Well the good thing is that death has a penalty with longer travel time, a low cost horse isnt that much faster in comparison to sprinting with a character.
You can use forward tents, players can buy this for pvp currency and around 20 people can spawn. But there is another risk again, enemies can destroy them i.e. sneaking classes, small groups who infiltrate and so on.
The 50+ player hitting gate in GW2 is really just a misunderstanding by people who don't play gw2.
Numbers always win. And they will too in ESO. The tale of the battle of Thermopylae, 300 against tenths of thousands, is just a tale. And they still all got killed at the end.
The "tale" of Alexander the Great defeating the Persian army many times the size of his army is more than just a tale, it's factual history.
Sure, give me steel weapons and the enemy only wooden spears, and I will win too. Problem is, in MMORPGs, the sides are (relatively) balanced, so technological advance doesn't work.
Factual history, too.
We'll talk about it again after release... or we won't, because I never post on forums of games I do not play. Only reason I still post is because I'm still in the closed beta and hope for changes (which most likely won't happen now). But I'll read it. Will be fun.
Not to digress too much from the conversation but some may find this interesting and does show larger numbers don't always win (even if technology is similar) the day over superior tactics...
I would point to Hanibal and the battle of Cannae which took place on 2 August 216 BC in southeast Italy. Hanibal with 45,000 troops whereas the Romans troops were around 85,000 (estimated). Hanibal won the battle with minimal losses and 70,000 Romans lost their lives. It was the first documented use of the double-envelopment technique in battle.
Now, only if ESO has collision detection this would actually be possible; however the premiss still holds true in that tactics can overcome numbers in the real world and hopefully ESO AvAvA is implemented in a way that this is possible.
Larger maps actually make it easier for zergs to dominate. If the keeps actually took a lot of time to take, you might have a point. Because the keeps can be taken over so rapidly in this game and there is no way to respond in time, zergs have an even larger advantage than they did in GW2.
You can fast travel to friendly keeps and gates so the defender has the speed advantage. If a zerg runs for 20 minutes across the map the defenders can get back easily.
Rezing in this game is not easy so if a zerg mindless rushes in and losses people, it is much harder for them to keep their numbers high and maintain momentum.
Your concern about capture speed is valid, but the beta footage being shown is rarely from the perspective of a defender, and I suspect that the keeps that go down fast are undefended. If there were people there using counter siege and repairing the structures I imagine it will take a lot longer to capture.
For me, if PvP doesn't continue after the battle, everywhere you go, then it's really not PvP. It is pvp, but it's arena style - even if the arena is huge.
PvP is when you're out doing your normal things, getting resources, farming mobs, killing bosses, or what not, and you have to watch for the "other guys". They don't wear red, green, and blue jerseys and they don't automatically flag reg to warn you. The factions are made up of guilds and alliances that are ever changing due to politics. They don't necessarily even attack you. You have to be on your toes and always watching. There is always a tension. To me, that is pvp.
I like GW2 WvW, but that style of pvp is more like an intramural sport. The same with what I've seen of ESO. It looks fun enough, but not what I would call pvp-centric at all.
It's a different kind of PvP, not FFA. If you're looking for a Darkfall kind of game, then this isnt the one.
But i prefer the way ESO handels it, when PvP and PvE areas are seperated. It's like in Daoc. Faction vs Faction on a huge permanent map.
GW2 essentially has ZERO consequences when it comes to dying. Literally every player can rezz and every player can instantly pop back into battle.. no fuss, no muss.
Nice amount of misinformation to start the post. You die, you respawn far away from action, with a loooong run back and also some repair bills to your equipment.
2) GW2 is basically just a tournament, while ESO is more of a full scale war. In GW2, you have small, rotating instances and all pvp progress gets wiped after a small interval of time. It's basically an E-Sport (GW2) vs. a War (ESO) experience. I don't know about you, but e-sports are boring to me and they break immersion.
ESO is just the latest "new kid on the blocks". ESO's PvP in a zone is no different from GW2's PvP in a zone, people see the new "DAOC messiah" in every new game with PvP, and we all know how it ends.
