AE cap issue ignored for 2 months now

FENGRUSH

SBR_QuorTek wrote: »

Think I already mentioned this in one of the other threads.

But anyway... remove the cap and you will see 7 people optimized for it wiping out 80 people rallying up for a big battle eg. using spies to tell the location or just being at the spot at the right time.

Yes I can see how AOE caps removed would help.. not lol... put the focus onto things that make it viable and find solutions for downing skills PvP wise instead.

And yes some of you people know it is possible, for self would certainly not mind to wipe out that amount of players lol especially taking them all by surprice

Think it is time to be constructive instead instead of volounterely creating OP solutions.

Maybe we would stop having 80 people in the range of a single AOE then?

Thats kind of the idea behind wanting to get rid of them.

Its time to stop crutching on AOE caps because youre bad.

Krinaman

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Then give us counter exemples rather than being vague, be specific.
Personnaly, I am aware of no game with caps that didn't get blobing, but perhaps they do exist. If so, then please point them out.

They would include just about any MMO I ever played. Lets see:

Last Chaos
Lotro
Wow
Rift
Neverwinter
The secret world

And I'm sure quite a few others I played and don't remember.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

But larger numbers is NOT what people point out, but the fact that larger numbers gain more than the natural advantage numbers should give them.
It gives them invulnerability, and at no point in a game should a player become invulnerable.

They don't become invulnerable you simple can't kill them 5 on 75. You need to get closer to their numbers. I routinely kill blob groups.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Really, what is your agenda here? What is YOUR point?

My point is that what you and several others are pushing for will make the game worse and not even fix the thing you are complaining about.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Would you be able to elaborate on it and produce an articulated argument that holds together?

if yes, then please do.
Give exemples of games where caps were a positive for the game, how they impacted those game ,and more importantly, why they impacted the game the way they did. Both in practice and in theory.

I've elaborated numerous times as did many others. Because you don't agree with me doesn't change that. Us repeating ourselves again and again isn't going to change that.

Xsorus

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Then give us counter exemples rather than being vague, be specific.
Personnaly, I am aware of no game with caps that didn't get blobing, but perhaps they do exist. If so, then please point them out.

They would include just about any MMO I ever played. Lets see:

Last Chaos
Lotro
Wow
Rift
Neverwinter
The secret world

And I'm sure quite a few others I played and don't remember.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

But larger numbers is NOT what people point out, but the fact that larger numbers gain more than the natural advantage numbers should give them.
It gives them invulnerability, and at no point in a game should a player become invulnerable.

They don't become invulnerable you simple can't kill them 5 on 75. You need to get closer to their numbers. I routinely kill blob groups.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Really, what is your agenda here? What is YOUR point?

My point is that what you and several others are pushing for will make the game worse and not even fix the thing you are complaining about.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Would you be able to elaborate on it and produce an articulated argument that holds together?

if yes, then please do.
Give exemples of games where caps were a positive for the game, how they impacted those game ,and more importantly, why they impacted the game the way they did. Both in practice and in theory.

I've elaborated numerous times as did many others. Because you don't agree with me doesn't change that. Us repeating ourselves again and again isn't going to change that.

As someone who's wiped countless zergs in Rift, It did not have caps.

I'm pretty TSW didn't either, cause I wiped some large groups as well in that game also.

LOTRO i'm not sure if it had caps..

No clue on neverwinter either...but i think NWN was mostly small bg's was it not?

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Krinaman wrote: »

They would include just about any MMO I ever played. Lets see:

Ok, fair enough, I'll research them when I have more time, but for now I'll take your word on it.
I'll adapt the theory to those new facts.

Aside from Chaos Online, none of them seem to have an AvA type PvP at the same scale than ESo.
Also, it doesn't seem any of them have contexts where the sizes of group can vary widely or be much bigger than the cap itself.

Relevant examples I am aware of, like gw2 and Shadowbane, and the games others have mentioned on reddit/forums all had some sort of large scale pvp.
The larger the scale, the worst the blobbing. (shadowbane)

AoE caps have negative impacts but its effects are noticed proportionally to the difference between the target hardcap and the potential max target available in normal gameplay.

A game that does 8v8, with a 6 target cap gives invulnerability to only 25% of the enemies while a game that has 50v50 gives invulnerability to 88% of the enemies.

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

But larger numbers is NOT what people point out, but the fact that larger numbers gain more than the natural advantage numbers should give them.
It gives them invulnerability, and at no point in a game should a player become invulnerable.

They don't become invulnerable you simple can't kill them 5 on 75. You need to get closer to their numbers. I routinely kill blob groups.

It isn't flat out group invulnerability, but individuals in the group gain invulnerability at random and it leads to a mechanical damage mitigation for the whole group. Maybe calling it a miss chance would be more adequate?

You should lose against a larger force, but you shouldn't need to get closer to their numbers to kill at least one of them with aoes.
Idealy, a smaller group should be able to take down 1 kill for 1 death with a variance based on coordination, skill and strategic use of terrain features.

Un capped AoE would provide this, but also would enable another approach I personally would enjoy more: focus targeting, similar to EvE online PvP.
In theory you could use charges to focus down one target in an enemy group, but doing so puts you in a pack.
Without aoe caps, this move is equally risky for both sides, with aoe caps it is more dangerous for the smaller groups since the large group not only has more organic fire power but also their individual abilities are less nerfed by the cap.

You could stick to ranged focus fire, but the passive buff to aoe damage a larger group gets would still get in the way of that.
A side issue is that targeting in ESo is a bit unreliable, but it isn't a design flaw, more like a quirk to iron out.

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Really, what is your agenda here? What is YOUR point?

My point is that what you and several others are pushing for will make the game worse and not even fix the thing you are complaining about.

How and why?
All i've seen so far from you and others are anecdotal or sometimes, plain wrong. It can be summed up to:
- " it will make the game worse" without explanation.
- "I can still kill blobs so it isn't an issue" which is missing the point entirely.
- "Numbers should win" which isn't even part of the discussion.
- "That other game had cap and it was good" without explanations.
- "it will make blobing worse" which is plain wrong as it started with caps.

Use maths, use decision theory, or just plain old causality chains to construct an argument.

What happens, how it happens and why does it happen?

Krinaman

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Aside from Chaos Online, none of them seem to have an AvA type PvP at the same scale than ESo.
Also, it doesn't seem any of them have contexts where the sizes of group can vary widely or be much bigger than the cap itself.

A game that does 8v8, with a 6 target cap gives invulnerability to only 25% of the enemies while a game that has 50v50 gives invulnerability to 88% of the enemies.

Lotro and Last Chaos certainly did and most of the others had at least 20 v 20 or higher with caps in the 5ish range.

The reason those games didn't have blobs was because there was zero reason to blob. In this game the all group dynamic is built around stacking/being close. Buffs, healing, synergies all require you to be stacked. As a result groups stack to get the benefits of being in a group. Make it so you get the benefits without stacking (or no benefit to stacking) and the stacking will go away. I.E. if I can pop barrier and my whole group gets it without stacking we wouldn't bother stacking before I pop it.

