Sieges are about politics numbers and strategy. Why is this bad?
Want small group pvp then ho out in a small group and hit mob spawns, host or participate in player run tournaments.
This isn't 1.0 where an inactive 10 man clan can own multiple holdings, and that is a good thing.
DF was always suppose to be about massive pvp battles for holdings, saying it wasn't is delusional.
Also, this isn't themepark zerging where everyone focus fires and insta kills people one at a time in a massive zerg. Go watch the siege videos on youtube.
Sieges is all about numbers and there is no strategy needed if you have rallied half the server to fight for you.
Most sieges on EU1 have been sieges where numbers are all that matters.
And politics matter very little if zergs decide to co-op instead of fighting each other.
I suggest you read up abit on how EU sieging worked out so far.
You are crazy if you think an unorganized huge zergs vs a small more organized siege force fighting as a team will win.
Having lots of people can only go so far.
as for no strategy, well politics is very heavy in strategy. As well as how you fight, where you fight, siege stone placement.
Your analysis of sieges being zerg mechanics is an extremely simplistic look at siege warfare.
Not sure whats going on over on the EU server but on the NA server you cant expect to win a siege by having 200 player run around with no direction, no strategy on siege stone placement or siege stone defence/attack. You wont do very well sieging as a mindless zerg, theres too much room for strategy by smaller forces working as a team for this to even be remotely true.
And just to highlight the derpyness of this "omg zerg" mentality, we once won a siege because we zerged...we only had 20 more people and the reason that extra 20 mattered is because we had them come in after the fighting had started. It was a mix of politics and strategy. Once we got to the siege stones as a big siege force we had the 20 man team of well geared players rush in, the enemy was scatterd and fell quick.
If the enemy hadn't split and scatterd it very well would have become another outcome. We also brought boats just in case, they chose not to utilize boats so part of our force didn't even engage (nullifying our 20 man advantage but that's ok lets still call it a zerg winning)
again you have a VERY simplistic look at sieges to even think this way. its no wonder you probably think this way, you very well might have been on a losing side because you lacked strategy, organization, and talent...its easier to cry zerg than to admit getting bested. This is the same mentality that called our winning side a zerg because in total we had a mere 20 man advantage. I could see a case for zerg mechanics having the advantage if the other side has 2 to 1 number advantage, but if that's the case you've already lost the politics game.
Sieges are about politics numbers and strategy. Why is this bad?
Want small group pvp then ho out in a small group and hit mob spawns, host or participate in player run tournaments.
This isn't 1.0 where an inactive 10 man clan can own multiple holdings, and that is a good thing.
DF was always suppose to be about massive pvp battles for holdings, saying it wasn't is delusional.
Also, this isn't themepark zerging where everyone focus fires and insta kills people one at a time in a massive zerg. Go watch the siege videos on youtube.
Sieges is all about numbers and there is no strategy needed if you have rallied half the server to fight for you.
Most sieges on EU1 have been sieges where numbers are all that matters.
And politics matter very little if zergs decide to co-op instead of fighting each other.
I suggest you read up abit on how EU sieging worked out so far.
You are crazy if you think an unorganized huge zergs vs a small more organized siege force fighting as a team will win.
Having lots of people can only go so far.
as for no strategy, well politics is very heavy in strategy. As well as how you fight, where you fight, siege stone placement.
Your analysis of sieges being zerg mechanics is an extremely simplistic look at siege warfare.
Not sure whats going on over on the EU server but on the NA server you cant expect to win a siege by having 200 player run around with no direction, no strategy on siege stone placement or siege stone defence/attack. You wont do very well sieging as a mindless zerg, theres too much room for strategy by smaller forces working as a team for this to even be remotely true.
And just to highlight the derpyness of this "omg zerg" mentality, we once won a siege because we zerged...we only had 20 more people and the reason that extra 20 mattered is because we had them come in after the fighting had started. It was a mix of politics and strategy. Once we got to the siege stones as a big siege force we had the 20 man team of well geared players rush in, the enemy was scatterd and fell quick.