3) GW2 is way too damn laggy, whereas I hear that ESO is far more performant with hundreds of players on the screen. I seriously doubt that GW2 will ever change since they took the WRONG PATH of the F2P model. There's no incentive to invest huge amounts of money to improve performance like there would be with a subscription model.
Can't say anything about ESO because of the NDA, sadly, but GW2 is way more performant for large scale battles than any other MMORPG with similar graphic quality.
Definitely looking forward to the RvR in ESO. It was built by former DaoC developers, and these guys know PvP unlike pretty much every other MMO in the market.
I'm going to enjoy April just reading this board. The return to reality will be very harsh. It's going to be fun to read all the "RvR is just a zerg!" posts here. What goes around comes around.
I find it interesting that you start your rebuttal claiming his post is full of misinformation - when yours is filled with even more of it or offers nothing but troll comments. The only 2 points you really made minus the troll are completely wrong - the only way your run times are long is if you don't control keeps or have a horse and the performance in ESO trumps GW2 by a long shot, while having it all in one large zone as opposed to being separated off. Which is discussed in detail here:
The map is WAY larger. This alone will prevent zerging since you can no longer run anywhere on the map in 1 minute.
Your faction can 'win' by becoming emperor AND by stealing enemy realm scrolls.
Long travel times and inconvenient spawn locations are a GOOD thing and were a STAPLE of DAOC.
Larger maps actually make it easier for zergs to dominate. If the keeps actually took a lot of time to take, you might have a point. Because the keeps can be taken over so rapidly in this game and there is no way to respond in time, zergs have an even larger advantage than they did in GW2.
Yes, but zergs wouldn't be able to completely dominate with a larger map like they would with GW2. This is because it would take far too long for a zerg to jump back and forth between keeps and give smaller groups time to assault and take keeps of their own. With smaller maps, the biggest zerg on the map could respond everywhere in a moment's notice.
In ESO there is only 1 map. In GW2 there are 4 (5 now?). ESOs one map is larger, but there are FAR fewer points to attack overall. This gives the zergs another advantage.
When you say that a zerg would not be able to respond to a small group taking a keep, you just aren't thinking long term enough. The zerg will just casually saunter over and recap whatever keep the small group took and completely decimate them, throwing them back to some far away rez point and the zerg will continue zerging and actually be closer to their next objective.
Can a semi-small group take a keep when one of a couple of zergs aren't looking? Yeah, probably for a few minutes. But in the end, there is a massive advantage (an even bigger advantage in this game than in GW2) to rolling with zergs in this type of PvP.
I feel like fans of the game are trying to attack zerg mechanics in a game that is completely based around them. Why are people so desperate to prove that the zergs are not going to be a huge part of the PvP system in this game? There are going to be zergs. There are going to be occasional large scale battles because of them. Small scale stuff will happen, but it just won't make as big a difference to the overall objective.
I thnk overall they got more right then GW2 did, but that's just natural because they had GW2 to learn from also. The biggest thing to me is the lack of the ridiculous aoe caps that GW2 had. Combine that with no rallying, and I think it will very much be possible for smaller, well skilled groups to take out larger mindless zergs.
I am curious how the Cyrodiil instances will work. Do you get to choose which one to go to, or will it just select for you? How will they distribute players over them so they are balanced?
From what has been displayed publicly and from personal experience (without getting into specifics)
ESO:
- Great performance (best I've 'seen' thus far)
GW2:
- Better mechanics
Personally having done a lot WvW in GW2, I have to say its just better designed in so many ways. (I quit after a couple of months, so I don't really care about all the nerfs/changes etc they made since then)
Currently waiting for the MMO industry to put out something good.
Yes, but zergs wouldn't be able to completely dominate with a larger map like they would with GW2. This is because it would take far too long for a zerg to jump back and forth between keeps and give smaller groups time to assault and take keeps of their own. With smaller maps, the biggest zerg on the map could respond everywhere in a moment's notice.