Blobing is also a natural result of having a large number of players fighting over a small area. If 100 people attack and 100 defend a keep its going to result in stacking when you get to the flag rooms.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

You should lose against a larger force, but you shouldn't need to get closer to their numbers to kill at least one of them with aoes.
Idealy, a smaller group should be able to take down 1 kill for 1 death with a variance based on coordination, skill and strategic use of terrain features.

No you shouldn't. If you go 5 on 50 that is effectively 5 10v1s and the 5 should die so fast that that can't do enough damage to kill anyone. If a player went 1v2 against equally skilled players the 1 should die every time without killing either of the other.

Furthermore. Unlimited caps doesn't even accomplish this. The 50 will be getting unlimited AOE heals and buffs and you won't scratch them.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

How and why?
All i've seen so far from you and others are anecdotal or sometimes, plain wrong. It can be summed up to:
- " it will make the game worse" without explanation.
- "I can still kill blobs so it isn't an issue" which is missing the point entirely.
- "Numbers should win" which isn't even part of the discussion.
- "That other game had cap and it was good" without explanations.
- "it will make blobing worse" which is plain wrong as it started with caps.

Use maths, use decision theory, or just plain old causality chains to construct an argument.

What happens, how it happens and why does it happen?

I've done this numerous times. You simply declare it wrong. You are certainly entitled to that opinion but that doesn't mean I didn't explain why I believe what I do. You go through long explanations but guess what? I think they are plain wrong.

But here's a quick run down again of my reasons (on top of other reasons already stated above):

- It won't fix the problem. That problem being that a large organized group is running over small groups. You can claim that's not the problem but based on every game I ever played complaining about this even without blobs I simply don't agree with you. People will always whine about being zerged whether said zerg is balled or not.
- It makes AOE OP. Some suggest changes to AOE to balance it but such changes would make them useless versus the "blob".
- It completely destroys the benefits of grouping as all the grouping features (healing, buffs, etc) all pretty much require stacking. Now I get that most advocating this are okay with it because what they really want is small scale PvP. But the solution is simply to make small scale PvP in addition to the large scale.
- It makes AOE the only viable choice inside keeps as they are choke points.
- Melee becomes completely and utterly useless. Stepping into range means getting stuck in the AOEs. Keeps will simply turn into stalemates with each side standing on opposite sides of the choke point trying to range each other down.
- The game already has unlimited AOE with oil and siege and it doesn't prevent stacking. In fact the main reason people stack up is to have a chance against oil pots. AKA get barriers, speed buffs, purged, etc. Oil is also endlessly complained about because it's so powerful.
- We already had unlimited AOEs in this game and it was completely broken with them.

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong again but I think at this point we should just agree to disagree.

Nivzruo_ESO

Remove AoEs all together, buff stam ST abilities, remove 360 blocking, add 2v2 & 3v3 arena.

There I just fixed the game you're welcome.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

First, thank you for this answer.
I did miss some of these explanations the first time you typed them, and most other posters don't even have reasons nor explanations.

Krinaman wrote: »

The reason those games didn't have blobs was because there was zero reason to blob. In this game the all group dynamic is built around stacking/being close. Buffs, healing, synergies all require you to be stacked. As a result groups stack to get the benefits of being in a group.

I get what you are saying, and yes, the healing/buffing does make it doubly interesting to blob.

But it would still be interesting to blob even without healing simply for the damage mitigation.
Perhaps blobing was not yet discovered by the player base at the time you played? Or it didn't go mainstream yet?

Some behaviours are learned, and while a dominant strategy could exist in a game, until it gets revealed, it doesn't get used. Just like exploiting bugs.

For instance, my experience in ESO is that at prime time, everyone blobs, but during the day, the fights are actually spread out, and you have the odd blob that comes along here and there.
That playerbase just learns slower than the prime time one.

Krinaman wrote: »

Blobing is also a natural result of having a large number of players fighting over a small area. If 100 people attack and 100 defend a keep its going to result in stacking when you get to the flag rooms.

True, player density is impacted by chokepoints. But that doesn't really relate to AoE caps, people just follow the capture zone rules.

However, the AoE caps impact how that goes down. As an individual player, it is easier to survive during a capture/defense of a flag than during an openfield spread out fight.

This doesn't make sense. It trivialize content.
A capture should be a feat, not the safer choice.

Krinaman wrote: »

Furthermore. Unlimited caps doesn't even accomplish this. The 50 will be getting unlimited AOE heals and buffs and you won't scratch them.

Not if you attack first.
The number I gave was more of an average than a typical attack.
The idea is that there is at least the possibility to inflinct damage, even if it won't happen most of the time.

Without caps, if a flank is a surprise, a group could have the time to get at most 3 attacks in before the targets manage to react.
Once they react, or if they are being attacked first, the smaller groups will be one shooted, but if it succesfully managed to surprise, it would get rewarded.

As of now, with caps, not only does the small group still get one shotted, but it didn't inflict any damage.
In a 12 people against 40 situation, in 3 attacks, each member of the 40 would have been hit an average of 12 x 6 x 3 / 40 = 5.4 times. Barely half their lives as a punishment to be slow to react.
12 ain't a small group, and 40 isn't a zerg either.
If you were to take the DAOC 8 man groups against an actual zerg of 60, that would be an average hits received of 2.4 over 3 overlapping aoe attacks.

Krinaman wrote: »

- It won't fix the problem. That problem being that a large organized group is running over small groups. You can claim that's not the problem but based on every game I ever played complaining about this even without blobs I simply don't agree with you. People will always whine about being zerged whether said zerg is balled or not.

Yes, people always whine about zergs, but that's just it: whining.
But there is an actual problem here, something not about zerging but about how numbers interact.
You can't dismiss it because some express it emotionaly or without understanding the root of the issue.

Krinaman wrote: »

- It makes AOE OP. Some suggest changes to AOE to balance it but such changes would make them useless versus the "blob".

AoE's could be OP with our without caps.
An aoe that deals 6k damage, even if capped at 6 targets, would be op.
An aoe that deals 5 damage, even if uncapped would, would be up.

But that's just a matter of balancing individual skills. Switching aoe caps or not doesn't make automatically op the notion of aoe.

However, target caps for individual skills can be an interesting tool for balancing purposes: For instance, mutagen hiting smartly only 3 targets.
Or AOE life steals capped to 6 because the vampire can't realistically feed off of an infinite amount of targets.

And something like damage drop off makes it useful against blobs, but nerf it against spread out players. So extremely powerful at chokepoints, but situational in the field. Ideally to the point where single damage builds will have a very important role in field battles while aoe builds will be preffered in keep defense.
Everyone should have a purpose through specialization, and having more than one build through "outfiter" would give content for higher level players.