If the enemy hadn't split and scatterd it very well would have become another outcome. We also brought boats just in case, they chose not to utilize boats so part of our force didn't even engage (nullifying our 20 man advantage but that's ok lets still call it a zerg winning)
again you have a VERY simplistic look at sieges to even think this way. its no wonder you probably think this way, you very well might have been on a losing side because you lacked strategy, organization, and talent...its easier to cry zerg than to admit getting bested. This is the same mentality that called our winning side a zerg because in total we had a mere 20 man advantage. I could see a case for zerg mechanics having the advantage if the other side has 2 to 1 number advantage, but if that's the case you've already lost the politics game.
Being a zerg with hired mercs that perform well cause they're good at what they do is not adding as a huge disadvantage as you claim. A zerg can perform well since DFUW is such a zerg friendly game. With good communication in for example 10 small teamspeak groups, which is not that hard to add in today gaming, leaders will have a pretty easy way controlling any fight. Numbers matters and they matters alot.
Outnumbering all from 2vs1 to 6vs1 as most of the EU sieges, is all that it takes especially if you're defending your own bindstone. DFUW is a game where all you need is hire mercs so you have a good number advantage and if defending with these ridicolous zap towers you can just sit back and have a coke during the siege. It's more or less a walk in the park.
You're putting to much nonsense into the DFUW strategics, defenders dont need to even try attacking the siegestones if they have enough numbers defending.
And yes i see you have no idea on how EU zergs works, they fight together instead of against each other, pure lameness and a mentality of carebears. That is what the so called "hardcore" PvP game DFUW have become on EU. Politics mean just about nothing when 75% of the server population hold hands. If NA is better then i congratulate you.
Sieges are about politics numbers and strategy. Why is this bad?
Want small group pvp then ho out in a small group and hit mob spawns, host or participate in player run tournaments.
This isn't 1.0 where an inactive 10 man clan can own multiple holdings, and that is a good thing.
DF was always suppose to be about massive pvp battles for holdings, saying it wasn't is delusional.
Also, this isn't themepark zerging where everyone focus fires and insta kills people one at a time in a massive zerg. Go watch the siege videos on youtube.
Sieges is all about numbers and there is no strategy needed if you have rallied half the server to fight for you.
Most sieges on EU1 have been sieges where numbers are all that matters.
And politics matter very little if zergs decide to co-op instead of fighting each other.
I suggest you read up abit on how EU sieging worked out so far.
You are crazy if you think an unorganized huge zergs vs a small more organized siege force fighting as a team will win.
Having lots of people can only go so far.
as for no strategy, well politics is very heavy in strategy. As well as how you fight, where you fight, siege stone placement.
Your analysis of sieges being zerg mechanics is an extremely simplistic look at siege warfare.
Not sure whats going on over on the EU server but on the NA server you cant expect to win a siege by having 200 player run around with no direction, no strategy on siege stone placement or siege stone defence/attack. You wont do very well sieging as a mindless zerg, theres too much room for strategy by smaller forces working as a team for this to even be remotely true.
And just to highlight the derpyness of this "omg zerg" mentality, we once won a siege because we zerged...we only had 20 more people and the reason that extra 20 mattered is because we had them come in after the fighting had started. It was a mix of politics and strategy. Once we got to the siege stones as a big siege force we had the 20 man team of well geared players rush in, the enemy was scatterd and fell quick.
If the enemy hadn't split and scatterd it very well would have become another outcome. We also brought boats just in case, they chose not to utilize boats so part of our force didn't even engage (nullifying our 20 man advantage but that's ok lets still call it a zerg winning)
again you have a VERY simplistic look at sieges to even think this way. its no wonder you probably think this way, you very well might have been on a losing side because you lacked strategy, organization, and talent...its easier to cry zerg than to admit getting bested. This is the same mentality that called our winning side a zerg because in total we had a mere 20 man advantage. I could see a case for zerg mechanics having the advantage if the other side has 2 to 1 number advantage, but if that's the case you've already lost the politics game.
