You do know that's a tactic used by many well known corps on here. since day 1 in fact.

Reason why zerging was so viable in MAG was because there really wasn't that big of a downside in completely abandoning one or two fronts. Plus in Dust we have these things called "Orbital Bombardment." Zerge at me, bro.

It may not work as it is right now or on current maps, but later, with bigger maps, more vehicles and more variety, it may actually be pretty fun.

Heck some maps seem pretty empty as they are right now, and they're supposed to be the smaller ones, the bigger maps would be just a pain to play with with such small amount of players.

However, Dust also has downsides to death that MAG may or may not have (never played). For one, there is the cost of fielding soldiers. Sure, you could "zerg" in free fits, but if the defenders are full proto, it is going to be a very uphill fight. Another downside is that even on objective based games, you have a clone limit. If you are sending wave after wave of enemies at a highly defended position, you may gain the objective but you could very easily lose the conflict.

You zerg to break the moral. Skip objectives to your side or leave just one to get it, now bum rush across to the enemy's NEAREST objective. Red line them.

That was the goal with many clans in MAG. After your red lined, then 1 or 2 blokes can cap objectives. prevent you from getting out. spawn camping, red lining, hold hostage, all kinda same.


EDIT: The HMG reign of MAG. My clan would push the enemy all the way back. break moral, and have some of them rage quit. lol

*resoonding to thread title-------> yes, givin its a different mode ( other than ambush domination or skirmish ) and redline is removed.

I don't see zerg as a problem; if you have the numbers, and a cooperative team, then why not use it to your advantage.

I'd personally be satisfied with a 64 player count, I don't need anything higher than that, though more would be nice.

Well organized doesn't count for **** compared to raw numbers..... I mean, it would take a mastermind FC to organize a logistics line that could reapportion their defense fast enough to counter zerg tactics.

Pretty simple question guys, but ill elaborate more on what I mean. Back when Zipper interactive was releasing MAG the "revolutionary FPS" that featured 256 man battles, people got really hyped up for it. The overall chaos of this game was something people lived off of. However..... what a lot of people didn't recognize was the fact that "good" clans would always use "swarm" tactics. Swarm or "zerging" is the act of throwing so many people at one focal point that it just crushes and overwhelms defensive opposition.

To some people this is fun, but when you look at a game as deep as dust, you gotta say "well damn..... zerging pretty takes away all need for tactics huh?" and it does. Mindlessly following one order to "overwhelm a position" is a feet that's only truly possible once the player count has reached something I like to call "critical mass".

Critical mass meaning: The threshold in which once the game hits an X amount of players it becomes too zerg oriented.

The X variable in that definition is subject to player opinion, and so im asking you guys what you think about the topic.

Is 128 v 128 Too much for Dust????
What about 64 v 64?
32 v 32??

Does it not matter how many players are in this game?? Is the level of customization just sooooo deep that numbers wont matter?? or will numbers overshadow customization?? Because no matter how different your suit might be, you, as the player will still only be ONE player, and therefore you'll only be ONE of the MANY.

In my opinion 32 v 32 would be near perfect, possibly even 64 v 64, but past that the game starts to get excessive and I honestly don't think the PS3 could handle anything more then 32 v 32 anyway. I mean..... we don't even have 24 v 24 yet unfortunately. So what do you guys think??? I want to hear your opinions so if you read down to this far please feel free to post your opinion!!! (and if you feel super generous finger hump that like button cuz I like being a like *****)

You do know that's a tactic used by many well known corps on here. since day 1 in fact.

Dunno 1v1 games have been a long time classic of fun.

You do know thats a tactic that has been used since war itself right?

I am posting here because you are thinking of my clan tag.

I have no other comment, because you already know it.

The counter to swarm tactics are explosives, and LLAV's with a gigantic shovel mounted on the front.

Pretty simple question guys, but ill elaborate more on what I mean. Back when Zipper interactive was releasing MAG the "revolutionary FPS" that featured 256 man battles, people got really hyped up for it. The overall chaos of this game was something people lived off of. However..... what a lot of people didn't recognize was the fact that "good" clans would always use "swarm" tactics. Swarm or "zerging" is the act of throwing so many people at one focal point that it just crushes and overwhelms defensive opposition.

