Elder Wars 2 Volume 2 (AoE Caps are a problem)

Gaettusk

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

@Gaettusk‌

I paly on AD Eu server, I couldn`t care less who`s zerging more on your NA campaign. I never got the impression that Xsorus` post was following a hidden agenda to discriminate another faction.

This topic is about stacked zergs causing lag whatever faction, nationality or gender they might belong to. He even chose a video where his side was obviously zerging as well. Keep it real, dude.

Please keep that stuff out of this thread. Thank you very much.

Yet, he wants to blame a group of 20 for alleged "lag" without proving that they were contributing to the issue. Also, calling a group of 20 a "zerg" is laughable at best.

Xsorus

Gaettusk wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

/facepalm

A. Yes these groups cause lag, whenever you stand on top of each other spamming abilities like that, and not dying, You're causing lag.

B. You're aware I can't actually take video of fights if i'm not actually there right? I'm sure DC zerg was lagging everyone..But unless i'm specifically there to take the video of the fight, I can't actually show that..But then again I guess I did show that because you can clearly see DC in my video standing in the same spot at EP doing the same thing as EP clearly causing Lag..

C. You can blame it on the 20 man or not..If you're upset i'm lumping them in don't consider them part of the lag for all I care.

In closing, Your amount of butthurt is staggering.

A. Hitchen's Razor applies here- you cannot make a claim without justifying it with actual evidence. You need to definitively prove that the group of 20 using AoE is lagging you. Where's the video of only them around without that group of 100+ DC spamming AoE? You don't have one? Oh, so you don't have proof of them causing your "lag".

B. C um hoc ergo propter hoc applies here- you cannot assert that correlation implies causation. Your video isn't good evidence whatsoever of that group of 20 causing your "lag".

C. If you don't care, then part of your initial argument is disproved. If you concede part of your argument to your apathy, then why should the community take your other claims seriously? If you don't care about proving your claims, then why should the community care to hear them?

In closing, your amount of ad hominem is staggering.

Edit: Censoring Latin due to urban slang is quite daft.

[snip]

Please point out where i'm claiming that only 20 people there from EP side are causing the lag....and not the huge groups of players (including my side) standing on top of each other AOEing.

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Flaming]

Gaettusk

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Please by all means, point out where I misquote you.

Your misrepresentation of my comments stemmed from your waffling on the issue

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

All 3 sides do it, both sides there were doing it..and it was causing the lag.

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Please point out where i'm claiming that only 20 people there from EP side are causing the lag....and not the huge groups of players (including my side) standing on top of each other AOEing.

If all 3 sides do it( it being the aoe spam groups) and you allege that the act is causing the lag, then you're claiming that the group of 20 were causing "lag". You're also ignoring the correction you received (and conceded to) in the first few posts of this thread. Let me jog your memory, it's the person telling you the charge issue is a bug and not lag. You agreed with that point, but you seem to disagree with that assessment now that it's not convenient for your argument.

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

I honestly got the impression, he just wants to blame the lag caused by balling up, his own faction for sure had part in causing the delay. Because it happened when everybody was engaging in the fight and skills were fired regardless of the faction he has been in.

Faction pride is completely unrelated to the topic, please have mercy with innocent readers who just want to take part in the discussion on the actual topic.

Best regards

It's not "faction pride": it's wanting logical discourse that's backed by actual evidence, not worthless speculation. If you want to partially or fully blame the lag on the 20 people there, then you need to have evidence. That short video clip proves nothing. If he would have kept his argument to one point and not made a multi-faceted claim, then we wouldn't be here discussing(some more logically than others) the faults in his argument. If dissenting opinion is met with ad hominem here, then this is nothing more than a trolling thread.

Gaettusk

quakedawg_ESO wrote: »

I think we can all get along!

I don't feel the OP intended to call out a group or a faction. I did suggest he get a video of the ginormous blueberry zerg though and capture how much server lag they cause. I really only experienced issues when they roll in.

Sounds like Gaettusk was just defending his faction. It does appear to be the same guild from your first video no? I could be wrong. It would seem easier to capture footage of the giant zerg on your own doorstep though.

Let's not turn this thread into a cesspool of idiocy like the OP guildie does so well. He has a decent argument and, intentions aside, should be respected.


Just my .02

Have a great day!

You have a point. I'll disregard the guilt by association he gets from being in the same guild as he who shall not be named, and I'll assume he was arguing in good faith.

Xsorus

quakedawg_ESO wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

quakedawg_ESO wrote: »

[...]

[...]

Guilt by association is ... starting .......to ........fit...

kidding (sorta ...)