In ESO there is only 1 map. In GW2 there are 4 (5 now?). ESOs one map is larger, but there are FAR fewer points to attack overall. This gives the zergs another advantage.
When you say that a zerg would not be able to respond to a small group taking a keep, you just aren't thinking long term enough. The zerg will just casually saunter over and recap whatever keep the small group took and completely decimate them, throwing them back to some far away rez point and the zerg will continue zerging and actually be closer to their next objective.
Can a semi-small group take a keep when one of a couple of zergs aren't looking? Yeah, probably for a few minutes. But in the end, there is a massive advantage (an even bigger advantage in this game than in GW2) to rolling with zergs in this type of PvP.
I feel like fans of the game are trying to attack zerg mechanics in a game that is completely based around them. Why are people so desperate to prove that the zergs are not going to be a huge part of the PvP system in this game? There are going to be zergs. There are going to be occasional large scale battles because of them. Small scale stuff will happen, but it just won't make as big a difference to the overall objective.
Tactics is the name of the game here. If you have this huge zerg that your side simply can't take head-on, you play a little cat and mouse with it. You divide your forces into the A team and the B team. The A team takes this keep in a corner of the map while the B team takes another Keep in another corner of the map. While the zerg lumbers toward team A, team B attacks another Keep and team A moves out of the way of hurricane Zerg to another Keep. The idea is to play this game long enough until the Zerg finally decides to split itself in two to more effectively cover the map. Then you could strategically combine forces with team A and B to attack the weaker half of the zerg.
The point is, a larger map makes tactics like this possible much more so than a smaller map.
The map is WAY larger. This alone will prevent zerging since you can no longer run anywhere on the map in 1 minute.
Your faction can 'win' by becoming emperor AND by stealing enemy realm scrolls.
Long travel times and inconvenient spawn locations are a GOOD thing and were a STAPLE of DAOC.
Larger maps actually make it easier for zergs to dominate. If the keeps actually took a lot of time to take, you might have a point. Because the keeps can be taken over so rapidly in this game and there is no way to respond in time, zergs have an even larger advantage than they did in GW2.
There is a way to respond in time, you just need to have people scouting the front lines for major enemy movements. It is also easier to defend a keep than to take it due to how the walls are aligned. Most keeps are surrounded by flatlands, making it difficult and often impossible for attackers to set up ballistas (anti-siege) that can hit the defender's ballistas on the walls. In theory as long as you have 25-35 defenders you should be able to defend against any number of attackers as long as you get steady reinforcments and have enough ballistas to take out trebuchets. When I was playing late night it took us 5-7 minutes to take a keep that was completely undefended.
It is inevitable that zergs will still dominate unorganized campaigns, but properly splitting up defense and offense will easily outdo a zerg.
Tactics is the name of the game here. If you have this huge zerg that your side simply can't take head-on, you play a little cat and mouse with it. You divide your forces into the A team and the B team. The A team takes this keep in a corner of the map while the B team takes another Keep in another corner of the map. While the zerg lumbers toward team A, team B attacks another Keep and team A moves out of the way of hurricane Zerg to another Keep. The idea is to play this game long enough until the Zerg finally decides to split itself in two to more effectively cover the map. Then you could strategically combine forces with team A and B to attack the weaker half of the zerg.
The point is, a larger map make tactics like this possible much more so than a smaller map.
All the tactics you explained are used in GW2 on some of the better servers. And it assumes that people are on the same page and actually listen to each other.
Larger maps do not make tactics more possible. Actually, a larger amount of objectives is probably a lot better for the overall health of large scale tactical gameplay. GW2 actually has an enormous advantage in this respect if you want to avoid zergs for whatever reason. AvA has fewer objectives and therefor fewer opportunities to do what you are describing.
And like GW2, part of the problem is that people actually have different opinions about how things should be handled. People won't listen to anyone and people will just do it for the fast Alliance points. Tactics are nice if you can get a few hundred people that don't know each other on the same page, but in practice it rarely ever happens.
