Nerf Zerg damage and healing exponentially

God_flakes

Rather than buffing siege damage or creating new skills like prox det (which have been routinely abused by zergy spamming) I'd like to see zos implement a dps drop/healing drop/speed drop when you're too close to one another. It could be done exponentially. For instance drop the dps of all the players who are too bunched up in one area or ball...drop it once there are 4, then a further drop with each additional body, making them weaker with each additional body. This would surely discourage the balled up pain trains who root individuals and mow over them at top notch speed, spamming dps the whole time.

Fruitdog

God_flakes wrote: »

Rather than buffing siege damage or creating new skills like prox det (which have been routinely abused by zergy spamming) I'd like to see zos implement a dps drop/healing drop/speed drop when you're too close to one another. It could be done exponentially. For instance drop the dps of all the players who are too bunched up in one area or ball...drop it once there are 4, then a further drop with each additional body, making them weaker with each additional body. This would surely discourage the balled up pain trains who root individuals and mow over them at top notch speed, spamming dps the whole time.

Sounds like a super easy solution for the "top notch" coders at ZOS. Judging by there past history I'm sure they could hot fix this in tomorrow.

God_flakes

Well....

RinaldoGandolphi

This would be a good idea.

Its bad enough with the AOE cap that the majority of these zergs live under a 50% damage reduction, and the only exception to that cap is siege which by no coincidence was nerfed.

I like the idea

Crown

Consider the troll value there.. People would group up just to <slang for urinate> others off by force-nerfing them.

EDIT: Apparently the four letter word for urinate that when followed by "off" implies anger is a banned word now. That's dumb.

God_flakes

Crown, would it be any worse than the trolling that's going on now when 24 players ball
Up and steamroll over one or two lone players?

Takllin

This would just cause more lag...think of all the new calculations your adding into the game. Maybe in an ideal game that didn't have these kinds of issues it's a good idea, but we don't have that so this will not work.

Take a look at this thread if you haven't already, then think about your proposal again. I think you will realize it's a bad idea. http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/224997/myth-aoe-cap/p1

God_flakes

In theory, the lag would ultimately be reduced due to player behavior changes. I mean, I agree it adds to overall calculations-at first, initially. But as soon as it became apparent to the zergs that their healing and Dps is dramatically reduced- wahlah LESS spamming of AOE in one spot, which we all know and recognize causes deathlag. I have always said that trial fixes like this could be implemented on one server. Why not TRY?

Minno

God_flakes wrote: »

Crown, would it be any worse than the trolling that's going on now when 24 players ball
Up and steamroll over one or two lone players?

The argument is that removal of AOE caps will give small groups weapons against bigger ones. But it has to be a well thought out removal.

Takllin

God_flakes wrote: »

In theory, the lag would ultimately be reduced due to player behavior changes. I mean, I agree it adds to overall calculations-at first, initially. But as soon as it became apparent to the zergs that their healing and Dps is dramatically reduced- wahlah LESS spamming of AOE in one spot, which we all know and recognize causes deathlag. I have always said that trial fixes like this could be implemented on one server. Why not TRY?

Imagine your plan get's implemented, battles inside keeps would be terrible. How can you ask people to spread out inside when there is nowhere to spread out to? You'd be hitting people with wet paper towels and healing people with wet paper towels as well...You can't implement something that would stop support from showing up to defend a keep.

I'm curious what your definition of a zerg is?

The reason you wouldn't try is because it's not practical. People would vacate whatever campaign this was put on just like they did for the IC gated access.

Waseem

lets say.. if 3 or more characters are super close to each other and use the same AoE damage skill.. then only 1 AoE will take effect and the rest gives 0 damage.. well.. because they are damn close to each other

Takllin

Minno wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Crown, would it be any worse than the trolling that's going on now when 24 players ball
Up and steamroll over one or two lone players?

The argument is that removal of AOE caps will give small groups weapons against bigger ones. But it has to be a well thought out removal.

Agree with this. You would drive the majority of players away from the game by implementing player collision and reduced healing/damage, where getting rid of AoE caps and dynamic ultimate gain would keep those players but create a balanced playing field for everyone.

I also don't see how that situation is trolling? They got swept up by a large group, it happens. The kind of trolling that Crown talks about is a very real issue, and imagine trying to argue between group leaders about who gets to go where...