To some people this is fun, but when you look at a game as deep as dust, you gotta say "well damn..... zerging pretty takes away all need for tactics huh?" and it does. Mindlessly following one order to "overwhelm a position" is a feet that's only truly possible once the player count has reached something I like to call "critical mass".

Critical mass meaning: The threshold in which once the game hits an X amount of players it becomes too zerg oriented.

The X variable in that definition is subject to player opinion, and so im asking you guys what you think about the topic.

Is 128 v 128 Too much for Dust????
What about 64 v 64?
32 v 32??

Does it not matter how many players are in this game?? Is the level of customization just sooooo deep that numbers wont matter?? or will numbers overshadow customization?? Because no matter how different your suit might be, you, as the player will still only be ONE player, and therefore you'll only be ONE of the MANY.

In my opinion 32 v 32 would be near perfect, possibly even 64 v 64, but past that the game starts to get excessive and I honestly don't think the PS3 could handle anything more then 32 v 32 anyway. I mean..... we don't even have 24 v 24 yet unfortunately. So what do you guys think??? I want to hear your opinions so if you read down to this far please feel free to post your opinion!!! (and if you feel super generous finger hump that like button cuz I like being a like *****)

Pretty simple question guys, but ill elaborate more on what I mean. Back when Zipper interactive was releasing MAG the "revolutionary FPS" that featured 256 man battles, people got really hyped up for it. The overall chaos of this game was something people lived off of. However..... what a lot of people didn't recognize was the fact that "good" clans would always use "swarm" tactics. Swarm or "zerging" is the act of throwing so many people at one focal point that it just crushes and overwhelms defensive opposition.

To some people this is fun, but when you look at a game as deep as dust, you gotta say "well damn..... zerging pretty takes away all need for tactics huh?" and it does. Mindlessly following one order to "overwhelm a position" is a feet that's only truly possible once the player count has reached something I like to call "critical mass".

Critical mass meaning: The threshold in which once the game hits an X amount of players it becomes too zerg oriented.

The X variable in that definition is subject to player opinion, and so im asking you guys what you think about the topic.

Is 128 v 128 Too much for Dust????
What about 64 v 64?
32 v 32??

Does it not matter how many players are in this game?? Is the level of customization just sooooo deep that numbers wont matter?? or will numbers overshadow customization?? Because no matter how different your suit might be, you, as the player will still only be ONE player, and therefore you'll only be ONE of the MANY.

In my opinion 32 v 32 would be near perfect, possibly even 64 v 64, but past that the game starts to get excessive and I honestly don't think the PS3 could handle anything more then 32 v 32 anyway. I mean..... we don't even have 24 v 24 yet unfortunately. So what do you guys think??? I want to hear your opinions so if you read down to this far please feel free to post your opinion!!! (and if you feel super generous finger hump that like button cuz I like being a like *****)

You do realize some (most? All?) ambush maps are all Zerg, all the time? ... Oddly, domination sometimes is, sometimes not so much.

As the game is right now, we can't do huge battles like MAG, because of the potential of Zerg tactics, but Dust will have something MAG didn't have, deploy able installations, like turrets and CRUs. Only problem is we haven't heard so much as a word about them, when ever we do get these things, chances are, well see an increase in match size.

As the game is right now, we can't do huge battles like MAG, because of the potential of Zerg tactics, but Dust will have something MAG didn't have, deploy able installations, like turrets and CRUs. Only problem is we haven't heard so much as a word about them, when ever we do get these things, chances are, well see an increase in match size.

do you mean an increase in map size?

And in MAG you got respec when you got to 3000 points but you didn't have to do it

You just reminded me, why hasn't CCP put some sort of respec feature in the game yet, probably cause of something about balance, would be nice though.

You just reminded me, why hasn't CCP put some sort of respec feature in the game yet, probably cause of something about balance, would be nice though.

