AE cap issue ignored for 2 months now

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Shaun98ca2 wrote: »

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.

I understand your concern, but large scale battles will be just fine.
It was working well before we knew caps existed.

In your example, those 3 guys would need 3 attacks each at least to kill people in an area.
Those targets will have the time to move in any direction or start reacting between each attack.
Then 50+ would turn around and would need only one attack to wipe out the 3.

Even in a zerg v zerg, it is rare that there are many more than 6 targets in the same area, so aoe would be just as powerful as they are now, but have the opportunity to act as a counter to healing and serve as a tool to hold on to chokepoints.

Balance issues will obviously arise. Some abilities/class/combos will need to be evaluated, but that is an issue for later. Right now, aoe caps are THE issue.

Once caps are dealt with, we can use many tools to make the aoes that stand out balanced. It worked in the past for other game with as much scale, if not more, than eso.
The simplest solutions will be damage falloff away from impact, or reducing the area size or making the costs in time/resources prohibitive compared to single target damage.
And there are more if you want to add some flavor to some classes/abilities.
Even a target cap is a decent tool if applied to select skills and in a non random predictable manner. (aoe life steal applying to only the 6 closest targets, for instance)

Another thing to deal with will probably be ultimate generation by adding diminishing return to it. If single target damage give out more, then it will favour player using them.
Though, I believe there is already a hard cap implemented for this, but only through hearsay.

If you wish to participate in the discussion for when aoe target caps are removed, please read on the thread in my signature and start contributing.
maybe you can shoot down some of the ideas presented, or add some of your own?

EDIT: I addressed your edit "by accident" with the mention of diminishing return on ultimate gains.

Shaun98ca2

I think uncapped Ultimates would be the RIGHT answer to fixing the blobbing issue......Imagine 6 AOE ultimates going off at once on these blobs....insta death to them.....Not easily spammable and fixes them real good.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Shaun98ca2 wrote: »

I think uncapped Ultimates would be the RIGHT answer to fixing the blobbing issue......Imagine 6 AOE ultimates going off at once on these blobs....insta death to them.....Not easily spammable and fixes them real good.

Yes, it would be a step in the right direction and would address one of the effects of aoe caps.

But how does it address the rest of the disease? Should we ignore the other symptoms?

Rune_Relic

I like the idea of Ultimate as the solution.
But failing that zeni could have used this for even greater character differentiation.

Perhaps combined damage vs area should remain the same.
Your character can do 20 damage /m2 over 5m2 = 100 damage /second
Your character can do 4 damage /m2 over 25m2 = 100 damage /second

You do the same overall damage, but one character has a wider area of effect and the other character has more local concentrated damage.
You adjust character stats to suit.

Krinaman

Kirsika wrote: »

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

People use purge and Barrier to counter oil. But my point was that uncapped AOE's didn't stop the stacking it gave even more reason to.

Krinaman

Shaun98ca2 wrote: »

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


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.

This. Taking keeps with large forces will be AOE fests. On wabba you regularly see 50+ attackers and 50+ defenders even with no one intentionally stacking there will be stacking and AOEs will reign.

The real problem here is the people pushing for this want small scale PvP. Which is fine but the solution is to make small scale PvP options not breaking large scale PvP to the point that you can't take objectives.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Krinaman wrote: »

Kirsika wrote: »

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

People use purge and Barrier to counter oil. But my point was that uncapped AOE's didn't stop the stacking it gave even more reason to.

This is the one situation where a blob is at a disadvantage, if it isn't to use purge or barrier, why in the world would the ystack on an enemy oil?
Perhaps you mean defensively?

Krinaman wrote: »

Shaun98ca2 wrote: »

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


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.

This. Taking keeps with large forces will be AOE fests. On wabba you regularly see 50+ attackers and 50+ defenders even with no one intentionally stacking there will be stacking and AOEs will reign.

And did you read my answer to the bit you quoted? if not, please do.

As an answer to what you said, everything is an aoe fest right now when dealing with organized groups against organized groups.
With zerg balling, there is at no point a window of opportunity where single target abilities are more desirable than an aoe.
With the source of blobing removed, single targets will have a role in the open field while aoes will have a role in the chokepoints, as it should be.

I often play during the day, when there are less organized groups.
The fights are still in the scales of 50+ against 50+ but as those people are either casuals or just not grouped/organized, blobbing isn't prevalent yet.

I can assure you, in openfield battles or outside the outer walls, there are little occasions where many more than 6 targets are within an offensive area of effect.(aside from siege engine aoes)

With the flow of battle there are frames of time when it occurs, and that's what makes the use of aoe situational and reactionary, but it is most of the time more desirable to use a single target ranged attack, or a charge to finish off an enemy that over extended.

