Kilion wrote: » That being said, I think its relevant to remember that it is unlikely that ALL servers are being dominated like that and switching servers is a perfectly legitimate action to take for a player who is not satisfied with the community culture of that particular server. And I am 100% sure that there will be VERY different server cultures.
Solid_Sneak wrote: » Kilion wrote: » That being said, I think its relevant to remember that it is unlikely that ALL servers are being dominated like that and switching servers is a perfectly legitimate action to take for a player who is not satisfied with the community culture of that particular server. And I am 100% sure that there will be VERY different server cultures. This guy gets it. I bet the culture is not different across the map. EVE has one server and the culture, meta and tactics vary from zone to zone as players play differently.
Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Kilion wrote: » That being said, I think its relevant to remember that it is unlikely that ALL servers are being dominated like that and switching servers is a perfectly legitimate action to take for a player who is not satisfied with the community culture of that particular server. And I am 100% sure that there will be VERY different server cultures. This guy gets it. I bet the culture is not different across the map. EVE has one server and the culture, meta and tactics vary from zone to zone as players play differently. idk about culture and ect, But the Mentality of the players that join zerg groups is the same always. So except for cases where there is some irregular group in a server that change things, most servers should follow similar separation of the map between zergs
Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Kilion wrote: » That being said, I think its relevant to remember that it is unlikely that ALL servers are being dominated like that and switching servers is a perfectly legitimate action to take for a player who is not satisfied with the community culture of that particular server. And I am 100% sure that there will be VERY different server cultures. This guy gets it. I bet the culture is not different across the map. EVE has one server and the culture, meta and tactics vary from zone to zone as players play differently. idk about culture and ect, But the Mentality of the players that join zerg groups is the same always. So except for cases where there is some irregular group in a server that change things, most servers should follow similar separation of the map between zergs It comes down to how guilds fight. My group, we like pipebombing tactics, if we can make an optimal pipebomb tactic, we will use it. Pipebombing is what some on this thread would call "noob tactics" while some others might call it a war crime, but when you have 40 ppl and have to engage 400, pipebombing is the way to go. All it needs is a bait and zergs to " go go go". I'm pretty sure more upstanding members of the community will want their honorable 1v1 builds, but isn't a zerg composed by 40 people with 1v1 builds?
Githal wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I played arena competitively in wotlk as well, I remember. But this is about zergs. I dont think there are *enough* counters to zerging/deathballing (yet) other than "just bring more". Yep they need to introduce either friendly fire. For example any group of 8 has friendly fire toward any other group no matter if they are from same guild. Or some mass spells that oneshot zergs Like the friendly fire wont apply in Node/guild wars, in sieges, between non combatant flagged players So if you want to do world boss you can be non combatants, and face the boss as 5 groups, but if you want to kill some other group there, then you will be combatant and friendly fire will apply just drag the "Deathball" into a choke point and throw all your groups AoE ontop of them at once if games do aoe properly it kinda demolishes the entire deathball, all that need to be done there is no aoe caps and no mass raid healing Obviously you never fought a zerg group before, or if you did - you were in another zerg group (maybe even bigger)
Veeshan wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I played arena competitively in wotlk as well, I remember. But this is about zergs. I dont think there are *enough* counters to zerging/deathballing (yet) other than "just bring more". Yep they need to introduce either friendly fire. For example any group of 8 has friendly fire toward any other group no matter if they are from same guild. Or some mass spells that oneshot zergs Like the friendly fire wont apply in Node/guild wars, in sieges, between non combatant flagged players So if you want to do world boss you can be non combatants, and face the boss as 5 groups, but if you want to kill some other group there, then you will be combatant and friendly fire will apply just drag the "Deathball" into a choke point and throw all your groups AoE ontop of them at once if games do aoe properly it kinda demolishes the entire deathball, all that need to be done there is no aoe caps and no mass raid healing
Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I played arena competitively in wotlk as well, I remember. But this is about zergs. I dont think there are *enough* counters to zerging/deathballing (yet) other than "just bring more". Yep they need to introduce either friendly fire. For example any group of 8 has friendly fire toward any other group no matter if they are from same guild. Or some mass spells that oneshot zergs Like the friendly fire wont apply in Node/guild wars, in sieges, between non combatant flagged players So if you want to do world boss you can be non combatants, and face the boss as 5 groups, but if you want to kill some other group there, then you will be combatant and friendly fire will apply
Dimitraeos wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I played arena competitively in wotlk as well, I remember. But this is about zergs. I dont think there are *enough* counters to zerging/deathballing (yet) other than "just bring more".
Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2
Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball.
Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage
Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Kilion wrote: » That being said, I think its relevant to remember that it is unlikely that ALL servers are being dominated like that and switching servers is a perfectly legitimate action to take for a player who is not satisfied with the community culture of that particular server. And I am 100% sure that there will be VERY different server cultures. This guy gets it. I bet the culture is not different across the map. EVE has one server and the culture, meta and tactics vary from zone to zone as players play differently. idk about culture and ect, But the Mentality of the players that join zerg groups is the same always. So except for cases where there is some irregular group in a server that change things, most servers should follow similar separation of the map between zergs It comes down to how guilds fight. My group, we like pipebombing tactics, if we can make an optimal pipebomb tactic, we will use it. Pipebombing is what some on this thread would call "noob tactics" while some others might call it a war crime, but when you have 40 ppl and have to engage 400, pipebombing is the way to go. All it needs is a bait and zergs to " go go go". I'm pretty sure more upstanding members of the community will want their honorable 1v1 builds, but isn't a zerg composed by 40 people with 1v1 builds? 40 ppl wont win against 400 no matter what tactics you use, if there are no scaling aoe's or friendly fire. Not sure why we talking about 1v1 builds. AOC will be group oriented game, and the Groups are composed of 8 players each. This means the general builds should be for 8v8.
Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Kilion wrote: » That being said, I think its relevant to remember that it is unlikely that ALL servers are being dominated like that and switching servers is a perfectly legitimate action to take for a player who is not satisfied with the community culture of that particular server. And I am 100% sure that there will be VERY different server cultures. This guy gets it. I bet the culture is not different across the map. EVE has one server and the culture, meta and tactics vary from zone to zone as players play differently. idk about culture and ect, But the Mentality of the players that join zerg groups is the same always. So except for cases where there is some irregular group in a server that change things, most servers should follow similar separation of the map between zergs It comes down to how guilds fight. My group, we like pipebombing tactics, if we can make an optimal pipebomb tactic, we will use it. Pipebombing is what some on this thread would call "noob tactics" while some others might call it a war crime, but when you have 40 ppl and have to engage 400, pipebombing is the way to go. All it needs is a bait and zergs to " go go go". I'm pretty sure more upstanding members of the community will want their honorable 1v1 builds, but isn't a zerg composed by 40 people with 1v1 builds? 40 ppl wont win against 400 no matter what tactics you use, if there are no scaling aoe's or friendly fire. Not sure why we talking about 1v1 builds. AOC will be group oriented game, and the Groups are composed of 8 players each. This means the general builds should be for 8v8. You never heard of Rooks and Kings in EVE? Does not matter if aoe is scaling. If a single player can output 100 dps even reduced in an aoe ability, and 40 people do that, that is 4000 DPS. Now if players have 8K hp, that is death within 2 seconds. All you need thrn is proper gear. Like a mage, on heavy armor, focusing Inteligence, Constitution and Mentality, putting on a Shield and Magical damage mainhand weapon and you got yourself a Pipebomber. They even showed the Magma Field spell which has an augment that makes you a mobile magma field. It's like papa Steven knows exactly a bait and 40 mages with Molotov cocktails is the cure for zergs. We done these things as far back as Lineage 2 , Star Wars Galaxies and Dark Age of Camelot. Even WoW has Goblin Sapper Charges. You missed that part too? Your lack of such tactical knowledge indicates you are either really young or prey.