Krinaman wrote: »

- It completely destroys the benefits of grouping as all the grouping features (healing, buffs, etc) all pretty much require stacking. Now I get that most advocating this are okay with it because what they really want is small scale PvP. But the solution is simply to make small scale PvP in addition to the large scale.

I see your point here, but I believe you may be exagerating a bit.

Healing/buffing aoes are wider than damage ones. Or at least grand healing and retreating maneuvers are. (those I know the most)
You also have mutagen and other smart heals that have a very wide range too.
So even spread out people would still gain benefits from grouping.
Not to mention the coordination ease it provides.

There has been some complaints by healers that their job was boring. Having them need to aim a bit, or call out for a healing stack, would make their role more interesting and rewarding. it would also buff them because when they do manage to have more than 6 targets, they'll simply heal more.

And small/large scale really doesn't get impacted much from mechanics like aoe caps or healing, it comes mostly from map objectives and logistics.
The forward camp and keep defense debate in another thread is more relevant.

Krinaman wrote: »

- It makes AOE the only viable choice inside keeps as they are choke points.
- Melee becomes completely and utterly useless. Stepping into range means getting stuck in the AOEs. Keeps will simply turn into stalemates with each side standing on opposite sides of the choke point trying to range each other down.

True, but they currently are the only viable choice in all situation.
This needs a remedy.

Now they are so advantageous to larger groups that keeps have no defensive pruposes.
Keeps should be a dangerous place for attackers. That's what they are suposedly designed for.
Attackers already have the advantage of respawning with forward camps where the defenders lose spawning abilities. So stalemates would balance themselves out.

And as said a bit earlier, with other balancing factors, aoe could become situational in open field and have chokepoint be the area where they shine.
In the situations where aoe do not shine, single target focus fire would ,and it will be the role of a leader to know when to switch tactics.

Another issue: I think melee is generally harder to use than ranged in large battles. That's why I mention mostly "single target" rather than "melee or ranged", because that's why we are trying to balance here.
I think melee should be a high risk, high reward form of single target damage, but balancing melee/ranged is an entirely other discussion.

Krinaman wrote: »

- The game already has unlimited AOE with oil and siege and it doesn't prevent stacking. In fact the main reason people stack up is to have a chance against oil pots. AKA get barriers, speed buffs, purged, etc. Oil is also endlessly complained about because it's so powerful.

It is capped, just higher. I believe it is usually 20 targets?

Even in cases where that cap doesn't matter, it doesn't prevent stacking because it isn't mobile and has a cooldown.
By the time you get ready for the second hit, the blob went from in range to having already swept over you.

Oil is another discussion ,and it should be fixed too. Even if everything was uncapped, it would still be op by comparison.
A common sense solution would just make it be a conic attack in one direction and unable to damage at the same height level.

Krinaman wrote: »

- We already had unlimited AOEs in this game and it was completely broken with them.

We had some uncapped aoes, but most of the things were always capped.
Of course they felt op by comparison, especially since the defensive equivalent were capped.

I know aoes have strong stygma and are viewed with fear and disdain by a lot of people, but that's racism. One ability can be balanced individually, you don't need a game wide sweeping "final solution".
And the sweeping solutions usually don't even work. You need to pay attention to all abilities individually.

Krinaman wrote: »

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong again but I think at this point we should just agree to disagree.

People are either right or wrong, they can't agree or disagree about facts.
Blobbing tactics, at the very least in ESO, are caused primarily by the target caps with other agraving factors like smart heals. This is a fact.

What we can agree to disagree on, though, is that I find blobbing to be stale and uninteresting while you could enjoy it, hence why I asked what your agenda was.
We could also disagree on how to fix the issue, hence why I asked you to contribute to my aoe nerf proposals.
If we could come to a common proposition, by starting with such diametraly opposed views, don't you think the result would be very constructive feedback for the devs?

Krinaman

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

People are either right or wrong, they can't agree or disagree about facts.
Blobbing tactics, at the very least in ESO, are caused primarily by the target caps with other agraving factors like smart heals. This is a fact.

No, it's not. It's a possible solution not the cause. It's my opinion that people stack in this game because the grouping mechanics of this game encourage it. Uncapped AOEs may reduce or prevent stacking but it's not the cause.

I could just as easily argue that blobbing occurs because there isn't friendly fire. Adding it would certainly stop the impulse trains but that doesn't make it the cause.


"It is capped, just higher. I believe it is usually 20 targets?"

According to FTC my personal record with an oil catapult is 39 people. Although the addon could be wrong.

hamon

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

And that's where you're wrong, or perhaps you simply misunderstand the concepts.
Historically, games with a cap have had their players develop blobbing tactics.
Shadowbane, GW2 and even ESo the second we learned about the caps. This isn't opinion, it is an observation, a fact.

Except that isn't true. Historically SOME games with caps resulted in blobbing tactics. Most of them did not

name one game with caps that didnt end in blobbing tactics? i,m unsure if warhammer had aoe caps but that was diffrent cos there were very stron ranged AOE's that even if there were caps made blobbing deadly.
Bright wizards could tear blobs to bits from max range. so if you had a blob all you need were a few bright wizards scattered around and they would force it to spread out.

choke pounts were difficult especially stairs where 20 folk could hold off 100 all day long. however this was down to the design of the keeps rather than mechanics. But even then choke points or other strategic uses of terrain are supposed to give a small defending force an advantage. Thats how it is meant to work.

Xsorus

Logged into my Captain that i've not played a while in LOTRO (i have a lifetime)
most of the AOE's in the game has caps, however my heals don't... and from the threads i'm reading about in PvP that game, they're complaining about Heals because they've got no caps, and most don't have a small range limit (My Captain does) so they don't have to stack, They can simply heal everyone with little thought.

TheBucket

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Logged into my Captain that i've not played a while in LOTRO (i have a lifetime)
most of the AOE's in the game has caps, however my heals don't... and from the threads i'm reading about in PvP that game, they're complaining about Heals because they've got no caps, and most don't have a small range limit (My Captain does) so they don't have to stack, They can simply heal everyone with little thought.

Point??

Xsorus

TheBucket wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Logged into my Captain that i've not played a while in LOTRO (i have a lifetime)
most of the AOE's in the game has caps, however my heals don't... and from the threads i'm reading about in PvP that game, they're complaining about Heals because they've got no caps, and most don't have a small range limit (My Captain does) so they don't have to stack, They can simply heal everyone with little thought.

Point??

Guy brought up lotro up above... So was commenting on that.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

People are either right or wrong, they can't agree or disagree about facts.
Blobbing tactics, at the very least in ESO, are caused primarily by the target caps with other agraving factors like smart heals. This is a fact.

No, it's not. It's a possible solution not the cause. It's my opinion that people stack in this game because the grouping mechanics of this game encourage it. Uncapped AOEs may reduce or prevent stacking but it's not the cause.

