Talk:Zerging
Is it zerging to use just 2 characters in conjunction?
No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerging --Spiro 17:56, 8 Sep 2005 (BST)
Agreed. One of the key things that makes a Zerging differ from just a big attack is that the units are intended to be thrown away. It's almost a mass kamikaze attack - if some survive, that's great, but it's just not essential.
In the context of Urban Dead, Zerging attacks would generally be accomplished with newly created characters that are used until they run out of AP and then never logged in to again. That's not to say somebody wouldn't hang on to Zombies created for a zerging, because unlike most games, the units aren't completely lost when they get killed here. --Krenn 18:21, 8 Sep 2005 (BST)
Excellent last edit: I would suggest changing the "Consequences in UD" to "Effects on UD" or somesuch, to avoid confusion. The consequence for being caught doing it is a ban. I also would like to differentiate zerging from multi abuse where zerging is distinguished by using many new (and hence weak) characters, whereas multi abuse refers to any benefit one of multiplie characters derives from the presence of the others. --Markus 18:04, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
wtf is nettrek? I think it's star trek that borg are from. --Radoteur 08:10, 1 Oct 2005 (BST)
- It's an old Star Trek game. The last time I played it was in the mid-90s on an Apple LC and it didn't have any borg, just the Feds, Romulans and Klingons. --dayfat 08:38, 1 Oct 2005 (BST)
- That's right, b/c back in the day NetTrek was written, there were no Borg, the Captain's name was Kirk, the girls wore miniskirts, the klingons were evil dudes with normal foreheads, and we liked it that way. Young whippersnappers don't know any history these days. --F1r3br4nd 13:15, 1 Oct 2005 (BST)
- Has anyone even heard it called "borging" ? --dayfat 14:12, 1 Oct 2005 (BST)
- I've noticed a trend lately of people putting up their pet expressions in the hope they get picked up, i.e. Uncle Istvan. This keeps up, every single concept in the game is going to have four hundred names. --Kazmeyer 14:57, 1 Oct 2005 (BST)
- Has anyone even heard it called "borging" ? --dayfat 14:12, 1 Oct 2005 (BST)
- That's right, b/c back in the day NetTrek was written, there were no Borg, the Captain's name was Kirk, the girls wore miniskirts, the klingons were evil dudes with normal foreheads, and we liked it that way. Young whippersnappers don't know any history these days. --F1r3br4nd 13:15, 1 Oct 2005 (BST)
- It's an old Star Trek game. The last time I played it was in the mid-90s on an Apple LC and it didn't have any borg, just the Feds, Romulans and Klingons. --dayfat 08:38, 1 Oct 2005 (BST)
- Any objections to deleting the paragraph on Borging, then? --LouisB3 19:38, 12 Oct 2005 (BST)
2 other questions
Firstly, isn't it zerging, though, if you have two or more survivor characters who hang or roam together and carry out actions together? Seems like it's still zerging, and it is obviously considered cheating since the game has handicaps it puts on IP addresses where two or more characters are in the same place. So, zerging can't just be about throw-away characters. Two or more that work together longterm from the same user is zerging, isn't it? Personally, I have two survivor characters (I would get rid of one, but they're too high level) and I keep them several blocks apart, don't use them for spying for each other, and I think someone that does is at least borderline cheating, no?
