Zerg - And what that means?

[Trafalgar]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

In fact most people who are soundly beaten will refuse to admit it. This isn't limited to gaming btw. People can't accept losing in a fair and equal fight, someone once called it the "broken controller syndrome".

Or, "The Warrior Caste loves to win and hates to lose."

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

Zerg is pretty much a blank term. It has no real meaning because it is defined by everyone who assumes they know what it means from how others use it.

A lot of people in this thread use the term to describe a massive group of players who use superiority in numbers to win a battle, essentially describing 90% of the fights in PS1. If an outfit decided to, for example, go behind enemies lines and blow every spawn tube in towers and bases in order to completely kick an enemy presence of of one of new Oshur's maps while minimizing frontal assault, the response to this is outrage and mockery. So respecting an outfit that uses tactics to accomplish a victory clearly isn't high on the agenda.

In fact most people who are soundly beaten will refuse to admit it. This isn't limited to gaming btw. People can't accept losing in a fair and equal fight, someone once called it the "broken controller syndrome".

Anyway point is zergs don't actually exist, except to describe two or three empires clashing over the same base which, btw, was an event more or less forced onto said empires because of the lattice network. The lattice network gave everyone a limited number of choices for where to go next, and all it took was a CR5 cont. chatting "go here next". A lot of people will point at crap like "black ops" and "gen drops" saying they made major contributions towards the fight, but the simple fact is that their contributions would have meant squat without the so called "zerg" holding the front line, and there to take advantage.

I can see battles take major changes based on the number of snipers one side has over the other. How much air is out and who has what kind of AA platform out. I've seen a single burster make a huge impact on the battle just by taking out enemy aircraft in a very large field of fire. Given the very large number of changes that can affect the battle, a single black ops team can be about as effective as one solitary player who decides there isn't enough AA in the area. It's not like this is a particularly brilliant strategy, it's a basic tool.

Tactics like "back hacking" and "gen dropping (inside the target base)" were scoffed at, and mocked. You wouldn't believe the shit storms people would raise when someone mentioned dropping the enemy generators at a base. It was only tactics thought of, supported by, and performed by "vets" that were legit. Everything else was cheap or cheating.

So if someone were to start a zerg outfit (and I'm considering it), and knew how to control it, it would probably wipe the floor with everyone. And yes this is entirely based on sheer numbers, but would also mix in a considerable bit of strategy and tactics. Kinda like how modern military groups work.

I mean lets face it, superior training and superior weaponry is better then superior numbers, but when you look at even 2 to 1 odds against you, you're in a serious bind.

Well said, and explained. If I could upvote, then I would. It's the thought that counts.

The "zerg" was usually where the best battle was at for me atleast, had a lot of fun working with random people and forming on the fly squads.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Trafalgar

Or, "The Warrior Caste loves to win and hates to lose."

It's human nature actually. The core of every argument isn't people trying to discover the truth. It's people trying to gain an edge or a victory.

We are a social species bent on conquest. Two of us in a room will find something to dispute, 3 in a room will result in two banding against the 3rd, 4+ can start to get violent. Only thing a warrior mindset brings to the table is that a warrior by himself can still get violent quickly.

[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!

Originally Posted by Landtank

The "zerg" was usually where the best battle was at for me atleast, had a lot of fun working with random people and forming on the fly squads.

This. I usually didn't have as much fun when I went for mindless fun and joined the zerg mentality, but it was always more fun for me to fight around the zerg.

Cyssor was actually my favorite continent for that reason. Always a good battle to be had there. It's just too bad that the rest of the worldmap sometimes suffered because of people sticking it out in the stalemate there. I think the new continents will be interesting, because if an empire devotes all of their attention to the 3 way, they will lose the rest of their territory and eventually be forced out of the 3 way, so it will solve itself a little that way.

[Naz The Eternal]

Zerg = Quantity over quality.

[Trafalgar]

Obviously, the defenders should equip their troops with high-yield explosives rigged to detonate on death, the better to take out dozens of zergers (or do you just call them zerglings) on death. Just make sure they stand far away from each other and don't let the spawn tubes (or whatever) get destroyed.

[Khellendros]

I would like to clarify that my comments were not derogatory of the zerg, simply a definition.

There will always be an array of playstyles in a game like PS, and that is part of the beauty of it. Some want to just shoot at the enemy and not have to worry about the bigger picture, while others have set themselves on focused tasks. You can play how you like, there is nothing to force you to play in a certain way. I certainly hope that PS2 continues that freedom...

[Novacane]

Originally Posted by Khellendros

I would like to clarify that my comments were not derogatory of the zerg, simply a definition.

There will always be an array of playstyles in a game like PS, and that is part of the beauty of it. Some want to just shoot at the enemy and not have to worry about the bigger picture, while others have set themselves on focused tasks. You can play how you like, there is nothing to force you to play in a certain way. I certainly hope that PS2 continues that freedom...

Your definition is spot on. In any game, zerging is just unorganized movements of groups (usually large) towards a goal usually using brute force rather than tactics with no clear leader. As posted above, the term stems from the Zerg race in Starcraft.

[CuddlyChud]

The "Zerg" was an arbitrary definition created by people who felt they were above the "Zerg."

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

The "Zerg" was an arbitrary definition created by people who felt they were above the "Zerg."

Its a great word.

[super pretendo]

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

The "Zerg" was an arbitrary definition created by people who felt they were above the "Zerg."

nope, it has a distinct meaning, just means lots of unorganized units/players

[proxy]

Originally Posted by Khellendros

In PS1, zerging didn't really have anything to do with numbers, just referred to unorganized play, along with certain characteristics, such as not really using vehicles at all/effectively and no coordinated tactics, just running at the enemy.

Pretty much this.

Zerg is also SUBJECTIVE and is typically what you accuse "other" people working in large groups of doing. Particularly when you've been the victim of said large group. Regardless of if they were organized, unorganized, or if it just bad luck that all "those" people showed up at the same space.

[SKYeXile]

its also used to describe your or the enemys main force. typically "the zerg"

[GreatMazinkaise]

The Zerg, a dangerous weapon of mass destruction that only the greatest of CR5s could get moving in the right direction with any sort of success. Left to their own devices they might well dash their brains against an unyielding basewall until bored.

[Novacane]

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.

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.