God_flakes

Takllin wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

In theory, the lag would ultimately be reduced due to player behavior changes. I mean, I agree it adds to overall calculations-at first, initially. But as soon as it became apparent to the zergs that their healing and Dps is dramatically reduced- wahlah LESS spamming of AOE in one spot, which we all know and recognize causes deathlag. I have always said that trial fixes like this could be implemented on one server. Why not TRY?

Imagine your plan get's implemented, battles inside keeps would be terrible. How can you ask people to spread out inside when there is nowhere to spread out to? You'd be hitting people with wet paper towels and healing people with wet paper towels as well...You can't implement something that would stop support from showing up to defend a keep.

I'm curious what your definition of a zerg is?

The reason you wouldn't try is because it's not practical. People would vacate whatever campaign this was put on just like they did for the IC gated access.

I left in June because quite frankly I couldn't stomach the unnecessary Zerg behavior anymore. The very first night I come back I am in Azura. By myself. For amusement I stood and watched as a Zerg of ad barreled across the map. Once they saw me, EVERY player in the Zerg (roughly 15) all turned and all steamrolled over me. ALL of them at once. This is absurd. This is ruining pvp. It is the reason so many truly great players have abandoned. It is craptastic player behavior and zos has heretofore rewarded it. I think anytime you have a significant number of players all jammed up and rolling over individual players or very small groups of players, with absolutely zero skill or intelligent gameplay involved, you have a classic Zerg. It should be penalized. And zos has dropped the ball repeatedly in their efforts to discourage this shi**y gameplay.

Derra

Just remove the ability to form raidgrps in pvp. Only normal grps for pvp zones. If you want to zerg do it with many grps.

Also cap barrier and purge.

God_flakes

And to address your concern about keep defense, zos could make an exception for flags where stacking has been routinely encouraged and is necessary. Although I have long argued they could change keep take dynamics as well to discourage blobby spamming.

olsborg

I would like a buff to people who are not grouped, or are in a small group 4 or less people, or 2 or less people. Of 5% increase dmg done and 5% decrease dmg taken to/from other players.

Valindor Magnus

Not necessarily a bad idea but this would mean players just by proximity are debuffing their allies. And when considering zergs this could make sense but it also effectively takes more control out of the players hand. What if a Zerg runs through the flags to defend a keep and there was already 4-9 players there defending. Now those players get penalized for the actions of others. Just doesn't really seem like a fair solution. And I mean also keep takes and defenses are really the only pvp objectives in cyrodiil so you would assume when a keep gets flagged is like saying hey pvpers there is action over here come this way, and the more people that do the more our stats get debuffed? Just contradicts the purpose cyrodiil in my eyes.

Edit: would rather see something like your damage increases the more enemies that are around you. Although that would have its downsides as well.

God_flakes

Valindor, I do see your points. Duly noted. But I think we can all agree blobbing should be penalized in some way. There simply should be no reason for 12 or more players to all stack on one another and all move in unison over single targets or very small groups. With the exception of flag captures, this behavior contributes nothing to game play. The parameters could be worked out as far as how close players are to one another. I'm not talking side by side. I'm specifically referencing people who are currently stacking in open fields like cowards, rather than spreading out and fighting 1v1.

Huckdabuck

God_flakes wrote: »

Valindor, I do see your points. Duly noted. But I think we can all agree blobbing should be penalized in some way. There simply should be no reason for 12 or more players to all stack on one another and all move in unison over single targets or very small groups. With the exception of flag captures, this behavior contributes nothing to game play. The parameters could be worked out as far as how close players are to one another. I'm not talking side by side. I'm specifically referencing people who are currently stacking in open fields like cowards, rather than spreading out and fighting 1v1.

What guilds have you been a part of again? What guild did you control and then depart from? What kind of numbers did they run in raid groups? What was the purpose for you to be in those guilds/raids? Could it be that you were inexperienced and couldn't hold your own in a small scale fight so you sought protection in numbers? Those ZERGLINGS are pretty much a mirror image of what you were (if you've gotten better since playing) although that 15 man "zerg" that ran you down would pale in comparison to what you used to run with on a daily basis!

God_flakes

Huck, get a life. Stop chasing me all over the forum looking for ways to attack me and excoriate me. I started a discussion for input on an issue (specifically stacking and spamming not merely running in groups) everyone has at one time or another raised concerns about. I didn't do it to personally attack any single player or be personally attacked. Move on.

Teargrants

Feels like I just seen a ghost.