Pretty simple question guys, but ill elaborate more on what I mean. Back when Zipper interactive was releasing MAG the "revolutionary FPS" that featured 256 man battles, people got really hyped up for it. The overall chaos of this game was something people lived off of. However..... what a lot of people didn't recognize was the fact that "good" clans would always use "swarm" tactics. Swarm or "zerging" is the act of throwing so many people at one focal point that it just crushes and overwhelms defensive opposition.

To some people this is fun, but when you look at a game as deep as dust, you gotta say "well damn..... zerging pretty takes away all need for tactics huh?" and it does. Mindlessly following one order to "overwhelm a position" is a feet that's only truly possible once the player count has reached something I like to call "critical mass".

Critical mass meaning: The threshold in which once the game hits an X amount of players it becomes too zerg oriented.

The X variable in that definition is subject to player opinion, and so im asking you guys what you think about the topic.

Is 128 v 128 Too much for Dust????
What about 64 v 64?
32 v 32??

Does it not matter how many players are in this game?? Is the level of customization just sooooo deep that numbers wont matter?? or will numbers overshadow customization?? Because no matter how different your suit might be, you, as the player will still only be ONE player, and therefore you'll only be ONE of the MANY.

In my opinion 32 v 32 would be near perfect, possibly even 64 v 64, but past that the game starts to get excessive and I honestly don't think the PS3 could handle anything more then 32 v 32 anyway. I mean..... we don't even have 24 v 24 yet unfortunately. So what do you guys think??? I want to hear your opinions so if you read down to this far please feel free to post your opinion!!! (and if you feel super generous finger hump that like button cuz I like being a like *****)

What if all 128 enemy players use Assault Mass Drivers?

That would not be fun

our systems might melt :\

I am posting here because you are thinking of my clan tag.

I have no other comment, because you already know it.

because a 32 man Caldari Logi fight would not fun

There are many reasons massed line armies are no longer used irl some of which apply to dust. Given equalstarting numbers the point is to manage force ratios better than ur opponent. 60v10 win on one end of the map can mean 10x losses where its 5v10 elsewhere... so did u really need to commit those 60or would 20 have worked? No... and a bettercommander will defeat the zerg. Delaying, tanks, ob mass drivers chokepoints... all things need tobe taken into account. Its all part of the fun.

domination in MAG was epic and i can only hope that DUST will have the same amount of epicness x1000 due to all the posibilities of fittings, deployable structures, vehicles, and just overall badassness. i cant belive a member if the infamous SVER wouldnt be in favor of 128v128 man battles.

these maps were very clearly designed for 32v32 or larger battles. The map that extends beyond the redzone is clearly designed for even more than that. Lets get that many people in a battle first before we start talking about zerging.

New content will help with certain aspects of larger fights... transport vehicles, jets, AA tanks, new orbitals, Orbital deployed equiptment...

When you get bigger you have to have the tools to manage it. Atm coms break down after about 30 people...
Commander rolls, multiple MCC's.... squad, team, platoons, company, brigades?

When your fighting larger numbers, the game has to match it...
I would LOVE to see a 64 v 64 domination match

Wait...... common sense???? WAHHHHHHHHH?????

I dance too

dance like these GUYS???

I just feel the Groove

Anyway.... *cough*....On topic...

When it gets to Zerg levels i am a firm believer that the game and map layout are key, the objective of the match has to be such as to break up the blob, force them to split up.

Unless of course the IDEA is just a massive mash up crash... but then everyones expecting it lol

Lol fair enough, im not sure how exactly one breaks up a zerg fest without high explosives though...... (and any more boomfesting in this game would break it) so yeah....

Well a kill the base type of objective concentraits eveything into a specic area... what if it was "like" skirmish but instead of 5 null cannons, there were 5 areas of 5 null cannons? sure you could zerg but you'd leave the other objectives open...

again..... that implies the knowledge of science is known to the development team! No.... your right, hopefully they make a better PC game mode eventually, cuz right now its not good :/ having equal footing as someone who supposed to be defending compared to the attacker is just silly in my opinion!