Being a zerg with hired mercs that perform well cause they're good at what they do is not adding as a huge disadvantage as you claim. A zerg can perform well since DFUW is such a zerg friendly game. With good communication in for example 10 small teamspeak groups, which is not that hard to add in today gaming, leaders will have a pretty easy way controlling any fight. Numbers matters and they matters alot.
Outnumbering all from 2vs1 to 6vs1 as most of the EU sieges, is all that it takes especially if you're defending your own bindstone. DFUW is a game where all you need is hire mercs so you have a good number advantage and if defending with these ridicolous zap towers you can just sit back and have a coke during the siege. It's more or less a walk in the park.
You're putting to much nonsense into the DFUW strategics, defenders dont need to even try attacking the siegestones if they have enough numbers defending.
And yes i see you have no idea on how EU zergs works, they fight together instead of against each other, pure lameness and a mentality of carebears. That is what the so called "hardcore" PvP game DFUW have become on EU. Politics mean just about nothing when 75% of the server population hold hands. If NA is better then i congratulate you.
Well then, I guess it sucks to be on the EU server. Didn't you have the same issue in 1.0
Sieges are about politics numbers and strategy. Why is this bad?
Want small group pvp then ho out in a small group and hit mob spawns, host or participate in player run tournaments.
This isn't 1.0 where an inactive 10 man clan can own multiple holdings, and that is a good thing.
DF was always suppose to be about massive pvp battles for holdings, saying it wasn't is delusional.
Also, this isn't themepark zerging where everyone focus fires and insta kills people one at a time in a massive zerg. Go watch the siege videos on youtube.
Sieges is all about numbers and there is no strategy needed if you have rallied half the server to fight for you.
Most sieges on EU1 have been sieges where numbers are all that matters.
And politics matter very little if zergs decide to co-op instead of fighting each other.
I suggest you read up abit on how EU sieging worked out so far.
You are crazy if you think an unorganized huge zergs vs a small more organized siege force fighting as a team will win.
Having lots of people can only go so far.
as for no strategy, well politics is very heavy in strategy. As well as how you fight, where you fight, siege stone placement.
Your analysis of sieges being zerg mechanics is an extremely simplistic look at siege warfare.
Not sure whats going on over on the EU server but on the NA server you cant expect to win a siege by having 200 player run around with no direction, no strategy on siege stone placement or siege stone defence/attack. You wont do very well sieging as a mindless zerg, theres too much room for strategy by smaller forces working as a team for this to even be remotely true.
And just to highlight the derpyness of this "omg zerg" mentality, we once won a siege because we zerged...we only had 20 more people and the reason that extra 20 mattered is because we had them come in after the fighting had started. It was a mix of politics and strategy. Once we got to the siege stones as a big siege force we had the 20 man team of well geared players rush in, the enemy was scatterd and fell quick.
If the enemy hadn't split and scatterd it very well would have become another outcome. We also brought boats just in case, they chose not to utilize boats so part of our force didn't even engage (nullifying our 20 man advantage but that's ok lets still call it a zerg winning)
again you have a VERY simplistic look at sieges to even think this way. its no wonder you probably think this way, you very well might have been on a losing side because you lacked strategy, organization, and talent...its easier to cry zerg than to admit getting bested. This is the same mentality that called our winning side a zerg because in total we had a mere 20 man advantage. I could see a case for zerg mechanics having the advantage if the other side has 2 to 1 number advantage, but if that's the case you've already lost the politics game.
Being a zerg with hired mercs that perform well cause they're good at what they do is not adding as a huge disadvantage as you claim. A zerg can perform well since DFUW is such a zerg friendly game. With good communication in for example 10 small teamspeak groups, which is not that hard to add in today gaming, leaders will have a pretty easy way controlling any fight. Numbers matters and they matters alot.