Other factors can encourage stacking as well, you mentionned healing, but they are secundary to how important the aoe caps are.
In the case of healing ,it is actually enabled by the existence of the target caps as it prevents any drawbacks from stacking and removes counters to group healing, so always stacking helps healing.
And smart healing wouldn't be such an issue if the incoming damaga wasn't random. Another problem here is the gap between control between dmg/heals.

And if you want to avoid doing any theory work, you can just look at ESo's own history. Zerg balling started occuring after the aoe caps got "discovered".
So in ESo's context, caps are the cause.

Krinaman wrote: »

I could just as easily argue that blobbing occurs because there isn't friendly fire. Adding it would certainly stop the impulse trains but that doesn't make it the cause.

Friendly fire or player colision would reduce the ease at which people stack, and would fix other issues in the game. I personaly want them in the game, especially player collision.

But it wouldn't solve the root problem of random individual invulnerability.
Even if we couldn't use self centered aoes or stack as many people as before, there would still be that incentive to stack to mitigate damage.

The best solution to defend agaisnt aoe will always be to stack as much as possible as long as there is a target cap. So the best solution to this problem is to remove aoe caps.

Of course ,this will open up a can of worms, as abilities that went unused up to now will start shining way more than they should, and that's where anticipating a solution before removing the cap is constructive.

Krinaman wrote: »

"It is capped, just higher. I believe it is usually 20 targets?"

According to FTC my personal record with an oil catapult is 39 people. Although the addon could be wrong.

Ok, I thought they had a 20 cap for most abilities/sieges.
Maybe because it creates an area that impacts 20 targets each tick, so over several ticks you hit 39?
It would be an interesting thing to know.

But the thing is with siege is that it is only useful in defensive position. Open field battles move quickly so being the only abilities in game that have an actual cooldown makes them under powered compared to simply zerg ball or use normal abilities.

Krinaman

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

"Zerg balling started occuring after the aoe caps got "discovered"."

Zerg balling started when people figured out it was the best way to benefit from group buffs and healing.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

But it wouldn't solve the root problem of random individual invulnerability.

I fail to see how this is a problem. If you want to hit a specific target then target him. Don't used an untargeted AOE. If that's too hard to do then fixing targeting is the solution not hitting everything so you don't need to aim.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Maybe because it creates an area that impacts 20 targets each tick, so over several ticks you hit 39?

Each tick registered 39 and I use it in open fields all the time.

The only real problem with it is that when the server lags it tends to bug out and you get an usable siege.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

"Zerg balling started occuring after the aoe caps got "discovered"."

Zerg balling started when people figured out it was the best way to benefit from group buffs and healing.

Which should have been since launch, yet blobing started the day after the discovery of aoe caps. Literaly overnight.

If you can't admit to call it the cause, you can at the very least call it the trigger.

If to you, healing damage is far more important than not getting hit at all, then fine. let's spin it in a backwards way.
The strength of smart heals and buffs was kept contained by uncapped aoes. Adding the cap removed the main drawbacks to healing spells in the game: getting killed when bunching up.

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

But it wouldn't solve the root problem of random individual invulnerability.

I fail to see how this is a problem. If you want to hit a specific target then target him. Don't used an untargeted AOE. If that's too hard to do then fixing targeting is the solution not hitting everything so you don't need to aim.

Unwaranted invulnerability that comes at absolutely no cost nor any drawbacks and scales proportionally to numbers, which is in itself another linear scaling increment of power, produces exponential advantages for larger groups.
The only requirement to benefit from this invulnerability buff is to show up.

Yet, you "fail to see how this is a problem". This is beyond me.

Then you go on with an hypotrical argument about aiming skill when defending a mechanic that pretty much enforces being skill less.
Any act of brillance would be automatically punished by the opportunity cost of not being zerg balling.
And in a thinly veiled tab targeting game, you cannot consider aiming at a single target harder than ground targeted aoes.

You are actively supporting a dominant strategy.
At this point, I do not know wether you do not comprehend the consequences or you have vested interests in seeing it kept in the game.
Either ways, you are indirectly hurting the game's growth.

Krinaman

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

If you can't admit to call it the cause, you can at the very least call it the trigger.

I don't call it the cause because something that doesn't exist can't possibly cause something. It's existence may prevent something but it can't be the cause. I don't want to get into a semantics argument but it's an important distinction. It's important because to fix a problem you need to know the root cause and consider all solutions. In your case you are fixated on a single solution ignoring the real cause and any other possible solutions.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Unwaranted invulnerability that comes at absolutely no cost nor any drawbacks and scales proportionally to numbers, which is in itself another linear scaling increment of power, produces exponential advantages for larger groups.

Yes, strength in numbers simply requires that you show up. If the issue is groups are too powerful then reducing group benefits is a solution. Again, it's a matter of finding the root cause of the problem.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

You are actively supporting a dominant strategy.

And you are actively supporting what will be the new dominant strategy.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

At this point, I do not know wether you do not comprehend the consequences or you have vested interests in seeing it kept in the game.

Yes, I understand the consequences of uncapped AOE's. It will destroy the game. Which is why I oppose them.

hamon

how exactly would it destroy the game? if your gonna go for dramatic statements like that at least offer an explanation.
it would make some aspects more challenging. like keep takes for example. but thats a good thing. keeps that are being defended should be difficult. and it rewards folk for trying to get inside and defend them rather than run out in a ball and wipe everyone.
being inside walls should make defence powerfull thats what walls were designed for. The fact that its better to run out from behind your defensive structures is actually a better way to defend should be evidence enough to any rational being that its very wrong....

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

If you can't admit to call it the cause, you can at the very least call it the trigger.

I don't call it the cause because something that doesn't exist can't possibly cause something. It's existence may prevent something but it can't be the cause. I don't want to get into a semantics argument but it's an important distinction. It's important because to fix a problem you need to know the root cause and consider all solutions. In your case you are fixated on a single solution ignoring the real cause and any other possible solutions.

Wut? The absence of something can very much cause effects.
But it is irrelevant to talk about semantics as the AoE target cap does exists.

It is a mechanic that has an impact on the rest of the game. Were it not for its existence, there would be no interactions with it:
- There would be no free random invulnerability given to players.
- There would be no discrepancy between how auto pilot aoe healing sources are and how uncontrolable aoe damage sources are.

The caps are the direct cause of these two effects.

The presence of those two effects in the game give incentives to stack up.
Those incentives are causing the blobbing tactic to the mathematically optimum choice by far.

These two effects,the cause of blobbing, being caused themselves by the presence of target caps make it the root cause.

The most straight forward solution is to remove the mechanic of general target caps. (while keeping it as a balance tool for relevant abilities)

Without it, players would be at all time vulnerable, unless paying a cost in resource or opportunity. (Medium armor Evasion and its morph, for instance)
Without it, smart healing would be more necessary (more damage to heal) and would come at a higher opportunity cost (having to stack up to heal and risk losing more health through aoe counters)

What alternative solution would you recommend?

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Unwaranted invulnerability that comes at absolutely no cost nor any drawbacks and scales proportionally to numbers, which is in itself another linear scaling increment of power, produces exponential advantages for larger groups.