The front just extends wide, some times as wide as an outer keep side wall. And there is a rotation between the front and the back of the line for people to pull back to heal, with healers helping them.
You can even notice "sorties" that pierce the line at one point and then go on to flank. Actual tactical moves!

Removing the aoe cap will not "destroy the game", unless you consider what I just described as a destroyed game.

Krinaman wrote: »

The real problem here is the people pushing for this want small scale PvP. Which is fine but the solution is to make small scale PvP options not breaking large scale PvP to the point that you can't take objectives.

This is not only false but idiotic.
Aoes don't impact the scale of fights but how they are fought.
It has never been an argument and you are making an asinine blanket statement by suggesting otherwise.

We want large scale battles that are engaging, tactically interesting and set in a meta that allows for a variety of leadership styles.

The game as the potential to provide this, but as of now, it shows it only when noobs that don't know any better play to have fun.

We want to see the organized and experimented players confront each other in a balanced environment without completely dominating the unexperienced.
We want to see a meta where group leaders and their troops have to actually be good and challenge themselves to improve over the course of years rather than days.

In short, we want iconic large scale battles, that make sense and are as fun to participate in as they are watching. Something that will draw players to the game rather than look stupid and push them away.

Xsorus

not to mention DAOC had no AOE caps, and had large scale fights all the same..

Lowbei

daoc had epic rvr for many years, and never once an ae cap, or even heard it mentioned.

then again, daoc didnt hold your hand like current mmos do

hamon

Krinaman wrote: »

Shaun98ca2 wrote: »

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


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.

This. Taking keeps with large forces will be AOE fests. On wabba you regularly see 50+ attackers and 50+ defenders even with no one intentionally stacking there will be stacking and AOEs will reign.

The real problem here is the people pushing for this want small scale PvP. Which is fine but the solution is to make small scale PvP options not breaking large scale PvP to the point that you can't take objectives.

utter nonsense. before blobbing emerged as the cheesy strategy there were huge battles where 50 versus 50 would be spread all round a keep to operate siege and protect entry points.
where the defenders would set up proper defences rather than blob up and run out cos its easier to blob and run into any attacking force than to stay behind keep walls .. which is utterly counter to how things should work.

if blobs are safer in the blob even while running through an attacking force than behind the safety of a huge keep wall you know theres a propblem.

Krinaman

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

This is the one situation where a blob is at a disadvantage, if it isn't to use purge or barrier, why in the world would the ystack on an enemy oil?
Perhaps you mean defensively?

They don't want to stack on the oil. They have no choice as the choke points to and in the flag room are covered in oil. To beat that defense you stack and use a mix of skills that require multiple players. Running in individually is just suicide and feeding the other side AP. An organized group can take an outpost and oil farm all day long (and happens pretty much daily on wabba) until a large organized group comes along and pushes them out via stacking.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

With zerg balling, there is at no point a window of opportunity where single target abilities are more desirable than an aoe.

Sure there is. Why would you use an AOE with only a single target in range? Why wouldn't you use a more powerful single target skill? Why would I use an AOE if the target was out of range instead of a long range skill? Despite running in large groups I use two bars of skills (weapon switching) and switch out some skills based on the task at hand. Oddly enough it's pretty much the same set of skills I use running around solo and I use at pretty much the same times.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

This is not only false but idiotic.
Aoes don't impact the scale of fights but how they are fought.
It has never been an argument and you are making an asinine blanket statement by suggesting otherwise.

Considering there is currently a post requesting small scale pvp to get away from the "zerg" it's hardly idiotic.

But beyond that you describe your desired battlefield in which a bunch of unorganized people stand spread out while a bunch of tiny battles take place. A 50 v 50 battle is really a bunch of small scale battles happening in proximity of each other. As soon as too many get organized you call it a zerg and say it's destroying the game. So yeah, that sounds like you want small scale PvP to me. Although, to be fair, a 5v5 environment wouldn't be the same.

By the way, there are all kinds of tactics used with large groups as well.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

This is the one situation where a blob is at a disadvantage, if it isn't to use purge or barrier, why in the world would the ystack on an enemy oil?
Perhaps you mean defensively?

They don't want to stack on the oil. They have no choice as the choke points to and in the flag room are covered in oil. To beat that defense you stack and use a mix of skills that require multiple players. Running in individually is just suicide and feeding the other side AP. An organized group can take an outpost and oil farm all day long (and happens pretty much daily on wabba) until a large organized group comes along and pushes them out via stacking.

