209 replies to this topic

[AlphaToaster]

Deathlike, on 17 December 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

Honestly, I want to hear other "working" non-zerg attacks that are consistently successful.

I'm not sure if it's counts for you, but the first weekend of CW prior to the zerg becoming popular with the pugs, the tactics I saw were generally about the same across the matches. Usually each lance took responsibility for their gate and reported on enemy strength. Our first wave we all planned to open the gate and fall back and decide to hit whichever gate was defended the least.

On Sulphur this meant we all pushed up, opened the gates, fell back, and then as a group rolled around gamma. There was a couple mechs lingering as a distraction that drew defenders to Alpha simply because all pugs don't follow the plan. So as we rolled through gamma in strength the attackers were coming from the far side of the base. We didn't have to zerg because there was no defenders there. We didn't meet enemy mechs until we were already standing at the base. Defenders thought for sure we were coming into Alpha and didn't move until it was too late. I remember standing there not even sure where to shoot the base because I had never made it that far in before on that map.

Does this count as a zerg? Is it still zerging if there's an active effort to distract at another gate while the push goes somewhere else?

Edited by AlphaToaster, 17 December 2014 - 03:34 PM.

[Deathlike]

pwnface, on 17 December 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

I've always equated zerg rushing with running in with light mechs and ignoring EVERYTHING except for the orbital cannon. I think if you fight your way into the base, clearing turrets along the way, it shouldn't be considered zerging. The way you seem to have defined zerging is not trying to kill every enemy mech and/or not having an established kill lead.

Yea... I'm not a fan of the "ultra/ultimate zerg rush", since that and "hugging behind the gen" is somewhat lame. Most rushes we do is to get a good position against the gen and shoot it, and trying to rid all obstacles in the way (but that's not the priority outside of turrets).

Any good tactic that uses the terrain to your advantage (especially against the enemy in an attack) is actually playing the map+objective as currently designed, so I don't give a crap about the qq that follows then... because it's not like it isn't preventable... it's the groups that don't understand how to counter it that complains.

It's all about getting the tokens in the quickest way possible. The problem is that there's always more people on defense (whether through PUGs or organized groups) that make taking a planet rather hard.

AlphaToaster, on 17 December 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

I'm not sure if it's counts for you, but the first weekend of CW prior to the zerg becoming popular with the pugs, the tactics I saw were generally about the same across the matches. Usually each lance took responsibility for their gate and reported on enemy strength. Our first wave we all planned to open the gate and fall back and decide to hit whichever gate was defended the least.

On Sulphur this meant we all pushed up, opened the gates, fell back, and then as a group rolled around gamma. There was a couple mechs lingering as a distraction that drew defenders to Alpha simply because all pugs don't follow the plan. So as we rolled through gamma in strength the attackers were coming from the far side of the base. We didn't have to zerg because there was no defenders there. We didn't meet enemy mechs until we were already standing at the base. Defenders thought for sure we were coming into Alpha and didn't move until it was too late. I remember standing there not even sure where to shoot the base because I had never made it that far in before on that map.

Does this count as a zerg? Is it still zerging if there's an active effort to distract at another gate while the push goes somewhere else?

It's still "zerging", but distractions oftentimes get really bad groups to overcommit, and then attackers often capitalize on that.

Welcome to the "squirrel" phenomenon with bigger mechs.

It never cease to amaze and people still call it "zerging" and "lame" despite it being something used often and generally successful.

[ShadowWolf Kell]

Deathlike, on 17 December 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

Yea... I'm not a fan of the "ultra/ultimate zerg rush", since that and "hugging behind the gen" is somewhat lame. Most rushes we do is to get a good position against the gen and shoot it, and trying to rid all obstacles in the way (but that's not the priority outside of turrets).

Any good tactic that uses the terrain to your advantage (especially against the enemy in an attack) is actually playing the map+objective as currently designed, so I don't give a crap about the qq that follows then... because it's not like it isn't preventable... it's the groups that don't understand how to counter it that complains.

It's all about getting the tokens in the quickest way possible. The problem is that there's always more people on defense (whether through PUGs or organized groups) that make taking a planet rather hard.

I've seen some some go so far as to completely ignore the other gates and just concentrate on one, then wonder why the entire defending team was there with a firing line.

Nothing wrong with blasting your way through and trudging along, blasting things as you go till you can put the generator turrets, and cannon itself out of everyone's misery. That's working completely as intended imo.

