Barrier needs a nerf

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · May 2015

Sure you can negate my barrier if negate only affects 6 people (closest to the centre) like every other ulti.

Tbh as someone who runs in 24 groups and 12/8 groups I would prefer it if barrier got a distance based nerf rather than a number of players. So instead of 8?m make it 4m radius. This would 1 make it hit less players and 2 the players it did hit would have to stack more making them vulnerable to dive tactics that all small scale groups use.

ToRelax · May 2015

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Sure you can negate my barrier if negate only affects 6 people (closest to the centre) like every other ulti.

Tbh as someone who runs in 24 groups and 12/8 groups I would prefer it if barrier got a distance based nerf rather than a number of players. So instead of 8?m make it 4m radius. This would 1 make it hit less players and 2 the players it did hit would have to stack more making them vulnerable to dive tactics that all small scale groups use.

An incentive to stack up more?
Yes, that's exactly what we needed...

Garion · May 2015

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Sure you can negate my barrier if negate only affects 6 people (closest to the centre) like every other ulti.

Tbh as someone who runs in 24 groups and 12/8 groups I would prefer it if barrier got a distance based nerf rather than a number of players. So instead of 8?m make it 4m radius. This would 1 make it hit less players and 2 the players it did hit would have to stack more making them vulnerable to dive tactics that all small scale groups use.

Have to agree with @ToRelax on this one, Iza. Reducing the radius will do nothing more than force these blobs to blob up even tighter which is exactly what I am trying to avoid with the idea of nerfing this skill in the first place.

Sacadon · May 2015

Fundamentally, I'm pro-group and group synergistic skills. Remove these and it's solo PvP solely. However unrealistic it may be, ZOS is on the hook to fix lag, not us.

We need skills that players can use to make grouping costly/risky (infallible detonation) and skills that make it profitable like purge and barrier.

Let's leave purge and barrier alone (these have been fine-enough since day one) and improve upon and add more counter measures, like infallible detonation and siege. We've very few of these.

We play way too much whack-a-mole trying to hammer down a skill when players figure out to use it well instead of ensuring appropriate countermeasures. Exceptions frequently apply yes.

Garion · May 2015

Sacadon wrote: »

Fundamentally, I'm pro-group and group synergistic skills. Remove these and it's solo PvP solely. However unrealistic it may be, ZOS is on the hook to fix lag, not us.

We need skills that players can use to make grouping costly/risky (infallible detonation) and skills that make it profitable like purge and barrier.

Let's leave purge and barrier alone (these have been fine-enough since day one) and improve upon and add more counter measures, like infallible detonation and siege. We've very few of these.

We play way too much whack-a-mole trying to hammer down a skill when players figure out to use it well instead of ensuring appropriate countermeasures. Exceptions frequently apply yes.

What you don't seem to realise that things like inevitable detonation and siege only make the zerg stronger. Yes, my group of 8 can coordinate our detonations and do some damage. But guess what, that group of 24 can coordinate MORE detonations and do MORE damage while at the same time having a lot more heal and support. The det skill, which was touted as a "zerg buster" is a complete failure in that respect.

The same applies to siege. My 8 man can afford maybe one person on siege. That 24 man group... well we can spare four or or five and again, still have plenty of people to output damage and heal. Buffing things like siege etc only strengthens the zerg. In fact, buffs in general only serve to empower large groups which is definitely a bad thing in the current meta where the zerg reigns supreme.

Therefore, nerfing skills that enable the zerg is the only option we are left with. A if only have of the raid rotate barriers you still have an INSANE amount of shield you have to burst through and doing so only serves to lengthen these so called "bomb offs" which results in unbearable server lag.

If they are going to buff things like prox det and siege, they need to do so in a way that will not impact smaller groups and pigeon-hole people into zerging. I.e. they need to do things like make the damage of prox det scale off of the number of people it hits.

Sacadon · May 2015

Garion wrote: »

Sacadon wrote: »

Fundamentally, I'm pro-group and group synergistic skills. Remove these and it's solo PvP solely. However unrealistic it may be, ZOS is on the hook to fix lag, not us.

We need skills that players can use to make grouping costly/risky (infallible detonation) and skills that make it profitable like purge and barrier.