Outnumbering all from 2vs1 to 6vs1 as most of the EU sieges, is all that it takes especially if you're defending your own bindstone. DFUW is a game where all you need is hire mercs so you have a good number advantage and if defending with these ridicolous zap towers you can just sit back and have a coke during the siege. It's more or less a walk in the park.
You're putting to much nonsense into the DFUW strategics, defenders dont need to even try attacking the siegestones if they have enough numbers defending.
And yes i see you have no idea on how EU zergs works, they fight together instead of against each other, pure lameness and a mentality of carebears. That is what the so called "hardcore" PvP game DFUW have become on EU. Politics mean just about nothing when 75% of the server population hold hands. If NA is better then i congratulate you.
Well then, I guess it sucks to be on the EU server. Didn't you have the same issue in 1.0
Yeah it sucks. 3 biggest zergs on EU had a protection pact.
SUN (huge carebear guild), Zerg Mercs (added anyone that wanted to join) and Celiahs.
It's the mentality of clans like these that destroy DFUW not the lack of content.
Comments
You are crazy if you think an unorganized huge zergs vs a small more organized siege force fighting as a team will win.
Having lots of people can only go so far.
as for no strategy, well politics is very heavy in strategy. As well as how you fight, where you fight, siege stone placement.
Your analysis of sieges being zerg mechanics is an extremely simplistic look at siege warfare.
Not sure whats going on over on the EU server but on the NA server you cant expect to win a siege by having 200 player run around with no direction, no strategy on siege stone placement or siege stone defence/attack. You wont do very well sieging as a mindless zerg, theres too much room for strategy by smaller forces working as a team for this to even be remotely true.
And just to highlight the derpyness of this "omg zerg" mentality, we once won a siege because we zerged...we only had 20 more people and the reason that extra 20 mattered is because we had them come in after the fighting had started. It was a mix of politics and strategy. Once we got to the siege stones as a big siege force we had the 20 man team of well geared players rush in, the enemy was scatterd and fell quick.
If the enemy hadn't split and scatterd it very well would have become another outcome. We also brought boats just in case, they chose not to utilize boats so part of our force didn't even engage (nullifying our 20 man advantage but that's ok lets still call it a zerg winning)
again you have a VERY simplistic look at sieges to even think this way. its no wonder you probably think this way, you very well might have been on a losing side because you lacked strategy, organization, and talent...its easier to cry zerg than to admit getting bested. This is the same mentality that called our winning side a zerg because in total we had a mere 20 man advantage. I could see a case for zerg mechanics having the advantage if the other side has 2 to 1 number advantage, but if that's the case you've already lost the politics game.
Being a zerg with hired mercs that perform well cause they're good at what they do is not adding as a huge disadvantage as you claim. A zerg can perform well since DFUW is such a zerg friendly game. With good communication in for example 10 small teamspeak groups, which is not that hard to add in today gaming, leaders will have a pretty easy way controlling any fight. Numbers matters and they matters alot.
Outnumbering all from 2vs1 to 6vs1 as most of the EU sieges, is all that it takes especially if you're defending your own bindstone. DFUW is a game where all you need is hire mercs so you have a good number advantage and if defending with these ridicolous zap towers you can just sit back and have a coke during the siege. It's more or less a walk in the park.
You're putting to much nonsense into the DFUW strategics, defenders dont need to even try attacking the siegestones if they have enough numbers defending.
And yes i see you have no idea on how EU zergs works, they fight together instead of against each other, pure lameness and a mentality of carebears. That is what the so called "hardcore" PvP game DFUW have become on EU. Politics mean just about nothing when 75% of the server population hold hands. If NA is better then i congratulate you.
Well then, I guess it sucks to be on the EU server. Didn't you have the same issue in 1.0
Yeah it sucks. 3 biggest zergs on EU had a protection pact.
SUN (huge carebear guild), Zerg Mercs (added anyone that wanted to join) and Celiahs.
It's the mentality of clans like these that destroy DFUW not the lack of content.