There are some key improvements in the ESO system over GW2. Like forts that are linked so you can't flip them across the entire map.
That said, it's far too early to tell. For example: you can't predict what effect nightcapping will have in the release, or whether or not the zerging will lose its charm at later levels.
ESO also has some problems that carry over from the rest of the game into pvp.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
You can also see peoples names from the enemy faction, instead of everyone being a random Ring Of Fire invader. You can also avenge peoples deaths and get a cool little message across the screen.
Originally posted by Damedius Well in massive battles people don't disappear from your screen like they do in GW2.
this was fixed long time ago
And dolyaks in GW2? You could kill them and make more points for the server than holding a keep made. Early in the game they disabled the rewards for them but they still gave points for kills. While everyone else was zerging in that game I earned more points killing the enemy dolyaks. I put it on the forum for them to know about but people just acted like they weren't able to do basic math and the zergs continued.
Larger maps actually make it easier for zergs to dominate. If the keeps actually took a lot of time to take, you might have a point. Because the keeps can be taken over so rapidly in this game and there is no way to respond in time, zergs have an even larger advantage than they did in GW2.
Yes, but zergs wouldn't be able to completely dominate with a larger map like they would with a smaller one. This is because it would take far too long for a zerg to jump back and forth between keeps and give smaller groups time to assault and take keeps of their own. With smaller maps, the biggest zerg on the map could respond everywhere in a moment's notice. The only way they could be everywhere at once with a larger map is if they split up, which is kind of the idea.
Don't you see? ESO player capacity pr map is 5-6 time larger then GW2.
So instead of 1x600+ player zerg you would have 5-6x 100+ player Zergs in ESO which equals to Biggest GW2 Zerg.
So in the end it's going to be Zerg Wars in ESO only on a much larger scale then in GW2.
If you really believe Zergs won't dominate ESO? - you are walking in to the largest Trap of your MMO expereince.
Larger maps actually make it easier for zergs to dominate. If the keeps actually took a lot of time to take, you might have a point. Because the keeps can be taken over so rapidly in this game and there is no way to respond in time, zergs have an even larger advantage than they did in GW2.
Yes, but zergs wouldn't be able to completely dominate with a larger map like they would with a smaller one. This is because it would take far too long for a zerg to jump back and forth between keeps and give smaller groups time to assault and take keeps of their own. With smaller maps, the biggest zerg on the map could respond everywhere in a moment's notice. The only way they could be everywhere at once with a larger map is if they split up, which is kind of the idea.
Don't you see? ESO player capacity pr map is 5-6 time larger then GW2.
So instead of 1x600+ player zerg you would have 5-6x 100+ player Zergs in ESO which equals to Biggest GW2 Zerg.
So in the end it's going to be Zerg Wars in ESO only on a much larger scale then in GW2.
If you really believe Zergs won't dominate ESO? - you are walking in to the largest Trap of your MMO expereince.
Just because the map is bigger, does not mean its gonna be "zergeyer."
Larger maps actually make it easier for zergs to dominate. If the keeps actually took a lot of time to take, you might have a point. Because the keeps can be taken over so rapidly in this game and there is no way to respond in time, zergs have an even larger advantage than they did in GW2.
Yes, but zergs wouldn't be able to completely dominate with a larger map like they would with a smaller one. This is because it would take far too long for a zerg to jump back and forth between keeps and give smaller groups time to assault and take keeps of their own. With smaller maps, the biggest zerg on the map could respond everywhere in a moment's notice. The only way they could be everywhere at once with a larger map is if they split up, which is kind of the idea.
Don't you see? ESO player capacity pr map is 5-6 time larger then GW2.
So instead of 1x600+ player zerg you would have 5-6x 100+ player Zergs in ESO which equals to Biggest GW2 Zerg.
So in the end it's going to be Zerg Wars in ESO only on a much larger scale then in GW2.
If you really believe Zergs won't dominate ESO? - you are walking in to the largest Trap of your MMO expereince.