Let's leave purge and barrier alone (these have been fine-enough since day one) and improve upon and add more counter measures, like infallible detonation and siege. We've very few of these.

We play way too much whack-a-mole trying to hammer down a skill when players figure out to use it well instead of ensuring appropriate countermeasures. Exceptions frequently apply yes.

What you don't seem to realise that things like inevitable detonation and siege only make the zerg stronger. Yes, my group of 8 can coordinate our detonations and do some damage. But guess what, that group of 24 can coordinate MORE detonations and do MORE damage while at the same time having a lot more heal and support. The det skill, which was touted as a "zerg buster" is a complete failure in that respect.

The same applies to siege. My 8 man can afford maybe one person on siege. That 24 man group... well we can spare four or or five and again, still have plenty of people to output damage and heal. Buffing things like siege etc only strengthens the zerg. In fact, buffs in general only serve to empower large groups which is definitely a bad thing in the current meta where the zerg reigns supreme.

Therefore, nerfing skills that enable the zerg is the only option we are left with. A if only have of the raid rotate barriers you still have an INSANE amount of shield you have to burst through and doing so only serves to lengthen these so called "bomb offs" which results in unbearable server lag.

If they are going to buff things like prox det and siege, they need to do so in a way that will not impact smaller groups and pigeon-hole people into zerging. I.e. they need to do things like make the damage of prox det scale off of the number of people it hits.

I do realize that any set of skills in the hands of multiples can and has been increasing the issue associated with having over-powered groups (zergs). And that we've more than just one issue in terms of escalating both sides of the equation (damage vs. mitigation).

I did not mean to imply or promote prox det or siege buffing, but instead think we should consider alternative ways to approach this. There have been many great examples in the forums about motivating smaller groups by creating a sweet-spot for AP gain which is the other biggest lever I think we are leaving out here.

I do think that it's narrow to think the only options are to nerf skills when the largest motivators for players are not just to kill other players. Other than "nerfing skills that enable the zerg is the only option we are left with", most of what you said does makes sense to me.

Bouvin · May 2015

Garion wrote: »

I have posted before about the current state of PvP and some suggestions I had for trying to move people away from the current zerg meta that dominates Cyrodiil. Not everyone agrees with my stance, but I am strongly behind creating a Cyrodiil when playing in smaller groups is viable either in small scale PvP or with a smaller group being able to take on larger groups.

Currently barrier provides a shield for an entire 24 man zerg blob. If they have just half of that group cycling barriers, that's an additional 240,000 damage (if the average barrier provides a 20k shield) any opposing force has to output in order to event start denting that group. Aside from this, with enough barriers in a raid barrier can be up permanently on a well organised rotation, making it virtually impossible to kill the zerg blob. The inevitable then happens... an endless battle ensues as more and more people pour into a keep and before you know it the server might as well be dead.

As a smaller group, it is impossible to do anything against these larger groups so long as they can cycle barriers in this way. If Zenimax are truly committed to 'spreading people out' in Cyrodiil and discouraging the zerg blob behaviour, a nerf to barrier is needed.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see barrier capped @ 6. In doing this, barrier would remain a viable ultimate for use in dungeons and trials as well as for smaller groups in PvP. For larger groups, it would simply mean that they would have to cycle more barriers (four per rotation to shield the entire raid) thus bringing them back into balance when facing a smaller force. They still have the advantage when compared to a smaller group (as they should), but it makes it viable for a smaller group of individuals to defend an outpost or keep versus a zerg / zerg blob.

Of course I understand there is going to be fierce opposition to this, but I am hoping that ZOS will pay attention to the fact that almost every change they have made only benefits the zerg mentality and look to make changes to skills such as these to reduce the attraction of this particular style of play. If they are totally against this, then I think that there should be some consideration on reducing / capping the shield size at 10k. This is still a very strong shield - particularly as it will shield the entire group - but it will significantly reduce the protection it provides to zerg blobs.

Anyway, discuss.

But then I won't be able to solo all of the bosses and the chest in Skyreach Catacombs.

Stop nerfing PvE with your PvP!

/sarcasm

Yes, it's a bit OP.