Nerf AOE damage, remove AOE cap

nicholaspingasb16_ESO

Please?

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

I agree with you, because I understand why it would work.

But to many, it is counter intuitive.
You should try to explain a bit more in your post.

Ateameric

I dont know there is a cap on AoE.
Can anyone explain?

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

It is actually not explained in game at all.

But every aoe ability that doesn't mention a limit in targets affected will have a maximum possible target of 6. PvP skills have 20.
You probably have felt it in pve some times, or figured it was a glitch in pvp, but no matter how many enemies there are in your aoe, 5 or 500, you'll hit only 6.

In PvE it doesn't have much effect, it's just a tool to scale dificulty of encounters.

But in PvP, players are exploiting this target cap to gain some defensive bonuses. Any group of cap +1, so starting at 7, will have a passive dodge chance on aoe.
People just stack around their leader and try to be as close to each other.
12 people doing it have 50% chances of being hit, 24 will be hit only 25% of the time. It scales with the size of the group.

Since most groups are stacked, even if capped, they are always 6 guaranteed targets so aoe abilities are the only ones viable.
The idea behind this thread is that removing the cap will introduce a threat to stacking which in turns will force groups to spread out more organically.
A spread out group actually gives out less than 4 targets in average, so it nerfs aoes and make single target abilities more viable.

Here is the jist of it, if you have any questions on more details, go ahead.

zaria

One problem is that it would require larger groups for AoE to have a benefit.
Say you reduce damage to the half and remove cap.
This would make AoE more effective against groups with 12 or more enemies and less effective against smaller groups, you rarely get 12 inside your circle outside of sieges and other static settings, perhaps an nerf to 75% of current damage.

However I feel the AoE cap is also made to make the life easier for servers.
Simply increasing it would make the grouping effect less effective.

Zheg

ZOS has said that the removing the aoe cap would pretty much cause havok on the server when fighting in cyrodil. It's not in place because that's how a developer necessarily wanted it to work in cyrodil, it's in place because of technical limitations.

Soloeus

AOE doesn't need nerf, just cap removed.

kitsinni

I think AoE skills in PvP should just do less damage the more people they hit. Like if a skill was going to do a 1000 each to 3 people it should only do 100 each to

The big problem with the AoE cap is the unlimited ultimate gains it leads to. They probably need to cap how much ultimate an AoE can gain you.

Gix

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

It is actually not explained in game at all.

But every aoe ability that doesn't mention a limit in targets affected will have a maximum possible target of 6. PvP skills have 20.
You probably have felt it in pve some times, or figured it was a glitch in pvp, but no matter how many enemies there are in your aoe, 5 or 500, you'll hit only 6.

In PvE it doesn't have much effect, it's just a tool to scale dificulty of encounters.

But in PvP, players are exploiting this target cap to gain some defensive bonuses. Any group of cap +1, so starting at 7, will have a passive dodge chance on aoe.
People just stack around their leader and try to be as close to each other.
12 people doing it have 50% chances of being hit, 24 will be hit only 25% of the time. It scales with the size of the group.

Since most groups are stacked, even if capped, they are always 6 guaranteed targets so aoe abilities are the only ones viable.
The idea behind this thread is that removing the cap will introduce a threat to stacking which in turns will force groups to spread out more organically.
A spread out group actually gives out less than 4 targets in average, so it nerfs aoes and make single target abilities more viable.

Here is the jist of it, if you have any questions on more details, go ahead.

That is the most insightful post I've ever read since playing the game!

RSram

Would enabling friendly player collisions in PVP areas help prevent the AOE mob spamming that I hear a lot of folks complaining about?

Rallick71

They should just change Pulse to the same diminishing returns they did the Bolt Escape. Spell costs increase (50%) if cast within 4 secs of previous cast. That way it can't be a spammable skill. Would make dungeons (PVE) less of a spam fest and make people actually use skills to complete as well.

And yes I'm a Destruction Staff wielding Sorcerer myself and this wouldn't bother me. I bet it would bother all the farmers though

synnerman

Zheg wrote: »

ZOS has said that the removing the aoe cap would pretty much cause havok on the server when fighting in cyrodil. It's not in place because that's how a developer necessarily wanted it to work in cyrodil, it's in place because of technical limitations.

