actually allow arrows to be stopped by shields and have collision detection. Which is rather the point, AoE bombing really is an acceptable, natural solution if there are ways to protect against it.
If you knew you were going into battle against a bunch of Wizards who were notorious for slinging exploding AoE fireballs, you would learn to spread your formation out, if you were more than a mindless zerg, even without suitable defense mechanics. But, throw in some type of proper defense mechanic your own casters could use to shield against fireballs, and you have strategy to work with.
It all really comes down to the devs to create some type of system where zergs are easy to wipe out, but a zerg-sized coordinated team can protect itself.
I just can't understand how people can play today's action MMO anymore. This is pure chaos.
Example from Black Desert, but GW2 has it too, all those action MMO that have larger battles end up in zerg.
It's just uncontrolled zerg without any form of strategy.
Oh? I have seen zergs in GW2 being destroyed by a smaller group with tactics and skills? Plus you can play solo pvp and small gang pvp too, nothing a zerg can do against a bunker build with dodging skills.
If you want wars ingame, you will encounter bigger groups.
Even fights? Go play WOW arenas and play instanced LOS games circling pillars , like that is fun.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Comments
That's really apples and oranges isn't it? Most MMOs I've played with open world PvP have zergs. Most MMOs I've played with instanced PvE raids have required coordination. The sky is blue and the grass is green.
I know GW2 was brought up and early on because you could infinitiely rez and there were multiple rez spots you could keep dieing and joining a fight in the dungeon. In effect you could zerg it. They changed it and at least up until I quit playing there were plenty of dungeon encounters that required so coordination to complete. Sure it didn't take an hour up front to describe but then again we are talking about 5 players vs 20+ so I would hope it would be easier. Sorry I don't know the current state of affairs and you just face roll dungeons in GW 2 now?
Again you say that as if you were there for every raid that ever happened... And notice I said (non instanced)...I wasn't referring to instanced raids... How can you throw more numbers than intended at a instanced boss? that goes without saying right?... YEt to suggest that no groups ever completed a raid in an unorganized fashion is a tad over the top, sounds more like fanboi lingo than honest debate, we get it EQ was hardzzz....
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So hard in fact that some could actually read a book during combat.
OP, Elite member has been offended by your post.
So I can solo all the content and participate in massive zerging corpse runs........duh!
Scripted PvE encounter vs. unpredictable PvP scenario.
The comparison isn't valid.
You're also pre-judging a game that hasn't even come out yet. Give it a year or so, for established guilds to form tactics and strategies.
If you want a valid comparison, try comparing EQ openworld bosses vs EQ instanced raid bosses... or any other MMO.
I could show you PvP videos from EQ that looked similar to those PvE scenarios. Strategy was important all around. It was different gameplay.
When you remove roles and relegate success in combat to dodging and aiming, that is always going to promote less tactical play and more zerg. Its not to say that a general strategy couldn't be utilized, but its mostly going to come down to the element of surprise, flanking and picking off smaller groups with larger ones.
Different isn't necessarily worse. I'm sure some will find it fun.
Standing in one spot spamming skills isnt more tactical or strategy rofl
Piece of advice: you first have to know what you talking about before talking about it otherwise you get posts like above ones and OP.
And i dont even give a rats a$$ about BD lol
So basically zerg the zerg and if anyone makes it past that then zerg the survivors as well...
Well thought out...
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
I don't object to zerg/ blob content. It's what some people enjoy. I do get disenfranchised with a game when it is the exclusive play style used to control core content. For most games the easy answer is to enforce terrain and line of sight mechanics. If you are partial to large armies and zerg, make your stronghold in open space where large forces can be mounted. If you are more about small groups of elite, chose a cliff side or if you are more about stealth and draw strategy, heavy woods.
It isn't Zerg that is a problem. It's the one trick pony nature it tends to get delivered as.
Simply choosing a different base of operations doesn't change the power of that flood of players sweeping through the cliffside or forest.
The fact is, in games as in real-life, if players can ignore skill by focusing on superior population or progression (technology), then skill won't be an important aspect of PVP (and the game will be much shallower as a result.)
The closest thing to a hybrid you can achieve is something like Planetside 2:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Its not just a matter of class and combat mechanics. Unless games have some way of encouraging smaller guilds by limiting the number of people that can benefit from guild accomplishments, you will continue to see the zerg become more and more popular.
If only a certain number of players gain serious benefits towards their personal progression from things like guild keeps or even items and crafting materials from raid content, all of a sudden being in that huge guild may lose some of its appeal. May not be entirely applicable to Black Desert, but speaking in general, if people stand to gain more by being in a small group, they will gravitate towards small groups and simply build alliances when they are necessary.
EQ didn't have the tech to have so many people in one place. So sorry very bad comparison.