Well, you're just describing a chokepoint.
This is completely normal and should be the general situation around a chokepoint.
The problem here is that oil is wacky and there are no offensive tools to push through a chokepoint, so the enemies can just stack in the chokepoint and hold it without penalties.

If there were offensive attack tools for chokepoints, say like un capped ranged aoes, both forces would stand outside and hold a line with a no mans land in the middle with occasional sorties/charges to push through.

Something like this: |>=<|
Rather than: O<|

It would also nerf oil, as oil users won't be protected by the guys stacking around them. And like all siege operators would be very vulnerable due to immobility.

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

With zerg balling, there is at no point a window of opportunity where single target abilities are more desirable than an aoe.

Sure there is. Why would you use an AOE with only a single target in range? Why wouldn't you use a more powerful single target skill? Why would I use an AOE if the target was out of range instead of a long range skill? Despite running in large groups I use two bars of skills (weapon switching) and switch out some skills based on the task at hand. Oddly enough it's pretty much the same set of skills I use running around solo and I use at pretty much the same times.

I said "With zerg balling". Perhaps I should have said "against a zerg ball".

I run with two bars like you, one single target, one support/aoe. This works well in situations against spread out forces where switching between the two bar is reactive and gives a great dynamic experience.
This is where the build and limited hotbar systems shine.

However, against a zerg ball, neither one is usefull, with the aoe one slightly less bad.
Against a zerg ball, you hit 6 targets, so the damage for the stam/mana spent is at a better ratio than using single target attacks, but your attack is still mostly useless.

Krinaman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

This is not only false but idiotic.
Aoes don't impact the scale of fights but how they are fought.
It has never been an argument and you are making an asinine blanket statement by suggesting otherwise.

Considering there is currently a post requesting small scale pvp to get away from the "zerg" it's hardly idiotic.

But beyond that you describe your desired battlefield in which a bunch of unorganized people stand spread out while a bunch of tiny battles take place. A 50 v 50 battle is really a bunch of small scale battles happening in proximity of each other. As soon as too many get organized you call it a zerg and say it's destroying the game. So yeah, that sounds like you want small scale PvP to me. Although, to be fair, a 5v5 environment wouldn't be the same.

What is idiotic is to consider that the aoe cap discussion is about zergs vs small scale, because it isn't. It is about a counter intuitive mechanic leading to a dominant strategy.
Removing the target cap will not impact small scale, as it usually doesn't feel the cap much, it will only change how large scale fights behave.

To me, zerging is a valid tactic as it often comes with drawbacks. While I tend to run with bellow average sized groups, I do it for my enjoyment to fight outnumbered, not for any moral standards. I even correct clan members when they call the enemies a zerg, and tell them we just got outplayed.
So no, I can assure you, I want large scale.

Have you ever played a game in the Total War franchise? Do you consider the battles there small scale or an accumulation of small scale?

What I described is a framework to get organized combat on a large scale where individual groups of players, with various objectives on the same field, interact with each other dynamically and get rewarded for their coordination.
Coordination at a group level and at an alliance level.

Flanking, surounding, splitting the enemy, creating local contexts where you are at an advantage and just having to react to what the enemy does rather than just applying the same method is what makes combat deep.

Krinaman wrote: »

By the way, there are all kinds of tactics used with large groups as well.

There should be, and while technicaly feasible, none are a viable choice in the current context. In rock/paper/scissors , if you introduce a "well" where all other items sink in, why would anyone play anything else?

Myrdrett

I suggest to implement Skills with 20 seconds Groupmezz and Grouppurge to stop the zergballs.

SBR_QuorTek

Group purge... add a raid group wide cooldown on use, for like 1minute cooldown.... one use it... and group can only use it again in 1 minute..

Same with alot of other stuff, add cooldowns to it..... rapid maneuver... 2 minute group CD, and more..... would not need to remove AOE caps if the case... the cooldowns itself would make it more playable..

hamon

Shaun98ca2 wrote: »

I think uncapped Ultimates would be the RIGHT answer to fixing the blobbing issue......Imagine 6 AOE ultimates going off at once on these blobs....insta death to them.....Not easily spammable and fixes them real good.

the problem with simply uncapping ultimates for ZOS would be in pve it would lead to going back to soloing dungeons etc. it could lead to trivialising stuff like that in pve.
i,m all for removing the aoe cap in pvp or as ive suggested making the focus on splash effects on full range abilities. The fact spalsh is weak and pb-aoe is by far the strongest in ESO means you have to get in close to blobs to use it rather than grind it bits from the safety of 28 yards.

if 30 folk were pinging splintered arrows or chain lightning or some form of dot that splashed it would be very powerfull in pvp at breaking blobs. but wouldnt have the effect of making dungeons trivial in the same way uncapped pb-aoe bombs would.

this is because in dungeons mobs will rarely be at 28 metres for long and will start from spread out positions far more. While a blob in pvp starts from being a big fat target and is automatically at risk from multiple targets using splash from all directions from distance.