This post should have been named "i don't like big game battles where legit zerging is possible"

In a game like new eden where you are suppose to ADAPT you think any kind of strategy should be used

If you want to play small squad warfare there are games that do that.

again..... that implies the knowledge of science is known to the development team! No.... your right, hopefully they make a better PC game mode eventually, cuz right now its not good :/ having equal footing as someone who supposed to be defending compared to the attacker is just silly in my opinion!

That would go with the "gladiator" matches CCP has mentioned a few times right??? Lol, imagine EVE players watching us fight for entertainment, and betting on us accordingly.

Haha that would be awesome...great way to incorporate more features into the Captain's Quarters, EVE/Dust TV. Instead of spinning ships I could chill out on the couch and watch some mercs mess each other up. Even just a 6v6 Arena mode that can be broadcast :)

Wow, that's pretty useful information right there..... You totally misinterpreted the post. I don't mind the game having the capability to allow zerging, But what I do mind is that becoming the only viable tactic. Whats the point of all this "deep customization" if everything just gets overshadowed in big zergfests? There is none, because no matter how good you are, the more people there are in a match the less and less your contribution actually matters.

That's fine for some people, some people like all the chaos and to them its fun just mindlessly swarming places with people, but I personally enjoy the small squad action. Not long ago (towards the end of one of the build cycles) a full squad of STB went up against a full squad of Zion TCD in a pub match. We were all wearing straight proto gear, and that 4 v 4 confrontation was amazing.... I couldn't have asked for something more fun.

Ive played MAG, and ive had fun playing it, but I want this game to find a balance where theres enough people to enjoy the chaos of MAG, but not soooo many people that the game feels like planetside 2 and you just feel overwhelmed and useless.

I whole heartedly think DUST deserves larger battles. You look at their epic game trailers and hear the words "one battle could cause the fall of an empire" and you think "frick yeah! Epiiiiic!" And then you realize that empires are being fought over by about 16 dudes on each side.... Wat... No no no. I think 64 vs 64 would make things MUCH more enjoyable. We're talking about armies coming against armies to fight for control in New Eden, not squads against squads. There are a few problems that CCP would run into if they wanted to appease our desire for more war like encounters.

Before I get into that, here are a few things I wanna go over real fast. You can skip if you want.

1) The definition of swarming: Swarming is having such a massive amount of combatants running hap-hazardly at a position, that the defenders simply cannot fill them with enough bullets. Not gonna happen in MAG or DUST... ever. Obviously a swarm like tactic is used, but it is not nearly as "zombie" like as Zerg. It is running between covers and overwhelming a defensive position with cover fire in order to move more combatants into the objective area.

2) Difference between Strategy and Tactic. Strategy is the answer to the question "What are we trying to accomplish". It is a very broad term that encompasses long term or over all goals and how to achieve them. Tactic is the answer to the question "How and who?" This is much more specific. In order to distinguish the two terms, take a general and a squad leader. The general uses Strategy when thinking of his campaign fronts, resource gathering, transportation, etc. a squad leader uses Tactic when thinking of the specialties of the individuals of his squad and the unique scenarios in which they find themselves.

Alright, so here is what CCP will have to overcome in order to create a more war like experience.

1) Higher Leadership. Right now, DUST is based on tactics more than Strategy. In order to facilitate the growth in game size, players will need someone leading the campaign. They will need someone with an overall Strategic plan that will command squad leaders to fulfill objectives. Right now, the squad leaders have strategy based commands and not tactic based commands. This is all well and good for small time battles, but for larger/more intense battles, you can't have a ton of groups running around without having a good idea of what every other group is doing. Having a higher leadership role will solve this problem. Strategic commands are: Capture Obj A, Defend Obj C, Aide Squad 3 etc. These commands would belong to the Commander. Tactic based commands would belong to the Squad leader, and they would be used to facilitate the completion of the Commander's objectives. They would be: Provide cover fire along this wall, Escourt/repair this vehicle, Set up defensive positions behind this rubble, etc. Application for this kind of battle would be based on a WP min and then selection would be random or selecting the individual who has played the most games without being selected. Also, battles this big would require everyone to be in a squad.