You do make some solid points in your original post. Not everyone will agree but that is fine. Again, I haven't experienced this issue unless I'm around a much larger body count

Usually that's the only place you're going to actually see that much aoe.

Moderator note: Removed moderated quotes

Taonnor

I wonder, there is no comment from ZOS to the AOE cap issue. This is the hottest topic in this forum... And still no comment.

ZOS_JanS

Greetings everyone!

We're temporarily closing this thread while we're cleaning up this discussion. Once we reopen it, please make sure to stay constructive and on-topic.

Lowbei

lol i wonder how many threads about this they will go thru before one of their mods mentions to our community manager that "hey uhhh i think the community is upset about ae caps, maybe you should address it."

Galrukh

Lowbei wrote: »

lol i wonder how many threads about this they will go thru before one of their mods mentions to our community manager that "hey uhhh i think the community is upset about ae caps, maybe you should address it."

I think its pretty clear that they know about the unhappiness about AOE caps, whether they want to fix it or think it is working as intended is another matter.
However, it would be absolutely wonderful if ZOS would just tell us whether they see AOE caps as a problem and are working on a fix or whether they think it is fine and we should all stop whining.

Lowbei

i think they have a person who is supposed to handle community relations.

havent seen them in a long time tho

i remember when other games had community managers who would be able to discuss issues like this.

Columba

fine, raise the cap. the game isn't in a position to scrap the caps altogether. it will create worse problems. radical changes like this shouldn't be done all at once.

Lava_Croft

Lowbei wrote: »

"hey uhhh i think the community is upset about ae caps, maybe you should address it."

'The community' isn't upset about AoE caps at all. The <1% of the community that is upset is also the same <1% that keeps making threads like this in an attempt to make it look like something 'the community' is upset about.

Luvsfuzzybunnies

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Lowbei wrote: »

"hey uhhh i think the community is upset about ae caps, maybe you should address it."

'The community' isn't upset about AoE caps at all. The <1% of the community that is upset is also the same <1% that keeps making threads like this in an attempt to make it look like something 'the community' is upset about.

I agree here. I dont know what makes people think removing aoe caps is gonna stop zerg balling. It'll pretty much just make it so whoever initiates the fight or has more healing will win out. So instead of just impulse spam there will be heal spam too. Hooray for stalemates. This will in fact make your fps lag worse cause the overwhelming. Not to forget the talons/vampire incident of april-may 14 right? In fact aoe caps were to blame along with vampirism since talons ensured all peoeple would stay in your range while you were bat swarm ulting as a DK. Since it happened to be the only cc without an immunity timer once it was broke. But hey lets only focus on your motives here.

Trayyacakes

A thread with a video that shows how stupid and bad AOE caps are, and someone wants to come in and say our smaller blob wasn't causing the lag your bigger blob was causing the lag.

They were both blobs!!!!

The mechanics are dumb regardless. I don't get some people man...

thewisguyub17_ESO

I should preface everything I'm about to say with: I am not a diligent PvP'er. I participate in small bursts from time to time as the mood hits me, but can by no claim to be an expert.

With that out of the way, I do think that AoE caps are more of a hindrance than a help when it come to immersive an enjoyable PvP. Anything that rewards number-crunching statistical analysis over reactionary play and skill should be vehemently avoided.
** As a special aside: The comment above about diminishing returns on damage done based on opponents hit is shear unadulterated GENIUS, as far as striking a happy medium is concerned! I really hope these forums and Zeni pays attention to that and climbs all over it. It's perfect! **
As for the issues with Emperors, I have dealt with one precisely once. It sucked [expletive omitted]!! I never want to do it again. Quite frankly though, I think that's the way it should be. If someone is able to fight and claw themselves up being crowned Emperor, I don't think being an ungodly bad-[expletive omitted] is at all out of line. That being said (and coinciding with my admitted lack of first hand experience), it is quite likely that the exact bad-[expletive omitted]ery level of Emperor-ship needs some balance and tweaking... but ultimately I think that knowing one is in the fight should result in justifiable exasperation and annoyance from the opponents; they should be scary and ballsingly (wonder if that'll get through the censor) hard to kill.

Xsorus

The way DAOC handled diminishing returns was the best method, the further you got away from the center of the PBAE, the less damage you took

This rewarded not being bad... It also kept things like stacking out of the game.

At no point is AOE caps a fix for powerful aoe

TomLukman

majestic862_ESO wrote: »

After watching that video and having experienced similar situations, all I can say is that removing AoE caps won't solve anything but make that lag worse. ZoS really just needs to optimize the game and it's servers more.