Yes, strength in numbers simply requires that you show up. If the issue is groups are too powerful then reducing group benefits is a solution. Again, it's a matter of finding the root cause of the problem.

The issue is not that there is strength in numbers. This is actually something desirable for a game of AvA.
Especially since numbers usually come with a natural drawback of logistics, organization, and vulnerability to aoe attacks, it should come with a reward of increased power.

The issue here is the removal of these natural drawbacks in conjunction of adding an aditional mechanical advantage to numbers.

No aoe vulnerability, since the best solution to face aoe is to bunch up to gain a dodge chance increasing in function of numbers.
Since there are no incentives to split, leaders don't have to manage much and members just have to follow one guy. So organization is much simpler.
And since death isn't occuring much ,there are no logistics of spending repairs/revives/rime to get back with the group.

If we oversimplify it, yes, the issue is that groups have exponential advantages and no drawbacks.
So yes, the goal of a change would be to remove some group benefits multipliers and remove what is preventing drawbacks.
Exactly what removing the target caps would do.

What alternative solutions would you suggest to accomplish the same goal?

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

You are actively supporting a dominant strategy.

And you are actively supporting what will be the new dominant strategy.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

At this point, I do not know wether you do not comprehend the consequences or you have vested interests in seeing it kept in the game.

Yes, I understand the consequences of uncapped AOE's. It will destroy the game. Which is why I oppose them.

I'm not even sure you are seeing the problem at all with blobbing.
These tactics are destroying the game now. They reduce the breadth of gameplay possible and whether or not you understand the root cause, it needs to be addressed.

You are worried about eventually OP skills and prefer to keep a mechanic that is unbalanced by design over skills that can be balanced individually.
There is nothing you can alter about target caps that would solve the problem aside removing them.

AoE abilities aren't op by design and can lead to more varied and challenging gameplay for both targets and users. I've spent enough time describing how in my other thread which is my actual proposition: Replace aoe caps by making aoes be interesting for everyone involved.

Either you have an alternative solution to offer, or you shoot down the methods I suggest to balance aoes.

Krinaman

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Wut? The absence of something can very much cause effects.

Something that doesn't exist can't cause anything for obvious reasons.

Let's put it another way:

- Something gives players a reason to "blob"
- If unlimited AOE's existed they might give players a reason to not "blob" - Depending on which reason wins out players would either continue to blob or spread out.

My point is if blobbing is the problem address the reasons why players blob rather insisting on one and only one deterrent to blobbing.

As you stated in your post "If we oversimplify it, yes, the issue is that groups have exponential advantages and no drawbacks.". There's your cause. So the solution would be to reduce the advantage or add more drawbacks. Uncapped AOEs are one possible solution but there are countless others. My personal opinion is that unlimited AOEs won't even fix the problem and create even more problems. As I pointed out already the main reason we stack now is to counter the unlimited AOE fire pots.

Teargrants

Krinaman wrote: »

As I pointed out already the main reason we stack now is to counter the unlimited AOE fire pots.

Please, groups don't stack against oil because oil has no aoe cap. They stack because Purge and Barrier have a limited radius. If siege was aoe capped, they'd still stack for those skills - just as they currently stack in open field battles. Not to mention if siege was aoe capped, that would just make stacking even more necessary in sieges, while making defense essentially impossible unless the defenders had as many bodies as the attackers.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Wut? The absence of something can very much cause effects.

Something that doesn't exist can't cause anything for obvious reasons.

The absence of food causes starvation, the absence of oxygen causes asphyxiation. If we have knowledge of several systems and observe the lack of one element from one to the other, we can deduce that the variation of results is due to that one element that changed.

If I started choking you, you would go from a "normal" state to a state of "lacking oxygen". The root cause here is clearly that I have my hands wrapped around your neck, yet you would argue that all we know is that "oxygen may be needed" and the root cause may be something else.

This is what happenned with eso. We had a "normal state" of pvp, then one element changed, "the aoe cap is a thing that exists", and we went on to a state where "blobbing is the main strategy".

This is a simple observation, the cause of the shift in player behaviours is the introduction of the knowledge about target caps.
But the great thing here is that we have several decades of game design history to draw from to know exactly why such effects occured after that change. And it was predictable and kind of disapointing that Zos made that mistake.

Krinaman wrote: »

Let's put it another way:

- Something gives players a reason to "blob"
- If unlimited AOE's existed they might give players a reason to not "blob" - Depending on which reason wins out players would either continue to blob or spread out.

My point is if blobbing is the problem address the reasons why players blob rather insisting on one and only one deterrent to blobbing.

I understand now, you see things in a backwards manner because of an other emphasis of feedback regarding only one of the effects and why it should be considered negative.

Blobbing, as an effect, is an issue, but uncapped aoe aren't suggested as a deterent to it.
In a "normal state", we wouldn't need deterrent to blobbing as it simply wouldn't give any uncounterable advantages.
Uncapped aoes aren't a solution here, the presence of caps is the issue in the first place.

We discuss blobbing a lot as it is an observable negative consequence of that change. It is the most destructive effect, so people notice it and it is in the frontline of the discussions.
But if, as you suggest we try to do, there were other mechanics in the game strong enough to prevent blobbing, aoe target caps would still be the issue.
It would be a bandaid fix: we would just have treated the symptoms rather than the disease. To go back at the choking example, you would perhaps inject oxygen in the bloodstream, ignoring the other effects like pain, bruising, reduced blood flow and reduced mobility.

Target caps have other negative consequences aside from blobbing:
- loss of control and introduction of "luck" in a competitive environment.
- immersion breaking in a game trying to be immersive.
- lowers the skill ceiling of active target selection.
- prevents individualy balancing abilities to be engaging/added variety.

We could discuss all these just as much as we do blobbing.
The core of the discussion would still be: AoE target caps have negative effects on the game.

Krinaman wrote: »

As I pointed out already the main reason we stack now is to counter the unlimited AOE fire pots.

This makes no sense. You stack to counter the only in game element that has no cap and is the most destructive to stacking players? Oo

Shaun98ca2

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Wut? The absence of something can very much cause effects.

Something that doesn't exist can't cause anything for obvious reasons.

The absence of food causes starvation, the absence of oxygen causes asphyxiation. If we have knowledge of several systems and observe the lack of one element from one to the other, we can deduce that the variation of results is due to that one element that changed.

If I started choking you, you would go from a "normal" state to a state of "lacking oxygen". The root cause here is clearly that I have my hands wrapped around your neck, yet you would argue that all we know is that "oxygen may be needed" and the root cause may be something else.

This is what happenned with eso. We had a "normal state" of pvp, then one element changed, "the aoe cap is a thing that exists", and we went on to a state where "blobbing is the main strategy".

This is a simple observation, the cause of the shift in player behaviours is the introduction of the knowledge about target caps.
But the great thing here is that we have several decades of game design history to draw from to know exactly why such effects occured after that change. And it was predictable and kind of disapointing that Zos made that mistake.