If that's the case they need to find something to remedy this and quickly because having the AoE cap is causing havoc in cyrodiil at the moment. Its causing massive lag, server crashes and rollbacks.... a game killer

xaraan

I agree with you. No AoE should do more damage to a single target than a single target spell IMO, if someone chooses to use impulse on a single target for example, then something is wrong with the options they are being provided when that AoE spell is a better option for them than most single target spells would be.

semp3rfi

with the cap removed, the tactics wouldnt change. AoE would still be king.

AoE skills in general need to bog the caster down so they cant move freely and risk being interupted

khele23eb17_ESO

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

no matter how many enemies there are in your aoe, 5 or 500, you'll hit only 6.

Erm... are you sure about that? Cause that seems impossible

TheBull

I agree about the overall nerf to AoE damage in general, but I'm not sold on the idea of 2 DKs shackling 60 people.

Gix

khele23eb17_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

no matter how many enemies there are in your aoe, 5 or 500, you'll hit only 6.

Erm... are you sure about that? Cause that seems impossible

I noticed that too. I just imagine the game picks a random dude in the distance. Poor ***.

Tamanous

TheBull wrote: »

I agree about the overall nerf to AoE damage in general, but I'm not sold on the idea of 2 DKs shackling 60 people.

Well if you can gather the 60 dumbest people on the internet to stand in one spot for 1 or 2 very small aoe to hit them all ... I'd be impressed.

As for aoe, there is a reason why "good" rvr games do not have aoe caps and ensure aoe does not outshine the need for single target damage. ESO has to learn how to manage such things. Aoe spam is usurping the need for any single target damage in this game for some builds and this is a major design problem.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Zheg wrote: »

ZOS has said that the removing the aoe cap would pretty much cause havok on the server when fighting in cyrodil. It's not in place because that's how a developer necessarily wanted it to work in cyrodil, it's in place because of technical limitations.

Where did they mention that?
Because I doubt this is true for two reasons:
- target caps require more calculation to sort then select the targets.
- target caps causes stacks, which enforces aoe spam and much more strain.

95% of all optimization is on the design by trying to avoid un necessary calculations.
There is really little to gain by modifying an existing algorithm with syntaxic sugar.
Removing target cap is optimizing the game.

RSram wrote: »

Would enabling friendly player collisions in PVP areas help prevent the AOE mob spamming that I hear a lot of folks complaining about?

It would reduce it, and it would prevent people from being able to physicaly stack so much, but it would not entirely remove the incentive to stack.
Instead of being 40 in the area, you could only be 10-15.
Which would still be an issue.

And there are other problems with aoe caps, like the random and immersion breaking aspects of it.

I would be all for player collision though, I played games with as much scale than eso with collision and it was amazing.
But, I can understand that they think it would be too much strain for their servers for the game mechanic gains.
I disagree, but it is a reasonable opinion on their end.

Gix wrote: »

khele23eb17_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

no matter how many enemies there are in your aoe, 5 or 500, you'll hit only 6.

Erm... are you sure about that? Cause that seems impossible

I noticed that too. I just imagine the game picks a random dude in the distance. Poor ***.

Haha, can't a man make a typo?

Super_Sonico

I would rather see this:

Damage increased on AoEs. Whirling blades anyone? That damage is so incredibly low for the stamina it pulls, it's ridiculous. While I say increase damage, I really mean balance it out between all AoE effects. There should be a damage progression based on skills and equipment, but they should fall into a pretty narrow variance about a reasonable mean.
Cap removed. AoE should mean anyone in that area, period, full stop, no inherent caps on numbers.
Reduce the areas. Spell AoEs shouldn't be cast over the 10-meter diameter areas they are now. Whirling blades shouldn't extent past the length of the swords used. The areas should be small and focused. The point would be to replace the cap with a reduced area so that it effectively limits the number of targets but really doesn't, if used creatively.
An option to reducing the areas could also be Reduce the duration. There are other ways to get around the number of targets issue

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Well, while removing aoe cap is a given, other changes may not be necessary.