[Deathlike]

ShadowWolf Kell, on 17 December 2014 - 03:44 PM, said:

I've seen some some go so far as to completely ignore the other gates and just concentrate on one, then wonder why the entire defending team was there with a firing line.

Nothing wrong with blasting your way through and trudging along, blasting things as you go till you can put the generator turrets, and cannon itself out of everyone's misery. That's working completely as intended imo.

I can't even begin to understand how people want the attackers to "not attack the gen" when it's all about getting those damn tokens ASAP to win the planet.

Holding people up is better for the defenders than the attacker. So much badness being spewed here.

[InspectorG]

Deltron Zero, on 17 December 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

There has been a lot of debate of the zerg rush tactics. One thing I am repeatedly seeing is pro-zergers saying that the anti-zergers need to learn to coordinate with their team and learn tactics to stop the rush. The pro-zegers will dismiss arguments for changing up the objectives by saying things will just be a mindless deathmatch, or if you want deathmatch then get out of CW, or that if you want an easier game then go somewhere else.

These counter-arguments are misguided, as a lot of people against the zerging tactic are against it because it is boring and counter to the desire of having cinematic mech-on-mech battles, not because they are unable to learn or that it is too difficult. Most don't want to replace the zerging tactics with deathmatch, they want to replace the zerging tactics with something more thoughtful.

More thoughtful:

Using Zerg as a tactic...for 1 or 2 waves.

Open with a zerg? Save it for close?

Use it to feint then brawl?

Brawl with heavies as a feint to zerg?

Have no plan to zerg but the opportunity arises when the defender goes to spawn camp?

Defender is spread out too thin and you have a speed advantage? Zerg.

Defender is balled up at Omega, time a fake zerg to cover you slow heavy long range mechs?

Some ideas.

[oldradagast]

Deltron Zero, on 17 December 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

There has been a lot of debate of the zerg rush tactics. One thing I am repeatedly seeing is pro-zergers saying that the anti-zergers need to learn to coordinate with their team and learn tactics to stop the rush. The pro-zegers will dismiss arguments for changing up the objectives by saying things will just be a mindless deathmatch, or if you want deathmatch then get out of CW, or that if you want an easier game then go somewhere else.

These counter-arguments are misguided, as a lot of people against the zerging tactic are against it because it is boring and counter to the desire of having cinematic mech-on-mech battles, not because they are unable to learn or that it is too difficult. Most don't want to replace the zerging tactics with deathmatch, they want to replace the zerging tactics with something more thoughtful.

I agree, but the tryhards don't get it. In their world, everything is about their "skillz" and anyone who raises a valid complaint is either "an angry loser" or "trying to nerf" whatever better than average toys they are using in the game. Heck, even if you specifically say you're AGAINST nerfing stuff, they still pretend you're in favor of it?!

If the game consisted of nothing but both sides pressing a single button and the side who press it first won, they'd demand that the "game" remain unchanged if they could win at it more than they lose. They have zero understanding that if a game lacks depth, balance, or any real skill or purpose, it is pointless... no matter how often one wins at it.

Right now, CW is about as much fun as watching paint dry. Heck, if you're the defender, you basically spend the first half of the game watching paint dry as the other teams flings itself against the gates. Then, if you're lucky, you get to leg a bunch of them. If not - usually because of a team that lacks any teamwork - the other team zerg rushes and the match is over... often with far less actual combat and infinitely less real tactics and strategy than a normal game in the public queue.

And if you're attacking, heaven help you. If you're in a PUG or mixed group against a 12-man defender, you may as well just quit at match start since the set-up so heavily favors defense. And, even if you're lucky and you're not on an attacking team that consists of people who don't understand the format, you'll spend more of the match fighting NPC turrets and literally WALKING towards the generator than actually DOING anything remotely interesting.

But we're to believe all of the above is untrue and anyone who wants it improved "lacks skillz."

[pwnface]

oldradagast, on 17 December 2014 - 04:09 PM, said:

I agree, but the tryhards don't get it. In their world, everything is about their "skillz" and anyone who raises a valid complaint is either "an angry loser" or "trying to nerf" whatever better than average toys they are using in the game. Heck, even if you specifically say you're AGAINST nerfing stuff, they still pretend you're in favor of it?!

If the game consisted of nothing but both sides pressing a single button and the side who press it first won, they'd demand that the "game" remain unchanged if they could win at it more than they lose. They have zero understanding that if a game lacks depth, balance, or any real skill or purpose, it is pointless... no matter how often one wins at it.