Secondly, is it zerging if all of the characters are zombies? Seems like 'zerging' when all characters involved are zombies in more excuseable than without survivors. --Luigi Galleani M(A)C | M(A)F 17:01, 30 August 2006 (BST)
- I should make that second point/question clearer. It seems to me that a way to help make the game more zombie-based, as many users have apparently long complained it is too slanted, would be to loosen restrictions for zombies, including the IP Limit and Intra-Player Cooperation issues. Frankly, I think zombie characters should have a loosened IP Limit compared to survivors, and I think they should be able to operate as hordes more easily (though I have not done this personally). --Luigi Galleani M(A)C | M(A)F 17:05, 30 August 2006 (BST)
- kekeke --ExplodingFerret 19:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Survivor vs. Zombie
Every time a group manages to hold a building against the Zombies, it's "oh, they only did that because they're dirty zergers!". It's getting tiresome in the extreme. Yes, no doubt there are zergs in the survivor population, and a lot of survivors hunt them down, and tell them to piss off when they see them. But there are also zergers in the zombie community too, the only reason they're not noticed is Zombies are anonymous most of the time, you just can't bloody see Zombguy3 attacking the same block as Zombguy1 and 2, unless you DNA extract the whole bloody horde, or they're silly enough (and some are) to attack the same person (and even then it's not obvious unless you look at the profiles) -- boxy T L PA DA 02:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Zerging is just as bad on the zombie side, it is just harder to detect. With the addition of Ransack, zerging zombies have the advantage over survivors. There is nothing to prevent a player from using one zombie character to break into a building and then use 5+ zombie alts to Dogpile into the now ransacked building. --Kinnison 03:15, 31 May 2007 (BST)
Extinction
I can't find it now, but I believe their official stance is that they're okay with users having multiple characters in the group so long as the characters don't interact. That is, they can't attack the same building or stay in the same suburb. Now, once upon a time there were three zones in NW, SW, and SE (I assume for each person to use three characters, if they liked) but now they're all concentrated in the NW across six suburbs or so.
Charges of outright cheating have dogged them, and from the people in the group I know, that seems unfounded. But as far as zerging goes, they're in a bit of a grey area, and there's room for it to be addressed in the article by people who know more about it than I.--Insomniac By Choice 20:04, 10 August 2007 (BST)
- A large portion of the issue regarding Extinction has to do with the fact that there is evidence of their alts interacting with each other and even being in the same building at the same time.--Karekmaps?! 10:56, 12 August 2007 (BST)
- I'd rather say that the largest portion of the issue regarding Extinction has to do with repeated claims of evidence of multi abuse and zerging that don't seem to ever produce that "evidence". If you've got it let's see it otherwise you're trolling. Recruitment has gone through the roof since we took Calvert Mall, 220 registered on the Extinction Forum and just 140+ listed active in stats. We've got active coordination via IRC, in-game shoutbox and the forums, so if you've caded yourself in a resource building we want then likely as not you're going to be hit by several Extinction members all at once, as well as a bunch of ferals that follow our groans and drags. Lots of annoyed survivors immediately cry "zergs!" when this happens to them but it aint. So ... put your money where your mouth is. --Zeug 11:29, 12 August 2007 (BST)
Editing this page
How is it possible to edit this page now that it is locked? Do I simply wait for it to be unlocked? I would like to add this. Interpreting the game rules - The FAQ states Am I allowed to play multiple characters? You are, provided that they lead completely separate existences within the game - your characters should not collaborate, nor share (or stand outside) the same building. Multiple characters found to be working together in a suspicious fashion will be automatically flagged, penalised or even banned permanently by the system. If you're running a few characters, it's best to make sure that they stay in separate suburbs. This is the only piece of text by Kevan that actually deals with zerging. These words can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Some players who want to fully RP their character, only have one character and frown upon those, who have several. Others feel that a person may have several characters as long as they don't co-operate in any way. This includes exchanging information in a meta-game setting. Some people have several characters, which don't interact in the game, but exchange information outside the game. These characters may also work to further a common goal. According to the generally accepted definition of cheating by the community, the latter style of play amounts to breaking the rules. Opinions vary as to what actually constitutes zerging. The problem is made more difficult by the fact that the games anti-zerg measures do not kick in, if the player keeps his characters a safe distance from each other. The issue is debated. --Poju 17:26, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Actually it's only hotly debated by a handful of groups, the wording of this article has, for years, been the generally accepted definition by the community.