2) The current map layouts are not condusive to the war-like encounter that you'd expect from a 64 vs 64 game. I'm not talking about size, I'm talking about front lines. MAG defined the fronts with Bunkers where each squad had dominion over a single bunker. This spread the battle over a long space and made objectives pretty obvious. DUST, however, is much larger than MAG. Obviously the objectives are not quite so obvious (because each squad in DUST is not given a specific bunker) but they are pretty straight forward. The adaptability in DUST strategy is much greater than MAG, because the frontlies are always changing dramatically. We just need to be able to spread the battle out more. One of the biggest parts of the current maps that would inhibit this spreading out is the bottle neck spawning, but since the beta, CCP seems to have done better with that.

My answer to you is RIGHT HERE Never gonna happen in MAG huh? Sureeeeee

Sorry, here's a clarification. Swarming like a bunch of Zerglings is never gonna happen. Never. Swarm tactics are obviously ver viable, but you of all people (being a SVER True Blood) should know that swarm tactics can be countered with Heavy Armor, and crowd control tactics

24v24 or 30v30(tops) wouldn't be too chaotic for the current maps but we'd need to teaek them a bit to accommodate the larger player count

(shhhhhhh my past is what drives me to keep this from happening again!) No.... what you said was thoughtful and very relevant. Your right, its just another tactic, and CAN be countered. But just because i CAN kill a logistics LAV doesn't mean its very do-able. Heavy armor and area denial weapons are good to counter this tactic, however its tough to say "everyone do this" when you have no guarantee the other side is going to swarm at all. I only posted this thread with the hopes of seeing everyones opinion on it. My opinion is that, "yes, swarming is a good and viable tactic, HOWEVER i don't want it to be the ONLY tactic...... Nor do i want it to be "all that" convenient to use" Because if you want to think of it on a tactical level...... swarming is pretty simple compared to other things you could be doing.

The maps are huge as it is..... the higher player count would make them feel actually..... alive, lol

I don't see zerg as a problem; if you have the numbers, and a cooperative team, then why not use it to your advantage.

I'd personally be satisfied with a 64 player count, I don't need anything higher than that, though more would be nice.

wasn't there a corp in eve that focus on mass recruitment and swarming people ?

2000 vs 2000

Bring as many as you can muster or perish before the swarm.

Maybe if CCP builds a smaller scale supercluster for supersized Dust battles separate from Tranquility, a couple of years down the line, then I could see massive Dust battles taking place, possibly with some slots reserved for EVE pilots in the skies, who would also have to bring a few buddies along if they want their orb-capable ship to survive and drop its armament.

I know Tranquility is a supercluster, but I've heard of battles in EVE causing the game's built-in time dilation to kick in, both before the battle while everyone is getting acquainted with what's going on, and who has what, and who's going to do this and that, as well as while the battle is going on, so I'd imagine future battles like that would end up with locking in all the gear you're going to use hours beforehand, so CCP can do whatever it is programmers do on their end to clean up everything before the giant clusterparty begins.

I got the bug from previous PC and console MMOs. I'd be great to know beforehand that again I'll have that kind of massive fun without needing to buy a PS4 and the upcoming game that's endlessly spammed on here that I won't mention because I don't want the banhammer for a week or two.

Yes but given a well set up defensive position "swarming" can be countered. Because what is swarming on this game really? its 16 v 16 so how many people can you really send to one objective?? well 16 obviously..... but that's leaving you wide open for any sort of counter attack.

As the player cap is increased it becomes easier to say "ok will leave a squad to defend Letters A, B, and C each, every other squad come here and attack letter D" In short it becomes easier to swarm/zerg. Right now its easily counterable because 1.) both sides are on even footing coming into a match. 2.) if one side can capture three letters, they only need to have one squad defend each, and wait for reinforcements if a swarm is inbound.

Swarms on 128 v 128 matches are terribly hard to beat purely from a logistics standpoint "how do we reapportion our defense to cope with that many people hitting one spot while not leaving things totally open?" It causes chaos and while some people might like that sort of play, I enjoy the small skirmishes between groups of 2-6 because its much more focused and "intimate"