Right now, CW is about as much fun as watching paint dry. Heck, if you're the defender, you basically spend the first half of the game watching paint dry as the other teams flings itself against the gates. Then, if you're lucky, you get to leg a bunch of them. If not - usually because of a team that lacks any teamwork - the other team zerg rushes and the match is over... often with far less actual combat and infinitely less real tactics and strategy than a normal game in the public queue.

And if you're attacking, heaven help you. If you're in a PUG or mixed group against a 12-man defender, you may as well just quit at match start since the set-up so heavily favors defense. And, even if you're lucky and you're not on an attacking team that consists of people who don't understand the format, you'll spend more of the match fighting NPC turrets and literally WALKING towards the generator than actually DOING anything remotely interesting.

But we're to believe all of the above is untrue and anyone who wants it improved "lacks skillz."

My experience is pretty much 180 from yours. I've had only a handful of teams try to zerg rush our unit and they've never been successful. If light mech zerg rushing is so overpowered why has it worked ZERO times against our team?

You claim that CW isn't fun, while I'm having a blast and I think a lot of other people are as well. Our unit has a seen a huge surge in applicants because CW is geared toward organized group play and people are realizing that winning in a group is much more rewarding experience than trying to carry a group of pugs by yourself.

So as a self-appointed "tryhard", I'm going to have to say you probably "lack skillz" and beyond that, probably lack friends to play with. Please consider joining an organized unit as it will open your eyes to different aspects of CW. If you are insistent on solo play, at least consider joining other House Kurita pilots for sync drops on teamspeak to be more effective as a group.

House-Kurita.enjinvoice.com is the official House Kurita CW teamspeak, I hope you drop in and improve your CW experience. Maybe you'll have as much fun as the rest of us.

Edited by pwnface, 17 December 2014 - 04:28 PM.

[Lily from animove]

pwnface, on 17 December 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

My experience is pretty much 180 from yours. I've had only a handful of teams try to zerg rush our unit and they've never been successful. If light mech zerg rushing is so overpowered why has it worked ZERO times against our team?

You claim that CW isn't fun, while I'm having a blast and I think a lot of other people are as well. Our unit has a seen a huge surge in applicants because CW is geared toward organized group play and people are realizing that winning in a group is much more rewarding experience than trying to carry a group of pugs by yourself.

So as a self-appointed "tryhard", I'm going to have to say you probably "lack skillz" and beyond that, probably lack friends to play with. Please consider joining an organized unit as it will open your eyes to different aspects of CW. If you are insistent on solo play, at least consider joining other House Kurita pilots for sync drops on teamspeak to be more effective as a group.

House-Kurita.enjinvoice.com is the official House Kurita CW teamspeak, I hope you drop in and improve your CW experience. Maybe you'll have as much fun as the rest of us.

I tell you why, because you re kurita, the CSj are horriblem, and have yet not made much, they lack good pilots.

Wait until you meat the bears, if PGi hasn't implemented a change, get some coordinated rush and see how horrible you end in it.

also when nothign yetof this worked why is kurita losing planets so badly, FRR owns you quite hard.

[pwnface]

Lily from animove, on 17 December 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

I tell you why, because you re kurita, the CSj are horriblem, and have yet not made much, they lack good pilots.

Wait until you meat the bears, if PGi hasn't implemented a change, get some coordinated rush and see how horrible you end in it.

also when nothign yetof this worked why is kurita losing planets so badly, FRR owns you quite hard.

First of all, Clan factions can't even light mech zerg rush. Mentioning CSJ at all is completely irrelevant.

Second, FRR and Kurita currently have a ceasefire anyway and we aren't in active conflict. (Someone in FRR didn't get the memo but we're correcting the issue)

Thirdly, controlling planets in Community Warfare has very little to do with actually winning matches. Factions with larger populations have a ridiculous advantage in the way it is currently implemented.

Have you heard of ghost capping? Are you aware that the map changes on a 23 hour cycle that makes 80% of matches completely irrelevant to holding or capturing planets? I'm sure you know all of the things that I've mentioned and the problem is Kurita is bad or Kurita enemies are bad.

Why is it that you are one the most vocal people on the forums crying about IS light mech zerg rush? Seems like someone else needs to get some "skillz".

[STEF_]

Sandpit, on 17 December 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

You coordinate with your team first and foremost before you land planetside
Then you coordinate with your team on the ground and keep mechs like that in rotation
Then you use some teamwork to adjust as needed
Then you coordinate with your team to take up certain positions and deny those rushing lanes to at the very least slow them down until your team can reposition if need be.