Krinaman wrote: »

Let's put it another way:

- Something gives players a reason to "blob"
- If unlimited AOE's existed they might give players a reason to not "blob" - Depending on which reason wins out players would either continue to blob or spread out.

My point is if blobbing is the problem address the reasons why players blob rather insisting on one and only one deterrent to blobbing.

I understand now, you see things in a backwards manner because of an other emphasis of feedback regarding only one of the effects and why it should be considered negative.

Blobbing, as an effect, is an issue, but uncapped aoe aren't suggested as a deterent to it.
In a "normal state", we wouldn't need deterrent to blobbing as it simply wouldn't give any uncounterable advantages.
Uncapped aoes aren't a solution here, the presence of caps is the issue in the first place.

We discuss blobbing a lot as it is an observable negative consequence of that change. It is the most destructive effect, so people notice it and it is in the frontline of the discussions.
But if, as you suggest we try to do, there were other mechanics in the game strong enough to prevent blobbing, aoe target caps would still be the issue.
It would be a bandaid fix: we would just have treated the symptoms rather than the disease. To go back at the choking example, you would perhaps inject oxygen in the bloodstream, ignoring the other effects like pain, bruising, reduced blood flow and reduced mobility.

Target caps have other negative consequences aside from blobbing:
- loss of control and introduction of "luck" in a competitive environment.
- immersion breaking in a game trying to be immersive.
- lowers the skill ceiling of active target selection.
- prevents individualy balancing abilities to be engaging/added variety.

We could discuss all these just as much as we do blobbing.
The core of the discussion would still be: AoE target caps have negative effects on the game.

Krinaman wrote: »

As I pointed out already the main reason we stack now is to counter the unlimited AOE fire pots.

This makes no sense. You stack to counter the only in game element that has no cap and is the most destructive to stacking players? Oo

Actually it DOES makes sense. They stack because of the of capabilities of group healing, purge and barrier. In numbers they can muscle their way through the damage the oil pots put out.

This is one of the reasons people are against removing the caps. Right now they can muscle through something that has no cap and provides a LOT of damage. They muscle through the damage output currently with caps on their healing. The removal of caps makes this blob THAT much stronger since now they are capable of healing more people in the group with less effort.

I imagine moving through the oil pots now is simply a huge and dangerous endeavor as your healing and damage warding is highly limited.

FENGRUSH

Shaun98ca2 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Wut? The absence of something can very much cause effects.

Something that doesn't exist can't cause anything for obvious reasons.

The absence of food causes starvation, the absence of oxygen causes asphyxiation. If we have knowledge of several systems and observe the lack of one element from one to the other, we can deduce that the variation of results is due to that one element that changed.

If I started choking you, you would go from a "normal" state to a state of "lacking oxygen". The root cause here is clearly that I have my hands wrapped around your neck, yet you would argue that all we know is that "oxygen may be needed" and the root cause may be something else.

This is what happenned with eso. We had a "normal state" of pvp, then one element changed, "the aoe cap is a thing that exists", and we went on to a state where "blobbing is the main strategy".

This is a simple observation, the cause of the shift in player behaviours is the introduction of the knowledge about target caps.
But the great thing here is that we have several decades of game design history to draw from to know exactly why such effects occured after that change. And it was predictable and kind of disapointing that Zos made that mistake.

Krinaman wrote: »

Let's put it another way:

- Something gives players a reason to "blob"
- If unlimited AOE's existed they might give players a reason to not "blob" - Depending on which reason wins out players would either continue to blob or spread out.

My point is if blobbing is the problem address the reasons why players blob rather insisting on one and only one deterrent to blobbing.

I understand now, you see things in a backwards manner because of an other emphasis of feedback regarding only one of the effects and why it should be considered negative.

Blobbing, as an effect, is an issue, but uncapped aoe aren't suggested as a deterent to it.
In a "normal state", we wouldn't need deterrent to blobbing as it simply wouldn't give any uncounterable advantages.
Uncapped aoes aren't a solution here, the presence of caps is the issue in the first place.

We discuss blobbing a lot as it is an observable negative consequence of that change. It is the most destructive effect, so people notice it and it is in the frontline of the discussions.
But if, as you suggest we try to do, there were other mechanics in the game strong enough to prevent blobbing, aoe target caps would still be the issue.
It would be a bandaid fix: we would just have treated the symptoms rather than the disease. To go back at the choking example, you would perhaps inject oxygen in the bloodstream, ignoring the other effects like pain, bruising, reduced blood flow and reduced mobility.

Target caps have other negative consequences aside from blobbing:
- loss of control and introduction of "luck" in a competitive environment.
- immersion breaking in a game trying to be immersive.
- lowers the skill ceiling of active target selection.
- prevents individualy balancing abilities to be engaging/added variety.

We could discuss all these just as much as we do blobbing.
The core of the discussion would still be: AoE target caps have negative effects on the game.

Krinaman wrote: »

As I pointed out already the main reason we stack now is to counter the unlimited AOE fire pots.

This makes no sense. You stack to counter the only in game element that has no cap and is the most destructive to stacking players? Oo

Actually it DOES makes sense. They stack because of the of capabilities of group healing, purge and barrier. In numbers they can muscle their way through the damage the oil pots put out.

This is one of the reasons people are against removing the caps. Right now they can muscle through something that has no cap and provides a LOT of damage. They muscle through the damage output currently with caps on their healing. The removal of caps makes this blob THAT much stronger since now they are capable of healing more people in the group with less effort.

I imagine moving through the oil pots now is simply a huge and dangerous endeavor as your healing and damage warding is highly limited.

Healing should remain checked with a level of cap or alternatively it should be reduced in its power. Players heal for way too much in Cyrodill.

Cyrodills current design is so defensive focused it pretty much seems intended they wanted garbage players to ball up and rely on each other for random invulnerability and favorable defensive abilities.

Shaun98ca2

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Shaun98ca2 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Wut? The absence of something can very much cause effects.

Something that doesn't exist can't cause anything for obvious reasons.

The absence of food causes starvation, the absence of oxygen causes asphyxiation. If we have knowledge of several systems and observe the lack of one element from one to the other, we can deduce that the variation of results is due to that one element that changed.

If I started choking you, you would go from a "normal" state to a state of "lacking oxygen". The root cause here is clearly that I have my hands wrapped around your neck, yet you would argue that all we know is that "oxygen may be needed" and the root cause may be something else.

This is what happenned with eso. We had a "normal state" of pvp, then one element changed, "the aoe cap is a thing that exists", and we went on to a state where "blobbing is the main strategy".

This is a simple observation, the cause of the shift in player behaviours is the introduction of the knowledge about target caps.
But the great thing here is that we have several decades of game design history to draw from to know exactly why such effects occured after that change. And it was predictable and kind of disapointing that Zos made that mistake.