--Karekmaps?! 03:46, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- I changed the wording. What do you think?--Poju 12:11, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- The issue really isn't debated though and that article is pandering to a very limited and specific interpretation if worded that way. You're change basically reads as "none of the article means anything if zerg flags don't trigger." There is something in legal terms referred to as a Reasonable Person, which is esentially the views of average people in a society, I think the same can and should be applied here. The article is what a Reasonable Person would consider to be zerging and actually works very well to that standard with the way it is worded now. Not everything needs to show ever single persons input to be fair and balanced or to be neutral when it is the accepted definition of a term.--Karekmaps?! 13:14, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- The alterations would simply and explicitly state that the generally accepted definition (or Reasonable Person) is that certain actions are cheating. The article most definitely does not claim that "none of the article means anything if zerg flags don't trigger." The article, as it is at the moment, offers one interpretation and no room for other interpretations. The wording above would make it known that a certain interpretation is generally accepted but it would also inform the reader that there are other interpretations. The reader would be given information and the possibility to make up his own mind. By the way, The Reasonable Person and his views about this game is a complex matter. People stumble on UD, find the wiki and then start developing into a Reasonable Person, who has views on UD and on what is cheating. These views are almost completely formed by the wiki. This wiki shapes and makes the Reasonable Person and his/her views. If the wiki is full of interpretations passed off as facts, the Reasonable Person will start viewing these interpretations as facts. The article, such as it is, is influencing peoples views on the very subject that it claims to neutrally describe. And, what is even more dangerous, the text is completely oblivious of this.--Poju 14:42, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- You are looking very much in the wrong place. A wiki is based of of Reasonable Person interpretation of everything from it's very nature. The most accepted term is the one defined, that's how this article is written, that is how the rules for vandalism are written, that is how the danger reports are written, that is how a wiki is written. Reasonable Person is always NPOV by it's very nature. This article clearly states that the only thing Kevan has ever said is the statement in the FAQs, it even quotes it, then it goes on to say that most people have interpreted that statement to mean what is currently represented on this page, changing that makes the page POV, not NPOV and expresses a minor and generally unaccepted view/interpretation in a majority way.--Karekmaps?! 17:51, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- Could you clarify? Which place? What do you mean by The most accepted term is the one defined? You failed to understand my point. The Reasonable Person is not NPOV by its very nature. The Reasonable Persons views are shaped by the wiki. The failure to understand this is the cause behind this discussion. The Reasonable Person does not equal NPOV. The new piece of text would make it known that there are varying views and interpretations on this subject. Expressing all views and also expressing how people feel about them is very important and that is what the alteration does. It offers a NPOV presentation of various interpretations. It leaves the judgement call to the wiki reader (The Reasonable Person, who, according to you, would automatically recognize from the article that certain actions are cheating and that some are not). The Reasonable Person reads the presentation and thinks: Ok, that is cheating, that is not. He does not need to be swayed. If he is given the information, he will reach a correct conclusion. The wiki should pass out facts and leave the interpretations to the reader, it should not pass out interpretations.--Poju 08:40, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- The Reasonable Person's views are not shaped by the wiki, the sheep's views are shaped by the wiki, the wiki is shaped by the Reasonable Person's views, not the other way around. There are varying interpretations of any subject, it's unavoidable, some people just like to be contrary for the sake of it and so Reasonable Person is the only real way to qualify NPOV. If the Reasonable Person can Reasonably see the article as neutral then it is neutral enough. Your suggested change simply adds in your views and definitions of what constitutes zerging in a way that disqualifies the accepted views on the subject matter. Most people will agree that Sentinels used in the way mentioned is cheating, most people would also say that using a barricade bot to defend a building and to alert you when the building is fallen is also cheating. There is no real difference between those two examples beyond one being run by a bot, but the bot one is often considered to be blatant cheating and game changes have occurred to counter just that kind of action.