Hit reg arguments have absolutely nothing to do with the zerg tactic debate. Take that up with the proper threads.
You don't HAVE to have a streak boat, once again, you're taking a tip given to some sort of extreme to have a "reason" to dismiss it. Many of us take out lights with lasers and dakka just fine. Don't dilute or confuse the thread here.


exactly

I agree with what you wrote as tips for countering zerg, but I'm not agree that zerg tactic has nothing to do with lag and hit reg issues. It's a fact that zerg mechs are lights and fast, and defenders need to take 'em down as faster as they can: BUT this not possible, because of those issues.....and high ping, too.
I'm sure that playing in LAN, there would be no effective zerg attack.
The fact that many suggest streak as a solution says a lot.

[Sandpit]

Stefka Kerensky, on 17 December 2014 - 10:33 PM, said:

I agree with what you wrote as tips for countering zerg, but I'm not agree that zerg tactic has nothing to do with lag and hit reg issues. It's a fact that zerg mechs are lights and fast, and defenders need to take 'em down as faster as they can: BUT this not possible, because of those issues.....and high ping, too.
I'm sure that playing in LAN, there would be no effective zerg attack.
The fact that many suggest streak as a solution says a lot.

What I'm saying is that lag and hit reg aren't what define a strategy. There would still be effective rushes because the fault lies with teams and players more than anything else.
The fact that streaks have always been a good counter to lights for a lot more than simply hit reg issues.

Sure it's going to have an affect on it in some ways and on occasion. The thing is, it's not as widespread of an issue as some want to make it out to be. It's a strategy. It's a strategy that was REALLY effective. For about 2 days. Until counter-strategies were developed.

It's always going to be a semi-effective strategy and more so against uncoordinated teams because it's one of if not THE easiest and most convenient strategies to get a bunch of solo players to participate in just like the deathball in pub matches.

[STEF_]

Sandpit, on 17 December 2014 - 11:10 PM, said:

What I'm saying is that lag and hit reg aren't what define a strategy. There would still be effective rushes because the fault lies with teams and players more than anything else.
The fact that streaks have always been a good counter to lights for a lot more than simply hit reg issues.

Sure it's going to have an affect on it in some ways and on occasion. The thing is, it's not as widespread of an issue as some want to make it out to be. It's a strategy. It's a strategy that was REALLY effective. For about 2 days. Until counter-strategies were developed.

It's always going to be a semi-effective strategy and more so against uncoordinated teams because it's one of if not THE easiest and most convenient strategies to get a bunch of solo players to participate in just like the deathball in pub matches.

Yes, I'm agree again. BTW, I was sure this was the thread where I defended Zerg as a tactic.
I don't remember where, but I wrote that Zerg is nothing new, since TT players uses it in hit and run missions for destroying objective fast. Also in TT, Zerg is succefull when defenders have bad positions, etc.

I'm feeling a difference here in mwo, because of issues previously stated.

Anyway, I saw pugs defender teams that managed to win vs an entire organized 12 men group team, even if the attacker have used zerg tactic in wave 2. So, yes, counter zerg is definitively possible.

[kapusta11]

Deltron Zero, on 17 December 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

There has been a lot of debate of the zerg rush tactics. One thing I am repeatedly seeing is pro-zergers saying that the anti-zergers need to learn to coordinate with their team and learn tactics to stop the rush. The pro-zegers will dismiss arguments for changing up the objectives by saying things will just be a mindless deathmatch, or if you want deathmatch then get out of CW, or that if you want an easier game then go somewhere else.

These counter-arguments are misguided, as a lot of people against the zerging tactic are against it because it is boring and counter to the desire of having cinematic mech-on-mech battles, not because they are unable to learn or that it is too difficult. Most don't want to replace the zerging tactics with deathmatch, they want to replace the zerging tactics with something more thoughtful.

Make sure you understand the arguments about WHY people use zerg rush tactics

• Defenders reinforce quickly, you don't
  
• Defenders have turrets, you don't
  
• Defenders have dropships shoting you in the face, you don't
  
• As attacker you're always up against 12 enemy mechs

As long as teams are even in their strength, fighting Defenders get's you nowhere but guess what, it's not your primary objective anyways.

Adding generators has little tactical value, you might as well just increase gun's hp 4 times. I expect 12 mans to use zerg rush 4 times in a row, just to troll you PUGs and point you out where your mindless whining brought you, other competitive teams know how to deal with it already anyways.