Krinaman wrote: »

Let's put it another way:

- Something gives players a reason to "blob"
- If unlimited AOE's existed they might give players a reason to not "blob" - Depending on which reason wins out players would either continue to blob or spread out.

My point is if blobbing is the problem address the reasons why players blob rather insisting on one and only one deterrent to blobbing.

I understand now, you see things in a backwards manner because of an other emphasis of feedback regarding only one of the effects and why it should be considered negative.

Blobbing, as an effect, is an issue, but uncapped aoe aren't suggested as a deterent to it.
In a "normal state", we wouldn't need deterrent to blobbing as it simply wouldn't give any uncounterable advantages.
Uncapped aoes aren't a solution here, the presence of caps is the issue in the first place.

We discuss blobbing a lot as it is an observable negative consequence of that change. It is the most destructive effect, so people notice it and it is in the frontline of the discussions.
But if, as you suggest we try to do, there were other mechanics in the game strong enough to prevent blobbing, aoe target caps would still be the issue.
It would be a bandaid fix: we would just have treated the symptoms rather than the disease. To go back at the choking example, you would perhaps inject oxygen in the bloodstream, ignoring the other effects like pain, bruising, reduced blood flow and reduced mobility.

Target caps have other negative consequences aside from blobbing:
- loss of control and introduction of "luck" in a competitive environment.
- immersion breaking in a game trying to be immersive.
- lowers the skill ceiling of active target selection.
- prevents individualy balancing abilities to be engaging/added variety.

We could discuss all these just as much as we do blobbing.
The core of the discussion would still be: AoE target caps have negative effects on the game.

Krinaman wrote: »

As I pointed out already the main reason we stack now is to counter the unlimited AOE fire pots.

This makes no sense. You stack to counter the only in game element that has no cap and is the most destructive to stacking players? Oo

Actually it DOES makes sense. They stack because of the of capabilities of group healing, purge and barrier. In numbers they can muscle their way through the damage the oil pots put out.

This is one of the reasons people are against removing the caps. Right now they can muscle through something that has no cap and provides a LOT of damage. They muscle through the damage output currently with caps on their healing. The removal of caps makes this blob THAT much stronger since now they are capable of healing more people in the group with less effort.

I imagine moving through the oil pots now is simply a huge and dangerous endeavor as your healing and damage warding is highly limited.

Healing should remain checked with a level of cap or alternatively it should be reduced in its power. Players heal for way too much in Cyrodill.

Cyrodills current design is so defensive focused it pretty much seems intended they wanted garbage players to ball up and rely on each other for random invulnerability and favorable defensive abilities.

So your saying AOE damage would be uncapped and Healing would stay capped? That's a terrible on the face of it.

As for weakening healing.......The Devs seem to have NO intentions of separating abilities for PVP versus PVE so weakening healing would screw PVE and REALLY turn this game into GW2's combat where nobody in that game heals and its just a DPS race.

Really there isn't a good answer to blobbing as each answer hosts new problems.

I just cant emphasize properly uncapped AOE are just another bad answer to the problem.

Lowbei wrote: »

the point went so far over some peoples heads, its staggering.

zScars

still no response from zos about aoe caps

Shaun98ca2

zScars wrote: »

still no response from zos about aoe caps

Maybe instead of demanding a response about AOE caps we should be simply demanding a response to the blobbing effect we see in the game currently.

I'd rather them find a GOOD solution to the blob then whatever one players simply come up with and cant even agree about.

Maybe we need better "siege" equipment to stop the blobs. Something that specifically addresses the issue so it doesn't break other parts of the game becoming abused and is simply only useful against the blobbing.

Morvul

Shaun98ca2 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Wut? The absence of something can very much cause effects.

Something that doesn't exist can't cause anything for obvious reasons.

The absence of food causes starvation, the absence of oxygen causes asphyxiation. If we have knowledge of several systems and observe the lack of one element from one to the other, we can deduce that the variation of results is due to that one element that changed.

If I started choking you, you would go from a "normal" state to a state of "lacking oxygen". The root cause here is clearly that I have my hands wrapped around your neck, yet you would argue that all we know is that "oxygen may be needed" and the root cause may be something else.

This is what happenned with eso. We had a "normal state" of pvp, then one element changed, "the aoe cap is a thing that exists", and we went on to a state where "blobbing is the main strategy".

This is a simple observation, the cause of the shift in player behaviours is the introduction of the knowledge about target caps.
But the great thing here is that we have several decades of game design history to draw from to know exactly why such effects occured after that change. And it was predictable and kind of disapointing that Zos made that mistake.

Krinaman wrote: »

Let's put it another way:

- Something gives players a reason to "blob"
- If unlimited AOE's existed they might give players a reason to not "blob" - Depending on which reason wins out players would either continue to blob or spread out.

My point is if blobbing is the problem address the reasons why players blob rather insisting on one and only one deterrent to blobbing.

I understand now, you see things in a backwards manner because of an other emphasis of feedback regarding only one of the effects and why it should be considered negative.

Blobbing, as an effect, is an issue, but uncapped aoe aren't suggested as a deterent to it.
In a "normal state", we wouldn't need deterrent to blobbing as it simply wouldn't give any uncounterable advantages.
Uncapped aoes aren't a solution here, the presence of caps is the issue in the first place.

We discuss blobbing a lot as it is an observable negative consequence of that change. It is the most destructive effect, so people notice it and it is in the frontline of the discussions.
But if, as you suggest we try to do, there were other mechanics in the game strong enough to prevent blobbing, aoe target caps would still be the issue.
It would be a bandaid fix: we would just have treated the symptoms rather than the disease. To go back at the choking example, you would perhaps inject oxygen in the bloodstream, ignoring the other effects like pain, bruising, reduced blood flow and reduced mobility.

Target caps have other negative consequences aside from blobbing:
- loss of control and introduction of "luck" in a competitive environment.
- immersion breaking in a game trying to be immersive.
- lowers the skill ceiling of active target selection.
- prevents individualy balancing abilities to be engaging/added variety.

We could discuss all these just as much as we do blobbing.
The core of the discussion would still be: AoE target caps have negative effects on the game.

Krinaman wrote: »

As I pointed out already the main reason we stack now is to counter the unlimited AOE fire pots.

This makes no sense. You stack to counter the only in game element that has no cap and is the most destructive to stacking players? Oo

Actually it DOES makes sense. They stack because of the of capabilities of group healing, purge and barrier. In numbers they can muscle their way through the damage the oil pots put out.

This is one of the reasons people are against removing the caps. Right now they can muscle through something that has no cap and provides a LOT of damage. They muscle through the damage output currently with caps on their healing. The removal of caps makes this blob THAT much stronger since now they are capable of healing more people in the group with less effort.