Yeah, and the fact that lag got much worse the day they implemented the AoE cap was just a coincidence.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Luvsfuzzybunnies wrote: »

I agree here. I dont know what makes people think removing aoe caps is gonna stop zerg balling.

Quick answer: maths, more specifically, game theory.

Long answer:
To facilitate the readability, let's assume that each player has 2000hp and can dish out 200 damage per attack spread over 6 targets.
Take a case study of three group size: 30 players, 20 players and 10 players.

WIth AoE cap, if zerg balling:
The effective hp of each group is: large group 60 000hp, medium group 40 000hp, small group 20 000hp
Large group does 30 x 6 x 200=> 36 000 damage per attack:
60% to large, 90% to medium, 180% to small.
Medium group does 20 x 6 x 200=> 24 000 damage per attack:
40% to large, 60% to medium, 120% to small.
Small group does 10 x 6 x 200=> 12 000 damage per attack:
20% to large, 30% to medium, 60% to small

Conclusion: A larger group gains both an innate damage resistance and damage buff that increases with the size difference. It gives a mechanical advantage to zergs and this makes it an optimum choice in game theory terms.

Without AoE cap, if zerg balling:
No need to calculate total damage. 10 players are enough to one shot a blob no matter its size, but the larger the group difference, the more damage the smaller group causes to the enemy faction, risking 10 to kill 20-30+.

Conclusion: No AoE cap benefit smaller groups against larger groups that zerg ball, making zerg balling a non viable choice. Hence stoping zerg balling

Bonus round without AoE cap, if not zerg balling:
In choke points situations like keep/bridges, the larger group offers an higher density of targets per area, giving each coordinated attacks of the small group more weight, up to potential wipe.
In open field battle, the large group occupies more space than the smaller one, so the player density for the large group is either equal or lower than the small group. But due to that the smaller group can create local contexts where it is effectively fighting equal numbers or smaller.

In both those situations, the larger group is more likely to win, higher numbers remain an organic advantage. However, the larger group cannot win with mechanical invulnerability. The zerg will lose members to the smaller groups, and it will create attrition rather than infinite momentum.
This is the framework in which a skilled group can shine by taking more than their pound of flesh.

Xsorus

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Luvsfuzzybunnies wrote: »

I agree here. I dont know what makes people think removing aoe caps is gonna stop zerg balling.

Quick answer: maths, more specifically, game theory.

Long answer:
To facilitate the readability, let's assume that each player has 2000hp and can dish out 200 damage per attack spread over 6 targets.
Take a case study of three group size: 30 players, 20 players and 10 players.

WIth AoE cap, if zerg balling:
The effective hp of each group is: large group 60 000hp, medium group 40 000hp, small group 20 000hp
Large group does 30 x 6 x 200=> 36 000 damage per attack:
60% to large, 90% to medium, 180% to small.
Medium group does 20 x 6 x 200=> 24 000 damage per attack:
40% to large, 60% to medium, 120% to small.
Small group does 10 x 6 x 200=> 12 000 damage per attack:
20% to large, 30% to medium, 60% to small

Conclusion: A larger group gains both an innate damage resistance and damage buff that increases with the size difference. It gives a mechanical advantage to zergs and this makes it an optimum choice in game theory terms.

Without AoE cap, if zerg balling:
No need to calculate total damage. 10 players are enough to one shot a blob no matter its size, but the larger the group difference, the more damage the smaller group causes to the enemy faction, risking 10 to kill 20-30+.

Conclusion: No AoE cap benefit smaller groups against larger groups that zerg ball, making zerg balling a non viable choice. Hence stoping zerg balling

Bonus round without AoE cap, if not zerg balling:
In choke points situations like keep/bridges, the larger group offers an higher density of targets per area, giving each coordinated attacks of the small group more weight, up to potential wipe.
In open field battle, the large group occupies more space than the smaller one, so the player density for the large group is either equal or lower than the small group. But due to that the smaller group can create local contexts where it is effectively fighting equal numbers or smaller.

In both those situations, the larger group is more likely to win, higher numbers remain an organic advantage. However, the larger group cannot win with mechanical invulnerability. The zerg will lose members to the smaller groups, and it will create attrition rather than infinite momentum.
This is the framework in which a skilled group can shine by taking more than their pound of flesh.

This pretty much sums it up nicely.

Holycannoli

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

The way DAOC handled diminishing returns was the best method, the further you got away from the center of the PBAE, the less damage you took

This rewarded not being bad... It also kept things like stacking out of the game.