- Oh, and in all of that you forgot, the Reasonable Person understands that a wiki is user written and represents the majority of the communities views on the subject matter, especially when that subject matter is in the main namespace. The Reasonable Person will look at the article and go "So people view that as cheating" not "So that is cheating". This is zerging and cheating as defined by the community, the community at large has accepted these views for 2+ years now without issue until you came along and tried to change it because you don't agree with the articles content, just goes to show that when you read the article you didn't up and change all your views on what cheating is just because it said so, don't assume everyone else does. If you want to express your views and your feelings on those views then that is what the talk pages are for.--Karekmaps?! 14:42, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Okay, A Person stumbles on UD and finds the wiki. At this moment, s/he is in many ways a tabula rasa. S/he has no or very little knowledge about UD, so s/he cannot be at this juncture be labeled The Reasonable Person. A Person, who comes here for the first time is not yet The Reasonable Person. Do you agree?--Poju 15:19, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- I don't agree at all. Everyone has opinions on things, especially cheating. Just because you are new doesn't mean you aren't Reasonable and that you don't know what cheating is, it just means you know less about the nuances of how people try to justify their actions.--Karekmaps?! 15:23, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Okay, let's continue with the tabula rasa. A Person comes to the wiki for the first time. Are you saying that s/he immediately knows, just by reading the game FAQ, what is cheating?--Poju 15:34, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- I don't agree at all. Everyone has opinions on things, especially cheating. Just because you are new doesn't mean you aren't Reasonable and that you don't know what cheating is, it just means you know less about the nuances of how people try to justify their actions.--Karekmaps?! 15:23, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Okay, A Person stumbles on UD and finds the wiki. At this moment, s/he is in many ways a tabula rasa. S/he has no or very little knowledge about UD, so s/he cannot be at this juncture be labeled The Reasonable Person. A Person, who comes here for the first time is not yet The Reasonable Person. Do you agree?--Poju 15:19, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Could you clarify? Which place? What do you mean by The most accepted term is the one defined? You failed to understand my point. The Reasonable Person is not NPOV by its very nature. The Reasonable Persons views are shaped by the wiki. The failure to understand this is the cause behind this discussion. The Reasonable Person does not equal NPOV. The new piece of text would make it known that there are varying views and interpretations on this subject. Expressing all views and also expressing how people feel about them is very important and that is what the alteration does. It offers a NPOV presentation of various interpretations. It leaves the judgement call to the wiki reader (The Reasonable Person, who, according to you, would automatically recognize from the article that certain actions are cheating and that some are not). The Reasonable Person reads the presentation and thinks: Ok, that is cheating, that is not. He does not need to be swayed. If he is given the information, he will reach a correct conclusion. The wiki should pass out facts and leave the interpretations to the reader, it should not pass out interpretations.--Poju 08:40, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- You are looking very much in the wrong place. A wiki is based of of Reasonable Person interpretation of everything from it's very nature. The most accepted term is the one defined, that's how this article is written, that is how the rules for vandalism are written, that is how the danger reports are written, that is how a wiki is written. Reasonable Person is always NPOV by it's very nature. This article clearly states that the only thing Kevan has ever said is the statement in the FAQs, it even quotes it, then it goes on to say that most people have interpreted that statement to mean what is currently represented on this page, changing that makes the page POV, not NPOV and expresses a minor and generally unaccepted view/interpretation in a majority way.--Karekmaps?! 17:51, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- The alterations would simply and explicitly state that the generally accepted definition (or Reasonable Person) is that certain actions are cheating. The article most definitely does not claim that "none of the article means anything if zerg flags don't trigger." The article, as it is at the moment, offers one interpretation and no room for other interpretations. The wording above would make it known that a certain interpretation is generally accepted but it would also inform the reader that there are other interpretations. The reader would be given information and the possibility to make up his own mind. By the way, The Reasonable Person and his views about this game is a complex matter. People stumble on UD, find the wiki and then start developing into a Reasonable Person, who has views on UD and on what is cheating. These views are almost completely formed by the wiki. This wiki shapes and makes the Reasonable Person and his/her views. If the wiki is full of interpretations passed off as facts, the Reasonable Person will start viewing these interpretations as facts. The article, such as it is, is influencing peoples views on the very subject that it claims to neutrally describe. And, what is even more dangerous, the text is completely oblivious of this.--Poju 14:42, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- The issue really isn't debated though and that article is pandering to a very limited and specific interpretation if worded that way. You're change basically reads as "none of the article means anything if zerg flags don't trigger." There is something in legal terms referred to as a Reasonable Person, which is esentially the views of average people in a society, I think the same can and should be applied here. The article is what a Reasonable Person would consider to be zerging and actually works very well to that standard with the way it is worded now. Not everything needs to show ever single persons input to be fair and balanced or to be neutral when it is the accepted definition of a term.--Karekmaps?! 13:14, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- I changed the wording. What do you think?--Poju 12:11, 3 September 2007 (BST)