Most ranged aoes have less than 6m radius, and it's not that much.
Against spread out forces, that's barely hitting 4 targets.
Only pbaoes are larger, around 8-10m radius. But they don't have the 28m range so they require you to get close to use.

Really, if it wasn't for the damage reduction due to stacking, impulse would be a very "meh" skill.

And for the damage, it should be looked at as a cost. Aoe abilities seem pretty balanced. Usually it is far more effective and efficient to use single target abilities.
But again, this is screwed due to the 6 guaranteed targets stacking groups provide.

Perhaps gradual changes would be safer. First removing the target cap, then see what else is necessary.

TheBull

Tamanous wrote: »

TheBull wrote: »

I agree about the overall nerf to AoE damage in general, but I'm not sold on the idea of 2 DKs shackling 60 people.

Well if you can gather the 60 dumbest people on the internet to stand in one spot for 1 or 2 very small aoe to hit them all ... I'd be impressed.

As for aoe, there is a reason why "good" rvr games do not have aoe caps and ensure aoe does not outshine the need for single target damage. ESO has to learn how to manage such things. Aoe spam is usurping the need for any single target damage in this game for some builds and this is a major design problem.

Again, Idk about caps, but I 100% with the rest. AoE is out of control.

Kronosphere

what if there was a "sweet spot" for aoe? say 6 targets does the most overall damage (total) and hitting less or more reduces how much damage per target the AOE spell did? say 6 targets all get hit for 300 damage each but if u hit 2 itd be 150 each or if it was 20 u were hitting it did 100 per? dont take note of actual numbers just throwing this out there

thewisguyub17_ESO

Unfortunately for both we players, and the developers, I think what is really at issue here is that no single alteration across all AoE abilities is going to be the answer.

Just a couple of examples:
-Take the Dual Wield "Whirling Blades" ability. As it stands, the resource-to-damage output is far behind the curve when compared to many Magicka based AoEs. So nerfing the damage on that would be insult to injury. If Zeni is going to effectively futz with damage amounts, they would have to do so on a skill-by-skill basis.
-As far as removing the target cap, again that's a skill-by-skill thing. Most notably, skills that cause status effects such as DK shackles should probably retain a target cap... both from a balancing standpoint, and a realistic/immersion one. The same rationale can be applied to many damaging abilities... perhaps some should have moderate, yet variable, damage based on number of targets hit (making them effective against single or multiple targets, sacrificing high-end damage for greater versatility), while other abilities could do good static damage to all targets (making them optimal for large groups), while still others could do massive damage to a capped number of targets (making them optimal for small groups). On top of all those considerations, there is the ever-present issue of resource cost and balance (and though I don't want to knock Zeni too hard on this, their track record on that front has been less than stellar). [Edit: to clarify, when I say "moderate," "good," and "massive" damage I mean in relation to other AoEs. The damage that an AoE does to any individual target should always, always, ALWAYS be less than a comparable single-target ability]

Ultimately, there are still some rather glaring balance issues between classes and builds, and until those issues are addressed, drastic changes to AoE mechanics (no matter how necessary) would be a fool's errand, because AoE functionality is so intrinsically linked to overall balance... without balancing both at the same time, they'll never achieve balance in either.

It is my sincerest hope that the reason why we are slow to see changes on this front is because Zeni is taking their time and doing their homework to assure that when changes are implemented they will be honest-to-god "fixes," and not just the glossing over of symptoms

diwie

There s a cap?
Please remove it or change spell the description.

Server issues can t be handled ?
Please deactivate the cause until you can.

You want fair balance?
Reduce the classes to a single unique class with no attributes.

I would agree in capping maximum mass damage/healing to a high value (e.g. 50k) based on level and underlying attributes of a char in second step.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

thewisguyub17_ESO wrote: »

Unfortunately for both we players, and the developers, I think what is really at issue here is that no single alteration across all AoE abilities is going to be the answer.

Exactly this. Great post.

A target cap is a valid balancing mechanic for individual skills, for instance no one argues that templar instant heals or rapid regeneration should have unlimited targets.