The biggest complaint people have about Zergs is the imbalance. So why do numbers even matter when there will clearly be more numbers on each of the three sides? If anything, supporting larger numbers is PREFERRED since the battles will be more epic than your typical throwaway MMO that has a bunch of smaller instances. It puts the MMO back in mmorpg. It basically comes down to this philosophical question: Would you rather have a Tennis Match (your typical MMO) or an epic War (daoc, eso, and in the future CU)?
Larger maps actually make it easier for zergs to dominate. If the keeps actually took a lot of time to take, you might have a point. Because the keeps can be taken over so rapidly in this game and there is no way to respond in time, zergs have an even larger advantage than they did in GW2.
Yes, but zergs wouldn't be able to completely dominate with a larger map like they would with a smaller one. This is because it would take far too long for a zerg to jump back and forth between keeps and give smaller groups time to assault and take keeps of their own. With smaller maps, the biggest zerg on the map could respond everywhere in a moment's notice. The only way they could be everywhere at once with a larger map is if they split up, which is kind of the idea.
Don't you see? ESO player capacity pr map is 5-6 time larger then GW2.
So instead of 1x600+ player zerg you would have 5-6x 100+ player Zergs in ESO which equals to Biggest GW2 Zerg.
So in the end it's going to be Zerg Wars in ESO only on a much larger scale then in GW2.
If you really believe Zergs won't dominate ESO? - you are walking in to the largest Trap of your MMO expereince.
So if one team is equal number to the other team (which is what the system is supposed to be designed to accomplish. tbd if it actually works), then what's the problem? Your 'zerg' defends against their 'zerg'. Your 'zergs' split up to 'zerg' other 'zergs'.
(in b4 grammar police learn you misspelled a word. oh the horror!)
Don't you see? ESO player capacity pr map is 5-6 time larger then GW2.
So instead of 1x600+ player zerg you would have 5-6x 100+ player Zergs in ESO which equals to Biggest GW2 Zerg.
So in the end it's going to be Zerg Wars in ESO only on a much larger scale then in GW2.
If you really believe Zergs won't dominate ESO? - you are walking in to the largest Trap of your MMO expereince.
The biggest complaint people have about Zergs is the imbalance. So why do numbers even matter when there will clearly be more numbers on each of the three sides? If anything, supporting larger numbers is PREFERRED since the battles will be more epic than your typical throwaway MMO that has a bunch of smaller instances. It puts the MMO back in mmorpg. It basically comes down to this philosophical question: Would you rather have a Tennis Match (your typical MMO) or an epic War (daoc, eso, and in the future CU)?
The problem with epic Wars - is coverage. When max capacity is 600 players pr side, it's harder to get replacement for different Timezones ( NA, EU, Oceanic - assuming Cyrodiil is 24/7 Instance). So you can end up with one side having perfect 24/7 coeverage ( that's what people would try to do) and other sides suffering heavy lack of players. ( like 400 vs 200 vs 50 )
ESO will suffer heavily from it. Mark my words. It was a problem in GW2 - it will be an even bigger problem in ESO.
Originally posted by Azzras
So if one team is equal number to the other team (which is what the system is supposed to be designed to accomplish. tbd if it actually works), then what's the problem? Your 'zerg' defends against their 'zerg'. Your 'zergs' split up to 'zerg' other 'zergs'.
(in b4 grammar police learn you misspelled a word. oh the horror!)
It's not so easy to man 600 players - since Cyrodill is also a mix of PvE and PvP ( which is imho a really bad idea ), a lot of players will not take part in your Sieges Warfare. So we are looking at great disbalance in the forces for each side.
Comments
I don't think it's an issue of being casual or not ,,,most folks just aren't interested in 100% pvp
So in a nutshell:
A vast majority of those who have played ESO love the Cyrodiil Campaign...
A vast majority of those who have played both ESO and GW2 say the enjoy Cyrodill Campaign more (much more)...
Those that have only played GW2 think it's the same experience.