Githal wrote: » The part where you have no experience with dealing with zergs is obvious from what you write. But even your theorycrafting needs a lot more work to make it believable. You talking about dps output as if you fighting practice dummies. Even if you kill 50 players out of the 400 with those mass spells you talk about you still have 350 players left to deal with. Or maybe you suggesting the AOE range of the spells to be bigger than the whole screen? since 400 man zergs wont fit on your screen.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Githal wrote: » The part where you have no experience with dealing with zergs is obvious from what you write. But even your theorycrafting needs a lot more work to make it believable. You talking about dps output as if you fighting practice dummies. Even if you kill 50 players out of the 400 with those mass spells you talk about you still have 350 players left to deal with. Or maybe you suggesting the AOE range of the spells to be bigger than the whole screen? since 400 man zergs wont fit on your screen. Here's a single group baiting and dragging a zerg over a tight location, picking off people here and there.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYNbR-mvfU Even just a single another group on the other side would chip away at that zerg overtime. A few more groups on either side (still nowhere near the 170 members of the enemy side) would increase the chances of winning even higher. And this was in a game with TPs to this location (as shown right at the start of the video). Ashes won't have TPs, so a proper baiting group can dismantle a zerg with time. And L2's aoes didn't even have proper long range, so this was mostly a single target picking off situation (with a few ground-placed big cd aoes). If Ashes has even just a few longer range or longer duration ground-placed aoes - it would make the situation even easier for the small group.
Solid_Sneak wrote: » Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Githal wrote: » The part where you have no experience with dealing with zergs is obvious from what you write. But even your theorycrafting needs a lot more work to make it believable. You talking about dps output as if you fighting practice dummies. Even if you kill 50 players out of the 400 with those mass spells you talk about you still have 350 players left to deal with. Or maybe you suggesting the AOE range of the spells to be bigger than the whole screen? since 400 man zergs wont fit on your screen. Here's a single group baiting and dragging a zerg over a tight location, picking off people here and there.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYNbR-mvfU Even just a single another group on the other side would chip away at that zerg overtime. A few more groups on either side (still nowhere near the 170 members of the enemy side) would increase the chances of winning even higher. And this was in a game with TPs to this location (as shown right at the start of the video). Ashes won't have TPs, so a proper baiting group can dismantle a zerg with time. And L2's aoes didn't even have proper long range, so this was mostly a single target picking off situation (with a few ground-placed big cd aoes). If Ashes has even just a few longer range or longer duration ground-placed aoes - it would make the situation even easier for the small group. My man knows what's up with Spellhowlers.
Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Githal wrote: » The part where you have no experience with dealing with zergs is obvious from what you write. But even your theorycrafting needs a lot more work to make it believable. You talking about dps output as if you fighting practice dummies. Even if you kill 50 players out of the 400 with those mass spells you talk about you still have 350 players left to deal with. Or maybe you suggesting the AOE range of the spells to be bigger than the whole screen? since 400 man zergs wont fit on your screen. Here's a single group baiting and dragging a zerg over a tight location, picking off people here and there.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYNbR-mvfU Even just a single another group on the other side would chip away at that zerg overtime. A few more groups on either side (still nowhere near the 170 members of the enemy side) would increase the chances of winning even higher. And this was in a game with TPs to this location (as shown right at the start of the video). Ashes won't have TPs, so a proper baiting group can dismantle a zerg with time. And L2's aoes didn't even have proper long range, so this was mostly a single target picking off situation (with a few ground-placed big cd aoes). If Ashes has even just a few longer range or longer duration ground-placed aoes - it would make the situation even easier for the small group. My man knows what's up with Spellhowlers. You are watching unorganized zerg that few players chasing while the rest "listens to commands to wait probably", and those that dont listen get themselves killed. In the end the zerg didnt lose almost anything. few deaths is nothing for the zerg. Also imagine now if there were 40 rogues in the zerg group which move behind you and the moment you try to escape they just slow/stun and even kill half your group just from the rogues. And give the chance for the zerg to catch up to you
Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Githal wrote: » The part where you have no experience with dealing with zergs is obvious from what you write. But even your theorycrafting needs a lot more work to make it believable. You talking about dps output as if you fighting practice dummies. Even if you kill 50 players out of the 400 with those mass spells you talk about you still have 350 players left to deal with. Or maybe you suggesting the AOE range of the spells to be bigger than the whole screen? since 400 man zergs wont fit on your screen. Here's a single group baiting and dragging a zerg over a tight location, picking off people here and there.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYNbR-mvfU Even just a single another group on the other side would chip away at that zerg overtime. A few more groups on either side (still nowhere near the 170 members of the enemy side) would increase the chances of winning even higher. And this was in a game with TPs to this location (as shown right at the start of the video). Ashes won't have TPs, so a proper baiting group can dismantle a zerg with time. And L2's aoes didn't even have proper long range, so this was mostly a single target picking off situation (with a few ground-placed big cd aoes). If Ashes has even just a few longer range or longer duration ground-placed aoes - it would make the situation even easier for the small group. My man knows what's up with Spellhowlers. You are watching unorganized zerg that few players chasing while the rest "listens to commands to wait probably", and those that dont listen get themselves killed. In the end the zerg didnt lose almost anything. few deaths is nothing for the zerg. Also imagine now if there were 40 rogues in the zerg group which move behind you and the moment you try to escape they just slow/stun and even kill half your group just from the rogues. And give the chance for the zerg to catch up to you Btw, that tactic on the video, you did not even realise the leader was calling names for prime target and when they had none, they primed left to right, furthest to closest. Germans are very serious about their war tactics - ask France. It is a good doctrine. It takes experience and good players to use it - not zerglings.
Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Githal wrote: » The part where you have no experience with dealing with zergs is obvious from what you write. But even your theorycrafting needs a lot more work to make it believable. You talking about dps output as if you fighting practice dummies. Even if you kill 50 players out of the 400 with those mass spells you talk about you still have 350 players left to deal with. Or maybe you suggesting the AOE range of the spells to be bigger than the whole screen? since 400 man zergs wont fit on your screen. Here's a single group baiting and dragging a zerg over a tight location, picking off people here and there.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYNbR-mvfU Even just a single another group on the other side would chip away at that zerg overtime. A few more groups on either side (still nowhere near the 170 members of the enemy side) would increase the chances of winning even higher. And this was in a game with TPs to this location (as shown right at the start of the video). Ashes won't have TPs, so a proper baiting group can dismantle a zerg with time. And L2's aoes didn't even have proper long range, so this was mostly a single target picking off situation (with a few ground-placed big cd aoes). If Ashes has even just a few longer range or longer duration ground-placed aoes - it would make the situation even easier for the small group. My man knows what's up with Spellhowlers. You are watching unorganized zerg that few players chasing while the rest "listens to commands to wait probably", and those that dont listen get themselves killed. In the end the zerg didnt lose almost anything. few deaths is nothing for the zerg. Also imagine now if there were 40 rogues in the zerg group which move behind you and the moment you try to escape they just slow/stun and even kill half your group just from the rogues. And give the chance for the zerg to catch up to you Btw, that tactic on the video, you did not even realise the leader was calling names for prime target and when they had none, they primed left to right, furthest to closest. Germans are very serious about their war tactics - ask France. It is a good doctrine. It takes experience and good players to use it - not zerglings. Well didnt heard the callinf from the music probably . Anyway it made no difference. You cant be talking about "winning" against the zerg, when you didnt kill more than 5% of it.