There's already been a long discussion about this on Poju's talk page. It's not a matter of opinion, it's the game rules. There is only one opinion that counts, and the game rules are clear, "should not collaborate" and "completely separate existences" are the key words The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 14:58 3 September 2007 (BST)
- There is only one opinion that counts, Kevan's. And the game FAQ on zerging, which can be interpreted in a variety of ways, means that we don't know how Kevan wished that text to be interpreted. We have the text and we can interpret it. But that is it. We are simply making interpretations.--Poju 08:48, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Who are you kidding? In this case Kevan's view really doesn't mean anything more than anyone elses beyond that he has more wiki powers. This is a social page about a social construct(what is cheating/zerging). Yeah he can say that he will enforce rules on a certain type of game play, but in the end there is only so much he can do, the rest is up to the game community. As such their views on what is cheating are more important than Kevan's.--Karekmaps?! 15:19, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Kevan's view is very important. He writes the rules of the game. Would you say that what is considered cheating/zerging is a social construct and thus an interpretation of the game rules?--Poju 15:25, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Karek, don't bother arguing with him. You can check his talk page for the discussion where by he constantly denys clear, logical arguments. Poju, many POV does not mean NPOV. The rules are quite clear on zerging, deal with it and leave the article alone. (You edit conflicted me boxy =P) - If Jedaz = 15:04, 3 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- The rules are quite clear on zerging, deal with it A logical argument?--Poju 08:58, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Again you completly misinterpret what I have clearly written. I said on your talk page, not here. - If Jedaz = 09:15, 4 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- Most of the arguments on my talk page resembled the one quoted above. I do not deny arguments, I counter them with other arguments.--Poju 09:29, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Yes you do counter them with other arugments, you counter them with arguments which have been proven to be wrong. Anyway I invite everyone who reads this to make up their own mind about that by reading your talk page. - If Jedaz = 09:37, 4 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- I would like to know which of my my arguments were proven wrong? As for making up their own minds, I think the wiki article should give people information, so that they can make up their own minds.--Poju 09:43, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Theres no point. You have proven that you can't grasp sarcasm, and you don't have any common sense, thus you can't be trusted with anything. - If Jedaz = 14:07, 4 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- You fail to see the sarcasm in my final answer to Cyberbob. As for common sense, you should try reading that part again. Try to see the subtleties in the conversation. I am sure you will notice that my comments were not borne out of a lack of common sense. If people can't be bothered to purge their comments of unfounded allegations or to formulate specific and well thought-out questions, I don't see the need to start pointing out those allegations and correcting them or offering them answers. I can assure you that I have a good grasp of sarcasm and plenty of common sense.--Poju 15:07, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- So I geuss you would say that you were being sarcastic here right? However I must admit that I have inadvertantly been avoiding your real question, and I apologise for that. "Do you agree that zerging is interpreted in a variety of ways and the wiki article should reflect this?" The answer is that it can be interpreted in many ways, however a significant majority interprets it one way. The minority of players who make up the different opinons would be less then 1% of the player base. It is typically those who hold views contrary to the majority are themselves cheaters and are looking for a way to justify it. Of course not all people who hold these views are cheaters. Since there is a largly accepted norm then it is reasonable for the wiki article to reflect this and no other options. That is it. That is my answer. - If Jedaz = 15:46, 4 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- Not really, just moderately fed up with people, who can't answer simple questions.. But I thank You for Your answer. I think we must agree to disagree.--Poju 15:56, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Well what else did you expect? You have little to no contributions on any other page then your own and you wanted to edit a page on a highly contentious issue. Of course people are going to be highly unresponsive to your questions, especialy after you got yourself into an edit war about it. Anyway I suspected that we wouldn't reach a agreement, but thats fine. - If Jedaz = 16:10, 4 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- Not really, just moderately fed up with people, who can't answer simple questions.. But I thank You for Your answer. I think we must agree to disagree.--Poju 15:56, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- So I geuss you would say that you were being sarcastic here right? However I must admit that I have inadvertantly been avoiding your real question, and I apologise for that. "Do you agree that zerging is interpreted in a variety of ways and the wiki article should reflect this?" The answer is that it can be interpreted in many ways, however a significant majority interprets it one way. The minority of players who make up the different opinons would be less then 1% of the player base. It is typically those who hold views contrary to the majority are themselves cheaters and are looking for a way to justify it. Of course not all people who hold these views are cheaters. Since there is a largly accepted norm then it is reasonable for the wiki article to reflect this and no other options. That is it. That is my answer. - If Jedaz = 15:46, 4 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- You fail to see the sarcasm in my final answer to Cyberbob. As for common sense, you should try reading that part again. Try to see the subtleties in the conversation. I am sure you will notice that my comments were not borne out of a lack of common sense. If people can't be bothered to purge their comments of unfounded allegations or to formulate specific and well thought-out questions, I don't see the need to start pointing out those allegations and correcting them or offering them answers. I can assure you that I have a good grasp of sarcasm and plenty of common sense.