The amount of people even back in EQ who where excited about the future of MMO's having even bigger battles.
Now we are starting to get them and people already asume the bigger it seems then it must be a zerg instead of understanding all of it could still be very well coordinated by voice chat.
It's rather funny, Pantheon get's praised because it will bring hugh battle's. Yet something that is actually is working and is playable get's burned down......
8 years and counting addicted to
Avalon: The Legend Lives - the longest running online RPG in history
Whenever someone talks about the challenge of PVE raiding, I always get a mental image of doing the "Hokey Pokey" or maybe the "Time Warp"
Let's do the Time Warp again.
(Narrator) It's just a jump to the left.
(Guests) And then a step to the right.
(Narrator) With your hand on your hips.
(Guests) You bring your knees in tight.
But it's the pelvic thrust.
They really drive you insane.
Let's do the Time Warp again.
Let's do the Time Warp again.
Dancing with the Stars also comes to mind.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Are you seriously comparing a PvE Raid against an NPC
to a PvP 100 vs 100?
Yes. Yes, he did exactly that.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am missing your point here, Axe. This was advertised as 100 vs 100. So there is a pop control in play here.
Does not mean one side can't have 50 while the other side has 100, does it? That would be the definition of zerg, although technically the group with larger numbers should also be weaker individually, which allows the balance.
But no, people here just look at a mass number of players on screen and call it a zerg. Or they look at something that seems disorganized or chaotic and assume that it must be.
No one here has stated how any type of pvp involving large not numbers is not a zerg. The term has lost meaning just like so many others that get tossed around like gospel, in these forums.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Is population controlled and policed to consistently be 100 vs 100? If so, then it's exactly the sort of more skill-focused PVP that makes Planetside's massive battles work well and I have no problem with it. Otherwise, it's letting pop imbalances cause the game to be less about skill.
I don't really have an issue with zerging when all it means is large-scale combat, but the key is that things are balanced so that skill is what decides battles. I'm not sure there's a scale of combat where
Only really tightly balanced games can manage to make uneven sides feel balanced. Evolve is the only example I know of a game making uneven-pop feel remotely balanced, and even that's a bit shaky.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
[Disclaimer: I just skimmed the thread, so I don't know everything that's been said.]
1.) A major part of the problem in these large PVP battles today is the pace of the combat in many of these action focused games.
The combat mechanics themselves aren't necessarily the problem, but moreso the health and death mechanics. When you get dropped in just a few hits(in the blink of an eye), there simply isn't time to counter or strategize effectively.
Now, add in 100 players on each side, all blowing each other up before you can breathe a word, and strategy essentially becomes impossible once the fight starts.
Take a look at early-era WoW, for instance, compared to later-days Arena-gear WoW.
In the early days, you had people basically running around one or two-shotting each other.
Later on with all the PvP-focused armor, when players could last much longer amounts of time, player-skills and reactions and tactics found a foothold(granted class/comp imbalances and overcompensating on survivability still made it terrible).
Personally, I thought WoW PvP was pretty terrible, but it's a good example of how fight duration majorly affects the ability to use battle strategies.
2.) I saw a couple folks disputing the benefits of AoE bombing. I just thought I'd point out that this, imo, would be a great solution to masses of mindless swarmers, IF (and it's a big if), organized groups had viable mechanics to counter AoE blasts.
For example:
a.) Zerg Scenario:
Group_A is a mindless, sloppy zerg charging at Group_B. Group_B has a bunch of archers that fire off volleys into the blob that is Group_A, and Group_A is devastated.
b.) Organized large group:
Group_A is a coordinated guild charging at Group_B. Group_B fires said arrow volleys, as above. However, thanks to being an organized team, Group_A is able to correctly position themselves and their shields into a nice shield wall that protects them.
The catch is that the game mechanics need to actually allow arrows to be stopped by shields and have collision detection. Which is rather the point, AoE bombing really is an acceptable, natural solution if there are ways to protect against it.
If you knew you were going into battle against a bunch of Wizards who were notorious for slinging exploding AoE fireballs, you would learn to spread your formation out, if you were more than a mindless zerg, even without suitable defense mechanics. But, throw in some type of proper defense mechanic your own casters could use to shield against fireballs, and you have strategy to work with.
It all really comes down to the devs to create some type of system where zergs are easy to wipe out, but a zerg-sized coordinated team can protect itself.
Oh? I have seen zergs in GW2 being destroyed by a smaller group with tactics and skills?
Plus you can play solo pvp and small gang pvp too, nothing a zerg can do against a bunker build with dodging skills.
If you want wars ingame, you will encounter bigger groups.
Even fights? Go play WOW arenas and play instanced LOS games circling pillars , like that is fun.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
really? You zerg in an arena 2 vs 2 fight with no tactics?