Edited by kapusta11, 17 December 2014 - 11:48 PM.

[Sandpit]

Stefka Kerensky, on 17 December 2014 - 11:30 PM, said:

Yes, I'm agree again. BTW, I was sure this was the thread where I defended Zerg as a tactic.
I don't remember where, but I wrote that Zerg is nothing new, since TT players uses it in hit and run missions for destroying objective fast. Also in TT, Zerg is succefull when defenders have bad positions, etc.

I'm feeling a difference here in mwo, because of issues previously stated.

Anyway, I saw pugs defender teams that managed to win vs an entire organized 12 men group team, even if the attacker have used zerg tactic in wave 2. So, yes, counter zerg is definitively possible.

The problem is you get enough of the players who refuse to adapt to anything new and just expect PGI to continuously "fix" something because they can't beat it. Wether that be clan mechs, lrms, zerg rush, etc.

That's the exact same mentality that PGI really catered this game to for a very long time once it went OB. It drove a LOT of players off because they didn't care for it. PGI reported record breaking numbers this weekend since CW launch. Many of those players are filtering back in.

They weren't "hardcore" persay. They aren't "competitive 12mans", they were simply Btech fans that wanted something more challenging than deathmatches with extremely limited strategies and such. Now they finally have what many were craving and you still ahve the same mentalities trying to do the same thing because apparently they're not content with having their own entire queue especially dedicated and catered to them.

I'm not pointing this at you directly, but you can easily see it if you just peruse the forums. They're currently littered with "but why can't I?" even though they could easily do what they're asking for in the pub queues.

I'm going to be a little aggressive on those threads because it's BS that they should even remotely think that the entire game should only cater to them exclusively. Yea I get a little douchey with them, but they have such a sense of entitlement like they're the only ones who support this game, it would die without them personally, they speak for some "majority" etc.

This seems to be especially true for those that drop solo. They seem to think that because they're having a difficult time with something and a dozen (at best) others agree with them that they think MWO is going to "die" unless the game is "fixed" to suit their needs exclusively.

[Kmieciu]

Stefka Kerensky, on 17 December 2014 - 09:34 AM, said:

Let's be honest.
Let's say that Zerg tactic works also becasue of the huge hit reg issues, lag issues, and low fps issue CW has

Quoted for truth. The legshots only register when you are directly following a target. And the Stormcrows have such tiny legs and move faster than any IS mech that packs enough firepower to leg it.

kapusta11, on 17 December 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:

other competitive teams know how to deal with it already anyways.

So how does your unit defend against a clan zerg rush on Sulfurous Rift? Nothing but waves of TBR, SCR and HBR that don't even shoot you, but go straight for omega only firing at turrets. You start firing at them as soon as they open the middle gate, drop strikes, even block them with your mech as they jump trough you.

On Boreal you at least have enough time and heat capacity to leg them. Sulfurous Rift though? No chance.

Edited by Kmieciu, 18 December 2014 - 03:00 AM.

[STEF_]

Kmieciu, on 18 December 2014 - 01:01 AM, said:

Quoted for truth. The legshots only register when you are directly following a target. And the Stormcrows have such tiny legs and move faster than any IS mech that packs enough firepower to leg it.




So how does your unit defend against a clan zerg rush on Sulfurous Rift? Nothing but waves of TBR, SCR and HBR that don't even shoot you, but go straight for omega only firing at turrets. You start firing at them as soon as they open the middle gate, drop strikes, even block them with your mech as they jump trough you.

On Boreal you at least have enough time and heat capacity to leg them. Sulfurous Rift though? No chance.

Yes, the sulfurous map ...is a trap!
There is too little space between gates and omega, and maybe it's more productive to wait enemy waves outside the gates. So to have enough time to retreat when it's the case, or zerg attack.
I'd like to know the percentual of succefull attack in that map. When I'm in decent team, I think is around 80% (maybe because all defenders stays inside)

[Lily from animove]

pwnface, on 17 December 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

First of all, Clan factions can't even light mech zerg rush. Mentioning CSJ at all is completely irrelevant.

Second, FRR and Kurita currently have a ceasefire anyway and we aren't in active conflict. (Someone in FRR didn't get the memo but we're correcting the issue)

Thirdly, controlling planets in Community Warfare has very little to do with actually winning matches. Factions with larger populations have a ridiculous advantage in the way it is currently implemented.