--Poju 15:07, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Theres no point. You have proven that you can't grasp sarcasm, and you don't have any common sense, thus you can't be trusted with anything. - If Jedaz = 14:07, 4 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- I would like to know which of my my arguments were proven wrong? As for making up their own minds, I think the wiki article should give people information, so that they can make up their own minds.--Poju 09:43, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Yes you do counter them with other arugments, you counter them with arguments which have been proven to be wrong. Anyway I invite everyone who reads this to make up their own mind about that by reading your talk page. - If Jedaz = 09:37, 4 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- Most of the arguments on my talk page resembled the one quoted above. I do not deny arguments, I counter them with other arguments.--Poju 09:29, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Again you completly misinterpret what I have clearly written. I said on your talk page, not here. - If Jedaz = 09:15, 4 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- And that reads as a very different debate than the discussion we are having. For one I'm not accusing him of zerging but explaining why the page is fine as it is and why it is Neutral.--Karekmaps?! 17:56, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- I am just looking for an explanation in to why the addition above would not be ok.--Poju 08:58, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Alrighty then. Well expect to be in this for the long haul. - If Jedaz = 01:32, 4 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- Karek, no one accused him of personally zerging, the discussion on his talk page referred to edits he tried to make to the zerging article (check the history of that page) The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 09:37 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Ok Boxy, I retract my statement and instead put a new one in. I don't want a discussion about certain things mentioned on that page because every time they do get mentioned a bunch of shits come out of the woodwork to try to justify it, and as such I'm going to continue on here completely separate of that discussion.--Karekmaps?! 14:49, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- The rules are quite clear on zerging, deal with it A logical argument?--Poju 08:58, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Who are you kidding? In this case Kevan's view really doesn't mean anything more than anyone elses beyond that he has more wiki powers. This is a social page about a social construct(what is cheating/zerging). Yeah he can say that he will enforce rules on a certain type of game play, but in the end there is only so much he can do, the rest is up to the game community. As such their views on what is cheating are more important than Kevan's.--Karekmaps?! 15:19, 4 September 2007 (BST)
Okay, a simple question to boxy. If I put the above paragraph on the zerging page, will you remove it? If so, on what grounds?--Poju 09:47, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Because provides a multiple POV in which one of the POV is inaccurate regarding the rules. We know that information sharing fall under the zerging rules because Kevan has said so himself after banning the characters involved in the desksergeant setup used by the DHPD. This is nothing new and we do have jurisprudence by Kevan himself on this. While different in the details the overall setup and principle was the same. Multiple characters that didn't physically interact but whose gathered information was used to coordinate actions. the cases fitted the same arguments you supplied as another interpretation and was ruled as zerging by Kevan himself. As your paragraph fails to mention that one interpretation is false and that one side of the debate is primarily argued by a group that has a direct interest in reversing the rules it is clear that it wouldn’t add anything to the article but lower the quality of it instead.-- Vista +1 15:54, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- First of all, THANK YOU!! You are the first person to actually supply me with a lucid, justified and informative answer. THANK YOU AGAIN!! Would it be too much to ask of you to hook me up with some links to this DHPD Desk Sergeant debacle? Especially Kevan's response. I would be very interested in finding out more about it. By the way, should you ever decide to run for God, you can count on my support.--Poju 16:08, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Unfortunately I'm unable to do so. The desksergeant controversy played itself out on the long since defunct desensitized forums, the primary persons involved have since stopped playing UD. There still will be plenty of people who will collaborate my story though. from the top of my head: Jorm, grim s, and hagnat might provide further information. Conndraka was a central player but hasn't been active lately. I doubt many of them will want to spend much time on ancient drama though but if you are really interested it might be worth a try.-- Vista +1 16:22, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- First of all, THANK YOU!! You are the first person to actually supply me with a lucid, justified and informative answer. THANK YOU AGAIN!! Would it be too much to ask of you to hook me up with some links to this DHPD Desk Sergeant debacle? Especially Kevan's response. I would be very interested in finding out more about it. By the way, should you ever decide to run for God, you can count on my support.--Poju 16:08, 4 September 2007 (BST)
Zerging question.