Krinaman

If there were offensive attack tools for chokepoints, say like un capped ranged aoes, both forces would stand outside and hold a line with a no mans land in the middle with occasional sorties/charges to push through.

What you are describing is exactly what I fear will occur with uncapped AOE's. Taking keeps will be next to impossible when defended. To take the flag attackers will need to run through choke points and stand on a choke point where they will just get destroyed from ranged uncapped AOEs. Attackers will still stack because they would have a better chance than running in one by one.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Krinaman wrote: »

If there were offensive attack tools for chokepoints, say like un capped ranged aoes, both forces would stand outside and hold a line with a no mans land in the middle with occasional sorties/charges to push through.

What you are describing is exactly what I fear will occur with uncapped AOE's. Taking keeps will be next to impossible when defended. To take the flag attackers will need to run through choke points and stand on a choke point where they will just get destroyed from ranged uncapped AOEs. Attackers will still stack because they would have a better chance than running in one by one.

"next to impossible", seriously? Have you no faith in humankind?

First, a keep should be hard to take. It's its purpose, that's why they are built.

Second, there are very potent tools in eso to breach a choke point that are themselves limited by the target cap. Any combination of them would work when used by an organized group for a variety of possible tactics.
Tactics people will now have the opportunity to learn to use and counter instead of only relying on one.

Third, there is attrition for defenders. Forward camps give attackers virtually unlimited respawns, but once you're stuck in a keep, every death matters.
Even if a charge doesn't kill every defenders, as long as some went down, it was a success. Ether they'll be out of the fight, or they'll cost a soulgem on their side.

What you fear is not a problem but a boon for the game.

Krinaman

Deaths in the keep won't be out of the fight. They will simply spawn at the FC and run right back in or be part of the group that pushes in from the outside reigning ranged AOEs on the attackers stuck in the choke point between the inner and outer walls.

Teargrants

It is entirely possible to completely cut off defenders once you push them to the inner keep and prevent them from coming back to the fight, it simply requires organization and/or initiative which the pug zergs lack. All you need is 4 squads camping each tower to prevent stealthers from setting up a camp, and 4 more squads camping the 3 gates and the breach with oil/caltrops to stop ppl getting in. This is basic perimeter defense.

Cody

I would not have a problem with them if they did not take 30 minutes to kill(yes it does take that long sometimes, im not exaggerating) I am a small group/solo player. when I face these groups, all I can do is hope to find stragglers. oil does not kill them. they will just use purge. same with meatbags. so the only thing you can do is trap them, and SLOWLY pick them off, one at a time. you MAYBE could form a zergball of your own, but I don't see that as a "true" solution. we need some more splash damage attacks(the ones we do have at the moment are not very good) another solution would be to make immovable require you to actually USE heavy armor. I see many of these people use it, and they never use heavy armor. when you combine the powerfull DPS of an LA build, with the HA ability that makes them immune to CC, and put them into one of these "zergs"....... yeah. you see where im going with this. im not an MMO expert, im sure im either wrong, or missed many things. but we do need more splash damage abilities.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Krinaman wrote: »

Deaths in the keep won't be out of the fight. They will simply spawn at the FC and run right back in or be part of the group that pushes in from the outside reigning ranged AOEs on the attackers stuck in the choke point between the inner and outer walls.

@Kirsika‌ already gave a proper answer, but to add on it: It is positive for the game that sieges don't have only one objective.

Also, if sieges last longer, it makes it worthwile to try to save them and fall back in them. If to win a siege attackers would need to accomplish several steps then there can be a back and forth and "hero" moments on both sides.

Krinaman

Kirsika wrote: »

It is entirely possible to completely cut off defenders once you push them to the inner keep and prevent them from coming back to the fight, it simply requires organization and/or initiative which the pug zergs lack. All you need is 4 squads camping each tower to prevent stealthers from setting up a camp, and 4 more squads camping the 3 gates and the breach with oil/caltrops to stop ppl getting in. This is basic perimeter defense.

Yes, this is entirely possible NOW with a large organized force as long as the defense is unorganized and runs in one by one. Even then it's hit or miss. One tent outside can mean 20 running in at once. Basically it requires you to completely out number the defense. Possible with surprise for a short time but with the desired long drawn out defenses that the post I was responded wanted it wouldn't happen unless your faction had a population advantage at the time.

Of course, such a large organized force would be called a zerg and are the reason we are having this discussion in the first place.