It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
anyone else think this statement is a little silly? then why are you playing an mmo? go play dota. thats precisely the reason why i pvp in mmos for huge battles. if i want even small scale matches i would play a moba, rts or instanced battle ground
nothing more silly than people coming to this fourm wanting open world pvp and then once hundereds of people are in said open pvp to only 5v5 each other
Comments
I always thought "zerging" meant total lack of prior strategy just follow the leader around. Not any large battle.
I usually zag, once in a great while I might zig, but I never zerg.
Well your right in that it relates to the quantity of units (or players in a MMORPG) that overcomes smaller forces even if the smaller forces are of better quality or have superior tactics. It's not a suicidal tactic, just as swarms of bee's killing themselves to take down a large animal isn't a suicidal tactic as a tactic Atleast that's the way I understand it.
As for if I like it or not in MMORPGs, I'm not ashamed to admit I hate it. Sides don't need to be of equal numbers and I have no problems with large groups but it should take a lot of territory and resources to maintain such a large group and that should mean that if they choose to be in one large group, on one area of the map, that they are vulnerable in other areas of the map. Overextension is the word I'm looking for maybe.
Well there is the aspect of rpg, which very often lacks in dota/moba/instanced battle ground. Character development is generally also weaker in those. Nothing wrong with people wanting smaller scale battles also. Typically large scale battles are in a game if the devs find it possible and financially worthwhile to implement. I doubt they base the latter aspect on random forum posting.
As for whether large scale battles always result in zerging, depends on terrain, tools, group compositions etc. Basically it will work if the devs have considered implementing it from the start. If they just patch it up, it will most likely be either zerg or utilizing gimmicks.
From the Urban dictionary:
Used widely in PlanetSide, to describe massive amount of soliders that spawn in a tower, and then attack a base.
It comes from the word zerg. Zergs in Starcraft were able to produce large amount of units very quickly.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
That does sound like a fair extension of the term.
But, perhaps more importantly, this is one of those matters where I think it is important to be careful. If we let our terminology depart too much from it's original connotations; We risk a break down in communication that can do us a lot of harm. Not just in take your time turn based chat like on a forum. But, in-game as well.
A hypothetical. Yet, not implausible:
Someone calls something what it isn't, or shouts to use a tactic by name that they don't understand the meaning of. And, a whole party or even raid can fail miserably (and be left asking what happened, at which point the blame shifting begins). And, all because one player heard other players that came before them using a term. And, started using it themselves under the sheer assumption that they understood it's meaning (not wanting to appear ignorant to the fact is pressure enough to never inquire further about things you hear people refer to).
Words like polished (I actually made a blog post on this one in specific) used to be strictly the domain of world builders. And, referred to the degree and nature of collision with objects in-game. Over time gamers at large got a hold of it and now it doesn't really mean anything. Someone says "polish" or "graphics" now and you can never quite know precisely what they are speaking of unless you press them to be more specific. The above being a prime example oh how, already we have seen some terms become washed-out.
I think it is important to at least make the effort or 5 years from now we could have newbs in our games saying things like "He totally lulz'ed that boss with an epic zerg that got him nerfed". <-- things that make little to no sense. Not to the person saying it. Not to the person being told it. And, everyone just assigning their own meaning.
I think if you see someone in-game using a term incorrectly...I wouldn't say outright call them on it. But maybe ask them what they mean. And, if they come back with something completely off for the term their using. Maybe drop a hint about what it actually means, like "Hmmm... I always thought zerg originated in starcraft, and was a reference to a species that would toss itself in droves at the enemy." Letting someone walk themselves into becoming more informed is a great way to correct someone without conflict. And, in a way that almost even empowers them.
It doesn't matter if we part away from the original connotations as long as people understand each other. Language is not static, but a dynamic agreement between people. That is why it is important to know to whom you are talking to and what the context is.
Like I said, within the context of MMOs, zerging means attack en mass with little to no other tactic. Therefore, what the term means in SC or from where it originates from is not relevant.
On topic, it is very understandable why someone would dislike zerging since it devalues one's contribution to the outcome of the battle. Usually the side/zerg with more people wins, so you can't take much pride in the victory either.
People love tactical PvP because they can contribute to the outcome. They can take pride in the victory, because they were a significant part of making that possible. Your decisions matter, your skill matters. There's more challenge.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
That example is ridiculous and false on its head, and you should know that.
Mathematics and language are two different things and do not make any sense comparing the two. Half of the rules English uses are arbitrary and used because some old people said so because its more like Latin. Who cares, English isn't Latin anymore. I can start a sentence with because and it still accomplishes the goal set for it. While in math, if you decide 1+1 =/= 2, then the whole system breaks down as you change the most fundamental tenets of it.
As the most basic example, we would still use Proto-Germanic or even older languages. Yet we don't, because it is dynamic and evolving.
It's more about game mechanics not allowing small forces to overcome large forced despite superior tactics. At that point it's more beneficial to run around in a zerg and not bother with a plan other than what and where to attack.
This is when it becomes unfun; when numbers mean more than strategy.
If the logic were unassailable it could be applied to any type of language. Even the so called language of the universe.
And, we still do use plenty of proto-germanic words in English. Here is an example of how many words are Germanic, and that most of their meanings have not changed over time: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.language.artificial/ZL4e3fD7eW0/_7p8bKwLJWkJ
We found more words to represent new things and concepts. After the Anglish initial origins of our language. First, likely the language of the Gaels. Then Latin (though Romans had a habit of forcing Latin as the dominant language in regions that conquered and there isn't much of western euro language that has not been heavily influenced by Latin). But we forced new words that meant new things to conform to the norms of the base language in order to fit into it, and didn't change their core meanings. The language did evolve. But, it was not random mutations. Our Eponyms were selective.
Furthermore, We still have plenty of words that do not negate the validity of words used in their stead that predated their absorption. Like the word Orange. Refers originally to the fruit. And, given the fruits consistency in color also refers now to the color that fruit has. But, still, saying red-yellow is just as correct. These Metonyms do not invalidate their predecessors.
It's easy to think of english as the all language that takes it wills at anytime. But, that is not historically how it has worked. Albiet with people like those working to add to the oxford English dictionary purposefully going places to find new english words. It might very much seem like that is the modern goal. But english has always been a forceful language, that makes other languages adopt it, rather then the other way around to create new dialects.