Return of Reckoning

Penril wrote:They are not less than them in a SC. Which is why i mentioned that there is no zerging in SCENARIOS.

So how would you call 12 people going from BO to BO all together?

A "zerg" is just x amount of players that rely more on their numbers than their individual strenght in order to win, so yes there is zerging in Scs, you just need 12-18 idiots going together around with no more tactics than "lets stick together"

Penril wrote:

th3gatekeeper wrote:FYI Penril:

"A zerg is a large, loosely organized group of players with the goal of completing a task or series of tasks."

So I wouldnt say being "loosely organized" as "being smart". Zerg doesn mean "force" it means you basically "shotgun" it. Its not a "sniper fire" or a coordinated assault, its just "send X group of X things to do X" without much more than that.

Yes - I know what a zerg rush is

So people running from 1 flag to another, loosely organized, in a "large" group WOULD be deemed a zerg.

FWIW.

Meh, if you guys don't know what a zerg is, that's ok. You can keep calling a 6-man a zerg. I guess it isn't that important anyway (well, it kinda is to me, i hate it when people use words in the wrong way, just like when people say "x-realmer" without knowing what x-realming means... oh well) and i don't want to derail this thread.

So.... in a SC when its 6v6.... I would say if ALL 6 players rush a flag, more than likely thats deemed a zerg. I never said if 6 of the 12.... I merely am saying that right now, SC = the entirety of the players base in the game, ALL running together from 1 point to another, for the purpose of an objective and GIVEN they are not all in the same group, they are relying on their sheer number RATHER THAN strategy to complete the objective.

Since size is the same, the team with the better strategy is the one who prevails.

But its almost text book definition of zerg. This entire thing is rather petty IMO and I find it discouraging you choose to "battle" over definition rather than discuss something I think is important (SC Quality of Life)

Why don't you get that an objective based game type is not about kills? The fact that there is an objective means that it should be the primary OBJECTIVE of the match.... It is obvious that either kills have too much weight, or that capping and holding an objective do not hold enough weight.

MOAR KILLS BRO... L2P SCRUBS.... PVE'd us and got the win.... Are all things stupid people say..

So you are saying that you are a high level player yet this is what you support. hmmm I guess I feel different about high level play. If it was slayer, sure. But unless Warhammer SC's are really just slayer with an objective you can do if you want to... I really don't think you get it. Objectives should be important... They obviously are not as stated numerous times in this thread. I'm sorry you can't see that.

freshour wrote:Why don't you get that an objective based game type is not about kills? The fact that there is an objective means that it should be the primary OBJECTIVE of the match.... It is obvious that either kills have too much weight, or that capping and holding an objective do not hold enough weight.

What part of, the game already promotes objectives over kills, got lost on you?

bloodi wrote:

Penril wrote:They are not less than them in a SC. Which is why i mentioned that there is no zerging in SCENARIOS.

So how would you call 12 people going from BO to BO all together?

A "zerg" is just x amount of players that rely more on their numbers than their individual strenght in order to win, so yes there is zerging in Scs, you just need 12-18 idiots going together around with no more tactics than "lets stick together"

Sounds like a good tactic. Maybe pugs should use it too; if they did, they wouldn't get "zerged" in the SC since by your definition (group of players that rely on their numbers) it would be impossible.

People complain because other players are more coordinated than them, yet refuse to put in the effort to improve and just want devs to fix/change how the game works so it suits their playstyles. That's something i will never agree with.

I haven't read everything. So please forgive me. When I have time I'll read through the whole thing.

I think SC's derail the game from what it was designed to do which its focus was ORVR. Here's a radical idea. How about No SC's for anyone?

As a premade organizer my best chance to find another premade currently is in a SC which is why I que. OR you could schedule a meeting which can be frowned on by the community. If it wasn't a premade I'd end the SC quickly because it wasn't fun. I know other premade organizers are not like this though.

If you take away SC's that forces premades into the lakes. Premades will fight premades in the lakes again!

(opinion)
I really don't feel like the Zerg was part of the design idea behind what mythic was thinking. Which is 100% a design flaw in overestimating its playerbase in organizing and being coordinated.

Penril wrote:
Sounds like a good tactic. Maybe pugs should use it too; if they did, they wouldn't get "zerged" in the SC since by your definition (group of players that rely on their numbers) it would be impossible.

People complain because other players are more coordinated than them, yet refuse to put in the effort to improve and just want devs to fix/change how the game works so it suits their playstyles. That's something i will never agree with.

Well its not a good tactic, that is the whole point, a zerg will always lose in a cap the flag scenario unless they are able to control their spawn and people who get out of it.

That is the whole reason to call it a zerg tactic, they are, by definition, bad tactics.

The next paragraph is just you foaming at the mouth about things i am sure i never proposed, i was just poking at your definition of zerg, since you know, you want to hold true to the definition, well, yours was wrong.

freshour wrote:Why don't you get that an objective based game type is not about kills? The fact that there is an objective means that it should be the primary OBJECTIVE of the match.... It is obvious that either kills have too much weight, or that capping and holding an objective do not hold enough weight.

MOAR KILLS BRO... L2P SCRUBS.... PVE'd us and got the win.... Are all things stupid people say..

So you are saying that you are a high level player yet this is what you support. hmmm I guess I feel different about high level play. If it was slayer, sure. But unless Warhammer SC's are really just slayer with an objective you can do if you want to... I really don't think you get it. Objectives should be important... They obviously are not as stated numerous times in this thread. I'm sorry you can't see that.

Do you know what happens when a side captures all 3 flags in GoE or Nordenwatch? And you say i'm the one who can't see something?

Lol, k...

You only need 1 flag to win Nordenwatch if you have over 200 points as long as you "zerg" your kills. Mmkay pumpkin?

bloodi wrote:

Penril wrote:
Sounds like a good tactic. Maybe pugs should use it too; if they did, they wouldn't get "zerged" in the SC since by your definition (group of players that rely on their numbers) it would be impossible.

People complain because other players are more coordinated than them, yet refuse to put in the effort to improve and just want devs to fix/change how the game works so it suits their playstyles. That's something i will never agree with.

Well its not a good tactic, that is the whole point, a zerg will always lose in a cap the flag scenario unless they are able to control their spawn and people who get out of it.

That is the whole reason to call it a zerg tactic, they are, by definition, bad tactics.

The next paragraph is just you foaming at the mouth about things i am sure i never proposed, i was just poking at your definition of zerg, since you know, you want to hold true to the definition, well, yours was wrong.

Except i was right. You even agreed with me when you said, and i quote: "A "zerg" is just x amount of players that rely more on their numbers than their individual strenght in order to win".

You can't rely more on your numbers in a SC since both sides have EQUAL amount of players. Geez bloodi...