I imagine moving through the oil pots now is simply a huge and dangerous endeavor as your healing and damage warding is highly limited.

uhm, actually oil is not THAT damaging if the victims are using purge...
the damage of the initial oil tick - and the initial tick is the only tick that will ever happen against a competent group, is roughly on the same level as 2-3 player AoE skills.
it is rare to have a group hit by more then 3 -4 oil pots at once.
We can therefore conclude: what groups manage to "muscle" through, is the equivalent of 6-12 "uncapped" player AoE skills. (Btw: is oil actually uncapped, or does it have the usuall cap of 20 to 30isch targets all siege weapons are supposed to have?)

so not even all that much damadge already requires a few seconds of preperation time for the "victims" of the oil to muscle through

Remove AoE caps from healing would allow them to heal through more oil, sure. (though at the moment they are not actually HEALING through oil, the are BARRIERING through oil). But at the same time they woul also be hit by a lot more damage - and stacking up a few seconds prior to entering oil range in order to prepare for the oil would also be dangerous...

Shaun98ca2

Doesn't purge and barrier have caps as well??????

IF siege weapons have caps on them as well whether 20-30 or 60 simply needs to go as siege weapons are SUPPOSED to be in place to prevent the blobbing in the 1st place.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Shaun98ca2 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Wut? The absence of something can very much cause effects.

Something that doesn't exist can't cause anything for obvious reasons.

The absence of food causes starvation, the absence of oxygen causes asphyxiation. If we have knowledge of several systems and observe the lack of one element from one to the other, we can deduce that the variation of results is due to that one element that changed.

If I started choking you, you would go from a "normal" state to a state of "lacking oxygen". The root cause here is clearly that I have my hands wrapped around your neck, yet you would argue that all we know is that "oxygen may be needed" and the root cause may be something else.

This is what happenned with eso. We had a "normal state" of pvp, then one element changed, "the aoe cap is a thing that exists", and we went on to a state where "blobbing is the main strategy".

This is a simple observation, the cause of the shift in player behaviours is the introduction of the knowledge about target caps.
But the great thing here is that we have several decades of game design history to draw from to know exactly why such effects occured after that change. And it was predictable and kind of disapointing that Zos made that mistake.

Krinaman wrote: »

Let's put it another way:

- Something gives players a reason to "blob"
- If unlimited AOE's existed they might give players a reason to not "blob" - Depending on which reason wins out players would either continue to blob or spread out.

My point is if blobbing is the problem address the reasons why players blob rather insisting on one and only one deterrent to blobbing.

I understand now, you see things in a backwards manner because of an other emphasis of feedback regarding only one of the effects and why it should be considered negative.

Blobbing, as an effect, is an issue, but uncapped aoe aren't suggested as a deterent to it.
In a "normal state", we wouldn't need deterrent to blobbing as it simply wouldn't give any uncounterable advantages.
Uncapped aoes aren't a solution here, the presence of caps is the issue in the first place.

We discuss blobbing a lot as it is an observable negative consequence of that change. It is the most destructive effect, so people notice it and it is in the frontline of the discussions.
But if, as you suggest we try to do, there were other mechanics in the game strong enough to prevent blobbing, aoe target caps would still be the issue.
It would be a bandaid fix: we would just have treated the symptoms rather than the disease. To go back at the choking example, you would perhaps inject oxygen in the bloodstream, ignoring the other effects like pain, bruising, reduced blood flow and reduced mobility.

Target caps have other negative consequences aside from blobbing:
- loss of control and introduction of "luck" in a competitive environment.
- immersion breaking in a game trying to be immersive.
- lowers the skill ceiling of active target selection.
- prevents individualy balancing abilities to be engaging/added variety.

We could discuss all these just as much as we do blobbing.
The core of the discussion would still be: AoE target caps have negative effects on the game.

Krinaman wrote: »

As I pointed out already the main reason we stack now is to counter the unlimited AOE fire pots.

This makes no sense. You stack to counter the only in game element that has no cap and is the most destructive to stacking players? Oo

Actually it DOES makes sense. They stack because of the of capabilities of group healing, purge and barrier. In numbers they can muscle their way through the damage the oil pots put out.

This is one of the reasons people are against removing the caps. Right now they can muscle through something that has no cap and provides a LOT of damage. They muscle through the damage output currently with caps on their healing. The removal of caps makes this blob THAT much stronger since now they are capable of healing more people in the group with less effort.

I imagine moving through the oil pots now is simply a huge and dangerous endeavor as your healing and damage warding is highly limited.

But aside from target caps, siege has more limitations than normal abilities.
Even ultimates have less limitations. The mobility, lack of AP costs and no cooldown make normal abilities superior choices at equivalent target caps.
No aoe cap would indirectly nerf anti-infantry siege, but give it the niche role of being longer range.(aside from oil, because screw you, oil)

Purge is prevalent because the only risk these groups have is from oil. It doesn't help much against direct damage and it wouldn't enable to force through it.
No aoe caps would make direct damage abilities bypass purge entirely, making it a choice rather than a mandatory skill slot.

Barrier is very strong, but remains an ultimate ability with an opportunity cost. By comparison, all damaging ultimates are weaker due to having a much lower target cap, so there isn't much competition.
No aoe caps would make other ultimates just as desirable and barriers would have to compete over the 2 ultimate slots with more possible alternatives.

Healing now really is buffed by the aoe target cap. Area of effect healing usually has limitations, and one of the biggest is that clumping up is necessary.
That limitation is a coordination need (going from spread out to regrouped) and a risk factor (make your group an easy target for aoe)
Target caps remove both those limitations while at the same time giving members of the group ((members - cap) / members x 100) percent dodge chance.
Without aoe caps, healing a group would regain its drawbacks, while at the same time having more of a job to do.

The core issue really is target caps, it is the cause of the ilustrated problems.
While removing it will reveal underlying skill or class inbalances, it will mostly make the game take a step towards fulfiling its potential.

Individual skills can be balanced to become interesting, but a general target cap can't be spun around to become interesting.

Shaun98ca2

See I still cant say uncapped AOEs is the correct answer.

I see a group of 3 people sneaking into a huge battlefield laying waste to everything around them because "standing to close" means death.

Well in a zerg your GONNA get people fighting closely. Imagine what a 100v100 battle between AD and EP would look like for 3 DC guys to sneak up and start AOEing down 50+ people cause they happen to be "too close".

That's an issue I simply would leave the game. Im here for the large scale battles.

I just described the destruction of any more large scale battles ever as you HAVE to keep a distance from everybody at all times.

Obviously blobbing is an issue but no caps to me destroys large scale battles.

EDIT:

Doing some thinking on the subject. If somebody would have said HEY lets make all AOE Ultimates have no caps I see NO issue in that. In fact I would go as far as saying because they are Ultimates and are limited in use that they SHOULD have been capable of AOEing unlimited # of targets standing in the effect as its easy to get out of and typically hard to spam.

Barrier......don't know what to say about that. Being an Ultimate it SHOULD allow unlimited targets in range get hit....but then they would want to remove the Ultimate gain from it....should probably simply do that anyways....maybe the Magicka gain as well. Barrier morphs...A Healing one like as is then maybe a slightly stronger damage ward for the other morph.