At no point is AOE caps a fix for powerful aoe

I'm in total agreement. AOE and PBAOE are two different things but the point remains that eliminating the cap eliminates this cheeseballing we predicted since we first heard of the caps.

Although didn't they say most AOE already had a cap and that they were just fixing the few skills that didn't? Supposedly we've been playing with caps since beta but nobody knew so we would spread out.

Has the video been sent to the devs via feedback or anything?

Shaun98ca2

Holycannoli wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

The way DAOC handled diminishing returns was the best method, the further you got away from the center of the PBAE, the less damage you took

This rewarded not being bad... It also kept things like stacking out of the game.

At no point is AOE caps a fix for powerful aoe

I'm in total agreement. AOE and PBAOE are two different things but the point remains that eliminating the cap eliminates this cheeseballing we predicted since we first heard of the caps.

Although didn't they say most AOE already had a cap and that they were just fixing the few skills that didn't? Supposedly we've been playing with caps since beta but nobody knew so we would spread out.

Has the video been sent to the devs via feedback or anything?

I confident the Devs KNOW whats going on. Just cause they don't comment doesn't mean they don't read/see whats going on.

This MIGHT be the "lesser of two evils". They worked on a DaOC where there weren't caps to now a game WITH caps.

WHY did they change it??????? MUST be a reason?

Kiljaz

As usual, the only response from zos is to 'clean content'

quakedawg_ESO

Glad to see this discussion take a turn for the better!

Nobody wins in an argument, everyone wins a discussion!

hamon

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Luvsfuzzybunnies wrote: »

I agree here. I dont know what makes people think removing aoe caps is gonna stop zerg balling.

Quick answer: maths, more specifically, game theory.

Long answer:
To facilitate the readability, let's assume that each player has 2000hp and can dish out 200 damage per attack spread over 6 targets.
Take a case study of three group size: 30 players, 20 players and 10 players.

WIth AoE cap, if zerg balling:
The effective hp of each group is: large group 60 000hp, medium group 40 000hp, small group 20 000hp
Large group does 30 x 6 x 200=> 36 000 damage per attack:
60% to large, 90% to medium, 180% to small.
Medium group does 20 x 6 x 200=> 24 000 damage per attack:
40% to large, 60% to medium, 120% to small.
Small group does 10 x 6 x 200=> 12 000 damage per attack:
20% to large, 30% to medium, 60% to small

Conclusion: A larger group gains both an innate damage resistance and damage buff that increases with the size difference. It gives a mechanical advantage to zergs and this makes it an optimum choice in game theory terms.

Without AoE cap, if zerg balling:
No need to calculate total damage. 10 players are enough to one shot a blob no matter its size, but the larger the group difference, the more damage the smaller group causes to the enemy faction, risking 10 to kill 20-30+.

Conclusion: No AoE cap benefit smaller groups against larger groups that zerg ball, making zerg balling a non viable choice. Hence stoping zerg balling

Bonus round without AoE cap, if not zerg balling:
In choke points situations like keep/bridges, the larger group offers an higher density of targets per area, giving each coordinated attacks of the small group more weight, up to potential wipe.
In open field battle, the large group occupies more space than the smaller one, so the player density for the large group is either equal or lower than the small group. But due to that the smaller group can create local contexts where it is effectively fighting equal numbers or smaller.

In both those situations, the larger group is more likely to win, higher numbers remain an organic advantage. However, the larger group cannot win with mechanical invulnerability. The zerg will lose members to the smaller groups, and it will create attrition rather than infinite momentum.
This is the framework in which a skilled group can shine by taking more than their pound of flesh.

100% correct. which is how it works in reality. and why you get clever use of terrain like the 300 spartans using narrow passes to funnel larger forces and nulify their numbers.

however it would make taking keeps very difficult indeed. they would need to soften keep interiors quite a bit to stop 10 folk from making it virtually immpossible to enter an inner keep.

I would still prefer that than invincible zerg balls rolling round killing everything.

Lowbei

does eso have a community manager do discuss these kind of things?

Xsorus

Nope..

Lowbei

thats unfortunate. i thought this was a AAA mmo?

they should get one

Agrippa_Invisus

Lowbei wrote: »

thats unfortunate. i thought this was a AAA mmo?

they should get one

I thought this was a fly by night operation with a history of mealy mouthing about concerns from the community?

Lowbei

i could have sworn we had one. but that was a long time ago

ArcVelarian

I agree. Tossing the AoE cap, at least in cyrodiil, would do wonders to get rid of the Zergs running around. Although, DC at least has been forced to zerg because of that multi-boxing tool running around on Wabba.