Have you heard of ghost capping? Are you aware that the map changes on a 23 hour cycle that makes 80% of matches completely irrelevant to holding or capturing planets? I'm sure you know all of the things that I've mentioned and the problem is Kurita is bad or Kurita enemies are bad.

Why is it that you are one the most vocal people on the forums crying about IS light mech zerg rush? Seems like someone else needs to get some "skillz".

skills don't make a mech faster, and if the Clanners would have 150kph lkights they would be the same issue, yet they don't have.
and yes kurita is bad a s a faction, when 80% of matches don't count, how about organising the important 20%? looks like every faction gets this done somehow except kurita, but yet its snot Kuritas fault.

Get real dude. I see you making an endless amount of posts mostly not supported by real facts. Just loud mouth talk and propaganda.

[Dimento Graven]

The Zerg rush that I've seen most commonly deployed is WELL into the "gray area" where it's hard to tell utilizing "good tactics" verses are they just taking advantage of ALL the known weaknesses in this game.

As exampled in the vid from TheB33f you load up a bunch of jump capable lights, most commonly Firestarters. Why? Because a lot of the lights, and specifically Firestarters are KNOWN to have hit box issues. Next the jump capable portion allows your team to by pass the gate without even having to worry about the generator, AND, the added benefit of taking advantage of additional KNOWN hit detection issues with jumping 'mechs (something so egregious I don't even load JJ's on my Firestarters), allowing you to pass ALL THE WAY through the gauntlet of turrets and enemy 'mechs to the base without having to worry too much about the incoming damage.

Lastly, due to the incredibly low HP value of the final generator, again, taking advantage of strikes, feathering jump jets, and ignoring all defenders, you focus fire on the generator and in less than 60 seconds from the point your force arrives at the gun, you win.

Hell, some people are jumping ON TO and BEHIND the generator and sitting there shooting it with damn near zero risk.

There's really no feasible defense against it and the idiots who pretend there is are just excusing themselves attempting to maintain their self-delusion that they are some how "uber"...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 18 December 2014 - 08:00 AM.

[ContingencyPlan]

The problem here is people thinking in extremes. The people on the "anti-zerg" side are upset that the tactic is essentially an attempt to completely remove them from the equation and effectively convert what is supposed to be a player vs. player encounter into a player vs. player encounter. When attackers CHOOSE to take that mentality, I, on the defending side, find that I no longer care about winning. My goal at that point then becomes just to try to find some way to simply be a part of the game.

The counter-argument by "pro-zerg" people is that by nerfing these sorts of tactics, PGI is essentially eliminating objective based games and changing it all to one big skirmish mode. This is a very extremist view, I believe, as most of the people on the "anti-zerg" side still want it to be objective based. They just want it to remain player vs. player.

When teams of attackers traveling in fast moving mechs make a play to go straight for the objective and bypass opponents, they are, in essence, making an attempt to remove the one variable that makes these games any different from, say, a WoW raid boss encounter: The players on the defending team. The defending team, when they find themselves faced with this strategy, now has to fight their way back into the equation.

Is it fair to be able to cut the entire enemy team out of the equation and effectively reduce the gamemode to a PvE encounter? That's debatable. But before I can concern myself with winning or losing, I at least want to be a part of the equation. And when faced with an oncoming rush by light mechs who are basically trying to ignore my presence there, that becomes very frustrating, because the way I see it, by using that tactic, they are basically trying to exclude me from the game.

[Beo Vulf]

Deltron Zero, on 17 December 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

There has been a lot of debate of the zerg rush tactics. One thing I am repeatedly seeing is pro-zergers saying that the anti-zergers need to learn to coordinate with their team and learn tactics to stop the rush. The pro-zegers will dismiss arguments for changing up the objectives by saying things will just be a mindless deathmatch, or if you want deathmatch then get out of CW, or that if you want an easier game then go somewhere else.

These counter-arguments are misguided, as a lot of people against the zerging tactic are against it because it is boring and counter to the desire of having cinematic mech-on-mech battles, not because they are unable to learn or that it is too difficult. Most don't want to replace the zerging tactics with deathmatch, they want to replace the zerging tactics with something more thoughtful.

First - There are two effective strategies for stopping the Zerg rush, and several pugs have used them effectively. That they were discovered and used by Units first has no bearing on the argument.
Second - This is a BETA test of the community warfare. The objective is to break the game so that PGI can fix the holes.
Third - Any tactic which works can be used as long as it does not violate the terms of use. Even if it takes away from the game, or exposes weaknesses in the game. Why? We are trying to find the weaknesses and exploits so that PGI can fix them.