But the real issue here is that all other skills with no cap specified in the tooltip have a single unique number of 6 targets.
Before some of us got aware of it through patch notes, it was an unknown and players just didn't exploit it. I think the majority of the player base still doesn't know about it as it is such a counter intuitive measure.

When it got revealed, it might as well just have been implemented, as over night the behaviour of the players changed to stacking and to this day, this has been the dominant strategy. This is severly harming the game and its potential.
Not to mention the lags it causes.

In practice, target caps aren't nerfing aoes, they are making them the only viable abilities. Even for the aoes that do have proper damage/cost ratios, they are always desirable due to stacking and the 6 guaranteed targets it provides.

Against spreading out forces, unorganised or newer players, aoes rarely hit more than 3 or 4 targets. It's just not something that would be an issue if there weren't any caps.

And as the @thewisguyub17_ESO‌ said, there are plenty of ways of balancing aoes, but I don't believe it will be necessary for many skills.
If you check the link in my signature, you'd see a quite long list of means to adress abilities one at a time, in case some went out of line.

Tankqull

Zheg wrote: »

ZOS has said that the removing the aoe cap would pretty much cause havok on the server when fighting in cyrodil. It's not in place because that's how a developer necessarily wanted it to work in cyrodil, it's in place because of technical limitations.

lol? please give a source as it would imply that the 14 year old ancestor (DAoC) had far better technology used...

tinythinker

Rallick71 wrote: »

They should just change Pulse to the same diminishing returns they did the Bolt Escape. Spell costs increase (50%) if cast within 4 secs of previous cast. That way it can't be a spammable skill. Would make dungeons (PVE) less of a spam fest and make people actually use skills to complete as well.

And yes I'm a Destruction Staff wielding Sorcerer myself and this wouldn't bother me. I bet it would bother all the farmers though

I suggested something similar that would affect PvP but spare solo players and small-group dungeon runners for PvE.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

tinythinker wrote: »

Rallick71 wrote: »

They should just change Pulse to the same diminishing returns they did the Bolt Escape. Spell costs increase (50%) if cast within 4 secs of previous cast. That way it can't be a spammable skill. Would make dungeons (PVE) less of a spam fest and make people actually use skills to complete as well.

And yes I'm a Destruction Staff wielding Sorcerer myself and this wouldn't bother me. I bet it would bother all the farmers though

I suggested something similar that would affect PvP but spare solo players and small-group dungeon runners for PvE.

That would be an interesting solution if impulse still is an issue without the target cap.
A burnout mechanic would work out great at several spots in the game.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't work in the current context as there are builds meant to counter it. (streak is still spammed) With the target cap, those builds don't suffer from any defensive drawbacks.
Those that will be punished will be the normal users rather than the spammers.

Even without taking builds into account, in a stacking group, you only need to cast twice.
So still not a working solution.

Really, the only way we're going to address the issue is by removing what causes it: The aoe target cap.

TheBull

The *** is so *** out of hand. Impulse, Impluse, Impluse, Bats, Bats, Bats. 2 People covering 20 yards swaths of space with the ability to move.

AoE that hits for 500 to 6 people that's instant cast with no maneuvering restrictions on 2.7-3.5k health pools. 4 people 2 clicks 24 dead.. Not dead? Bat Swarm should do it.

Super_Sonico

TheBull wrote: »

The *** is so *** out of hand. Impulse, Impluse, Impluse, Bats, Bats, Bats. 2 People covering 20 yards swaths of space with the ability to move.

AoE that hits for 500 to 6 people that's instant cast with no maneuvering restrictions on 2.7-3.5k health pools. 4 people 2 clicks 24 dead.. Not dead? Bat Swarm should do it.

This was my experience back in late April. Sad to see it hasn't changed. It's really a problem for a lot of us who have built our characters around the classical styles of combat that we've grown fond of in TES games, such as the "sword and board, heavy armor warrior" types or the "dual wield, medium armor assassin" types; those of us who rely on close up, in your face damage output from a weapon.

I picked up bow, because even in beta tests, it was obvious to me that PvP is really mostly successful from a ranged combat perspective. I completely lose any semblance of immersion or role play when I have to dash in for 1 hit, then sprint out of the ensuing bat frenzy.

All the running around bit just to avoid AoEs is not fun for me.