Alright. I know I have on older alt that I don't have the password or E-mail to. By now, he would have been idled out since, at least January. My question is, does the game detect characters who have idled out for it's anti-zerging measures? If so, is there anyway to get aroudn this? --Nitro7Blazer 21:59, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- No, I don't think so... that would be just stupid -- boxy • talk • 10:03 19 September 2007 (BST)
- Boxy is right, once you've idled out the character is effectively gone from the game and doesn't count for anti-zerging measures.-- Evil Vista 17:03, 19 September 2007 (BST)
Another question: I have a character that recently had its hit rate drop very close to 0% for hand attacks with Vigour Mortis, Death Grip, and Tangling Grasp. The first attack will usually hit, but once tangling grasp is in effect, I never hit again. This seems like zerging countermeasures to me, but my only alt is four or five suburbs away. Is it possible that logging on through a public wireless networks has forever linked me to another user who happened to have the same IP at some point in the past? I can easily avoid having my own two characters interact, but there's not much I can do about avoiding another user if I don't know who or where they are.--AusIV 16:04, 30 April 2008 (BST)
- That's the crappy RNG kicking in. --WanYao 08:04, 27 August 2008 (BST)
Edit
Gah, well, accidentally submitted in the middle of my summary. I removed Template:Zergrushkekekekeke2 as it serves no purpose beyond slandering a group, has nothing to do with zerging beyond accusing some people of doing it. Also removed the ZHU link from the main page, there's nothing on it's page related to zerging beyond them having the word Zerg in their name so it was free advertisement.--Karekmaps?! 21:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Revisions
I rewrote the entire first part of the article. But I don't want to go any further with it...
The rationale behind my edits was to get to the important facts, and state them bluntly and explicity. There was just so much rambling on and on about stuff that IMNSHO was really pretty pointless. And some if was simply opinion and thinly veiled ranting... So I got rid of it all. Personally, I think this really needs to be done for the rest of the page: most of the information below the main section doesn't need to be here. What is relevant can probably be chopped down so it takes up about 1/4 of the current space, or less...
That's what I think. But I wanted to open up a discussion before going any further, and try to get some discussion and/or collabotion on the page. Thanks. --WanYao 07:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)
- Or... the "multi-abuse" article and this one are merged. Both subjects are talked about and defined. And examples can be given. And all that stuff. And that makes it easier to just delete all the stuff at the bottom of this page, which I happen to this is very poor quality and low usefulness, anyway... Thoughts on that? --WanYao 08:01, 27 August 2008 (BST)
The creature in the Anti-zerging picture.