Those that have not played either find the topic interesting.
common....
https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/wuv/wuv/Gate-wall-attacking
Not to digress too much from the conversation but some may find this interesting and does show larger numbers don't always win (even if technology is similar) the day over superior tactics...
I would point to Hanibal and the battle of Cannae which took place on 2 August 216 BC in southeast Italy. Hanibal with 45,000 troops whereas the Romans troops were around 85,000 (estimated). Hanibal won the battle with minimal losses and 70,000 Romans lost their lives. It was the first documented use of the double-envelopment technique in battle.
Now, only if ESO has collision detection this would actually be possible; however the premiss still holds true in that tactics can overcome numbers in the real world and hopefully ESO AvAvA is implemented in a way that this is possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae
You can fast travel to friendly keeps and gates so the defender has the speed advantage. If a zerg runs for 20 minutes across the map the defenders can get back easily.
Rezing in this game is not easy so if a zerg mindless rushes in and losses people, it is much harder for them to keep their numbers high and maintain momentum.
Your concern about capture speed is valid, but the beta footage being shown is rarely from the perspective of a defender, and I suspect that the keeps that go down fast are undefended. If there were people there using counter siege and repairing the structures I imagine it will take a lot longer to capture.
It's a different kind of PvP, not FFA. If you're looking for a Darkfall kind of game, then this isnt the one.
But i prefer the way ESO handels it, when PvP and PvE areas are seperated. It's like in Daoc. Faction vs Faction on a huge permanent map.
I find it interesting that you start your rebuttal claiming his post is full of misinformation - when yours is filled with even more of it or offers nothing but troll comments. The only 2 points you really made minus the troll are completely wrong - the only way your run times are long is if you don't control keeps or have a horse and the performance in ESO trumps GW2 by a long shot, while having it all in one large zone as opposed to being separated off. Which is discussed in detail here:
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/view/news/read/30068/Elder-Scrolls-Online-The-Alliance-War-Gets-It-Right.html
In ESO there is only 1 map. In GW2 there are 4 (5 now?). ESOs one map is larger, but there are FAR fewer points to attack overall. This gives the zergs another advantage.
When you say that a zerg would not be able to respond to a small group taking a keep, you just aren't thinking long term enough. The zerg will just casually saunter over and recap whatever keep the small group took and completely decimate them, throwing them back to some far away rez point and the zerg will continue zerging and actually be closer to their next objective.
Can a semi-small group take a keep when one of a couple of zergs aren't looking? Yeah, probably for a few minutes. But in the end, there is a massive advantage (an even bigger advantage in this game than in GW2) to rolling with zergs in this type of PvP.
I feel like fans of the game are trying to attack zerg mechanics in a game that is completely based around them. Why are people so desperate to prove that the zergs are not going to be a huge part of the PvP system in this game? There are going to be zergs. There are going to be occasional large scale battles because of them. Small scale stuff will happen, but it just won't make as big a difference to the overall objective.
I thnk overall they got more right then GW2 did, but that's just natural because they had GW2 to learn from also. The biggest thing to me is the lack of the ridiculous aoe caps that GW2 had. Combine that with no rallying, and I think it will very much be possible for smaller, well skilled groups to take out larger mindless zergs.
I am curious how the Cyrodiil instances will work. Do you get to choose which one to go to, or will it just select for you? How will they distribute players over them so they are balanced?
From what has been displayed publicly and from personal experience (without getting into specifics)
ESO:
- Great performance (best I've 'seen' thus far)
GW2:
- Better mechanics
Personally having done a lot WvW in GW2, I have to say its just better designed in so many ways. (I quit after a couple of months, so I don't really care about all the nerfs/changes etc they made since then)
Tactics is the name of the game here. If you have this huge zerg that your side simply can't take head-on, you play a little cat and mouse with it. You divide your forces into the A team and the B team. The A team takes this keep in a corner of the map while the B team takes another Keep in another corner of the map. While the zerg lumbers toward team A, team B attacks another Keep and team A moves out of the way of hurricane Zerg to another Keep. The idea is to play this game long enough until the Zerg finally decides to split itself in two to more effectively cover the map. Then you could strategically combine forces with team A and B to attack the weaker half of the zerg.
