Zerging?

[ifireallymust]

My opinion on zerging: I hate it.

Whose responsibility is it to see that zerging isn't the be-all-end-all effective tactic in tribe vs tribe warfare, where more than what you carry on your back is at stake?

The developers. The players are just going to act like players normally do and look for the most effective, least risky, and easiest way to get what they want. And some people like being in large tribes, just as much as I like to solo. No problem with it, no problem with them. My issue with the entire zerg issue only starts when zerg play kills the way I like to play a game.

[KeithStone]

My opinion on zerging: I hate it.

Whose responsibility is it to see that zerging isn't the be-all-end-all effective tactic in tribe vs tribe warfare, where more than what you carry on your back is at stake?

The developers. The players are just going to act like players normally do and look for the most effective, least risky, and easiest way to get what they want. And some people like being in large tribes, just as much as I like to solo. No problem with it, no problem with them. My issue with the entire zerg issue only starts when zerg play kills the way I like to play a game.

Right now it takes 80 tribe members to max a tribe territory- you should lobby to lower that number, it may help with people trying to build up their zerg- although it won't stop us.

Territory control is where it's at for our members and you need numbers to control larger areas, so we won't stop recruiting just to please the zerg haters.

[ifireallymust]

Right now it takes 80 tribe members to max a tribe territory- you should lobby to lower that number, it may help with people trying to build up their zerg- although it won't stop us.

Territory control is where it's at for our members and you need numbers to control larger areas, so we won't stop recruiting just to please the zerg haters.

Nah, then you'd just do it by alliance. My hope is that mechanics will make zerging very costly and more important, time consuming, so that people will only bring the big numbers out to fight when a target has extremely high value. And I hope that brains will triumph over numbers in many siege/defense situations, and that attacking or defending intelligently will be far more important than how many people you brought with you.

Plus, why artificially restrict a tribe's numbers? Why not just use game mechanics to make it very costly to maintain that many fighters or that much siege equipment? Large tribes are going to have mobility issues, and a lot of materials for building that I assume will be used in siege weaponry is heavy. Traders aren't going to feel like hauling it around. As long as it's impossible or nearly impossible to build on the march (although some construction and of course repairs could be possible) and as long as terrain has a big enough impact, large tribes and even large alliances may end up still only having a relatively small sphere of effective influence.

Of course all of this is speculation, but Soulwanderer and I were swapping pvp ideas yesterday in the Prelude section and some of them sounded plausible to me.

I know the devs have their own ideas for pvp. I've pretty much decided that their ideas are better than anything I can come up with, but since I'm an ideas person, I'll keep thinking things up anyway. Trying to come up with mechanics that will let zergers and soloers, to name the two extremes, share the same game world is at least as entertaining for me as actually playing an MMO, especially when people's ideas start flying back and forth and then start spawning new ideas, and that spawns even more ideas.

[d1g1talbuddha]

Right now it takes 80 tribe members to max a tribe territory- you should lobby to lower that number, it may help with people trying to build up their zerg- although it won't stop us.

Territory control is where it's at for our members and you need numbers to control larger areas, so we won't stop recruiting just to please the zerg haters.

Actually, I like that it takes 80 to max out tribe land. And people should be recruiting. It builds a better community, and new friendships.

[Niburu]

Why you even care what others think about you....in a game

[Thraz]

I don't, it's just pretty hard to point new players in the right direction and recruit when you have this annoying pest constantly blurting out obscenities and hate speech.

[JesusTheAstronaut]

Zerg? An insulting term? Nonsense! For the Swarm!

[Roxout]

Thraz, don't sweat it. In all of the mmos I've played, I have only encountered perhaps 2 or 3 actual zerg guilds. The term itself has become sort of a meter to measure a players mental capacity. Whenever I hear or see it used to insult another group, I immediatley equate it to being no different than using words like noob. It has no real meaning anymore, and only serves to enlighten you to the users lack of originality and vocabulary.

[esudar]

safe zones are way too big for big tribes

reduce it

[Spitfire5]

Zerging doesn't have anything to do with tribe size..(To a certain point)

What's a zerg and what's not a zerg.

A. If you 5 people raid your tribe area (after prelude) and you get attacked by 50.. That's not zerging, that's defending your holding. - Not zerging

B. Out in the wilderness and you get ambushed by 15 people, when you have 3 people, then after wards the members of the larger party spams several communication areas Forums,IRC,Twitter,In-game of how good they are, that still isn't considered a zerg though - If this keeps recurring then you might have a zerg on your hand..

Please go see a doctor k thx.