Um... That's a hydralisk( http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=Hydralisk ), not a zergling( http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Zergling&gbv=2 ). --PXPK 23:35, 11 September 2008 (BST)
- But is is of the Zerg.--Karekmaps?! 01:38, 15 September 2008 (BST)
- But isn't the term Zerg/Zerging named after the Zergling specifically, because of how fast & cheap they are to make?--PXPK 22:15, 15 September 2008 (BST)
- Its named after the zerg rush, which is typically a dash to the enemy base with 6 zerglings, however before one of the early patches, it was quite possible to do sizable hydralisk rushes as well. The Hydralisk is a symbol of the Zerg. Its easily recognisable. I doubt you'd recognise a picture of a zergling as a zergling. They look fucking weird. --The Grimch U! E! 23:47, 15 September 2008 (BST)
- But isn't the term Zerg/Zerging named after the Zergling specifically, because of how fast & cheap they are to make?--PXPK 22:15, 15 September 2008 (BST)
Doppelgangers
I have just discovered I have a double! Harold von Holzapfel Literally duplicates myself, and is likely yet another MAF zerg, in line with their griefer zerg King Crabapple. This is doubtless one of there many underhand attempts to undermine/discredit/slander the Crabapple Estate. There is also a Lord Crapappleand a Babbette Babe. At the moment, I am (as far as I know) the only member of the Crabapple Estate active! Is there any way to register these fakes? I do not wish to be accused of zerging, as the creation of the Harold (with an o) is doubtless designed for--Harald von Holzapfel 13:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
And I have seen Ivana Tinkel. Nobody replies to these messages, then?--Harald von Holzapfel 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are better off talking to the anti-zerging vigilantes directly. Zerging lists arn't organised through this wiki -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:07 27 November 2008 (BST)
I don't know...
Fully upgraded zerglings can rape shit if you know what you're doing.-- SA 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Anti-Zerging Measures...
...will be tripped if characters are at least two suburbs apart. Let it be known. Three suburbs or more might be a better distance...Although I find it odd. Not once have I tripped those measures at two suburbs length. Did Kevan update the anti-zerging measures or something? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 02:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The Dead
...don't know if zerging is involved but these names / joined dates stand out: KareemAbdulJaBrains, KobeBrains, LeBrainJames, ShaKillONeal ...NBA players (Kareem Abdul Jabar, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Shaquille O'neal) for anyone who does not see the connection. → TheSonOfSin ← 01:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Creation Limit
So, me and a friend were discussing how to best combat future impersonators, and came up with the idea to hijack an IP address we don't play UD on, make the possible impersonation accounts of ourselves, and have those accounts jump out the windows of tall buildings never to be used again. My friend just tested that theory, and as much success as it was (the password being a bunch of mumble jumbo from just literally smashing random keys on the keyboard without looking), they were stopped by a character creation limit after making 4 possible impersonation accounts of themselves. We should probably make note somewhere that there is a limit to how many characters any single IP address can create. For now, I think that limit is per day, but I'm not too sure. Further tests will need to be conducted in probably a hourly basis (it's been about 30 minutes already and my friend is still unable to continue creating possible impersonation accounts of themselves). So yea, this needs to be added into the list of countermeasures. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:57, 16 April 2012 (BST)
- Didn't somebody do loads of character creation research a while back (Rosslessness?) If so then they might have an idea about the character creation limits.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 14:17, 16 April 2012 (BST)
- Yeah I seem to remember this topic discussed somewhere on the wiki as well. Probably good for inclusion on the Alt article but Zerging will work as well. I think its an anti-alt abuse counter measure that's been in place for a while its just rarely encountered or discussed. ~
16:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ross has made many an account in the past. Oh man, we'd have the best advice on this in the world, if only we didn't ban Oberst. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:01, 16 April 2012 (BST)
- Yeah, Ross wrote the book on Spawning so if there is any other legit player that has encountered this in the past, he's probably the one. ~ 17:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, Ross wrote the book on Spawning so if there is any other legit player that has encountered this in the past, he's probably the one. ~
- Ross has made many an account in the past. Oh man, we'd have the best advice on this in the world, if only we didn't ban Oberst. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:01, 16 April 2012 (BST)
- Yeah I seem to remember this topic discussed somewhere on the wiki as well. Probably good for inclusion on the Alt article but Zerging will work as well. I think its an anti-alt abuse counter measure that's been in place for a while its just rarely encountered or discussed. ~
- There has been more research on this done by ZHU. We didn't publish our results here for what should be obvious reasons. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:25, 18 April 2012 (BST)
- Which has always been how this page has generally been treated. Complicated abuse mechanics like name similarity levels and accounts under that flag before a creation block have usually been intentionally omitted from the wiki as that'd make them somewhat less effective. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 12:38, 18 April 2012 (BST)
Cornholioo
Forgot all of the editing codes →Son of Sin← 06:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