The point is, a larger map makes tactics like this possible much more so than a smaller map.
There is a way to respond in time, you just need to have people scouting the front lines for major enemy movements. It is also easier to defend a keep than to take it due to how the walls are aligned. Most keeps are surrounded by flatlands, making it difficult and often impossible for attackers to set up ballistas (anti-siege) that can hit the defender's ballistas on the walls. In theory as long as you have 25-35 defenders you should be able to defend against any number of attackers as long as you get steady reinforcments and have enough ballistas to take out trebuchets. When I was playing late night it took us 5-7 minutes to take a keep that was completely undefended.
It is inevitable that zergs will still dominate unorganized campaigns, but properly splitting up defense and offense will easily outdo a zerg.
this was fixed long time ago
All the tactics you explained are used in GW2 on some of the better servers. And it assumes that people are on the same page and actually listen to each other.
Larger maps do not make tactics more possible. Actually, a larger amount of objectives is probably a lot better for the overall health of large scale tactical gameplay. GW2 actually has an enormous advantage in this respect if you want to avoid zergs for whatever reason. AvA has fewer objectives and therefor fewer opportunities to do what you are describing.
And like GW2, part of the problem is that people actually have different opinions about how things should be handled. People won't listen to anyone and people will just do it for the fast Alliance points. Tactics are nice if you can get a few hundred people that don't know each other on the same page, but in practice it rarely ever happens.
There are some key improvements in the ESO system over GW2. Like forts that are linked so you can't flip them across the entire map.
That said, it's far too early to tell. For example: you can't predict what effect nightcapping will have in the release, or whether or not the zerging will lose its charm at later levels.
ESO also has some problems that carry over from the rest of the game into pvp.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
You can also see peoples names from the enemy faction, instead of everyone being a random Ring Of Fire invader. You can also avenge peoples deaths and get a cool little message across the screen.
A good pvper might become more known.
Don't you see? ESO player capacity pr map is 5-6 time larger then GW2.
So instead of 1x600+ player zerg you would have 5-6x 100+ player Zergs in ESO which equals to Biggest GW2 Zerg.
So in the end it's going to be Zerg Wars in ESO only on a much larger scale then in GW2.
If you really believe Zergs won't dominate ESO? - you are walking in to the largest Trap of your MMO expereince.
Just because the map is bigger, does not mean its gonna be "zergeyer."
Logic is more complex than that.
The biggest complaint people have about Zergs is the imbalance. So why do numbers even matter when there will clearly be more numbers on each of the three sides? If anything, supporting larger numbers is PREFERRED since the battles will be more epic than your typical throwaway MMO that has a bunch of smaller instances. It puts the MMO back in mmorpg. It basically comes down to this philosophical question: Would you rather have a Tennis Match (your typical MMO) or an epic War (daoc, eso, and in the future CU)?
So if one team is equal number to the other team (which is what the system is supposed to be designed to accomplish. tbd if it actually works), then what's the problem? Your 'zerg' defends against their 'zerg'. Your 'zergs' split up to 'zerg' other 'zergs'.
(in b4 grammar police learn you misspelled a word. oh the horror!)
The problem with epic Wars - is coverage. When max capacity is 600 players pr side, it's harder to get replacement for different Timezones ( NA, EU, Oceanic - assuming Cyrodiil is 24/7 Instance). So you can end up with one side having perfect 24/7 coeverage ( that's what people would try to do) and other sides suffering heavy lack of players. ( like 400 vs 200 vs 50 )
ESO will suffer heavily from it. Mark my words. It was a problem in GW2 - it will be an even bigger problem in ESO.
It's not so easy to man 600 players - since Cyrodill is also a mix of PvE and PvP ( which is imho a really bad idea ), a lot of players will not take part in your Sieges Warfare. So we are looking at great disbalance in the forces for each side.