Anazasi

This issue at hand can not be solved by new things. It can only be solved by evaluating existing mechanics and changing them. Most of us who played Beta know that the game itself was far more balanced when there were no AOE caps. We also know that the lag or the presence of lag was much less. By removing the AOE caps and reducing the damage of AOE abilities the game can brought back into a more balanced state.

The wheel (game) is not broke it just needs to be balanced a little more. There is no need to re-invent it yet.

God_flakes

Well I don't think I am suggesting anything "new" since people are exploiting the game mechanics already, and what I am proposing is penalizing them for doing so. I agree pvp was far more balanced and smooth at launch and beta.

Takllin

God_flakes wrote: »

Well I don't think I am suggesting anything "new" since people are exploiting the game mechanics already, and what I am proposing is penalizing them for doing so. I agree pvp was far more balanced and smooth at launch and beta.

What? How does this make sense? How are they exploiting the game mechanic? It's not a bug.

What your proposing is new, never been done in this game. It would take countless hours or coding, testing, etc. Where as fixing the existing issues and reworking existing mechanics is much less time consuming.

I mean this is meant to be massive warfare, I don't understand why people are trying to prohibit a zerg. Give us ways to properly combat a zerg without creating our own. You were run over by 15 people. Would you have liked it to be 5 while the other 10 watched and laughed?

God_flakes

I think you argue to impress yourself. You only want to argue.

I don't have an issue with zergs, really. I used to lead zergs. My issue is with players balling up and spamming AOE/healing. Even when I commanded zergs I never ordered them to ball up like cowards and focus one or two enemies and mow them over. This is CRAP gameplay and is stupid because only one gets the kill. What I am talking about is discouraging player stacking and spamming, a proximity penalty. If you're literally on top of 6 other players, you're damage is reduced and you're likely not gonna get the ap so don't bother. I see this as a viable way to change player behavior. Why is this so complicated for you? You don't like it. Fine. But at this point, you're working yourself up for no reason. You've stated your case. You disagree. Alright. Let's agree to disagree.

Takllin

God_flakes wrote: »

I think you argue to impress yourself. You only want to argue.

I don't have an issue with zergs, really. I used to lead zergs. My issue is with players balling up and spamming AOE/healing. Even when I commanded zergs I never ordered them to ball up like cowards and focus one or two enemies and mow them over. This is CRAP gameplay and is stupid because only one gets the kill. What I am talking about is discouraging player stacking and spamming, a proximity penalty. If you're literally on top of 6 other players, you're damage is reduced and you're likely not gonna get the ap so don't bother. I see this as a viable way to change player behavior. Why is this so complicated for you? You don't like it. Fine. But at this point, you're working yourself up for no reason. You've stated your case. You disagree. Alright. Let's agree to disagree.

If I only wanted to argue and hear myself talk, I'd be a politician or a lawyer.

I'm neither.

If you'd only like people to post who agree with your idea, I'll see myself out. Just state that in your OP next time. No point in trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't care to hear other opinions/ideas.

Lucky28

Why go through all that nonsense. Just make Friendly fire with offensive AOE (steel tornado, prox det, impulse etc) a thing.

RinaldoGandolphi

I don't think she is wanting only people who agree with her to post.

the core of the issue she is getting at is what Fengrush talked about on his podcast....these ball groups are getting a 50% damage reduction after 6 targets...its nonsense.

If im running a 6 man group and i ambush a 16 man group only 6 of them will take full damage from my attacks, the other 10 take half damage. As the group gets larger, only 6 take full damage. in a 24 man raid only 6 take full damage, 18 people are getting a 50% damage reduction just because they are standing enxt to someone else...this is just garbage...its absolute rubbish.

the only thing in the game that ignores this 50% reduction is siege and its been nerfed and does less damage then a Wrecking Blow....i can hit a single target harder with Wrecking Blow then i can with a Fire Ballista and this is the core issue.

I don't want one shot siege, what i do want is siege that does oh..lets say 5% more damage for each target hit up to a max of 300% with no AOE cap as it is currently.

this means large zergs dropping siege against smaller groups is pointless because siege won't be a heavy hitter unless its hitting 20 targets or more, but it will ensure these large zergblobs get wrecking for balling up which is how it should be.

In PVE you die for standing in stupid, in PVP you cna stand in stupid, bathe in oil and giggle...all while taking 50% less damage from most attacks this is why you can't even have a 20v20 in this game without server performance going to poo.

this suggestion in this thread is just one of many ideas being tossed around to address this core problem with the game....Removing the AOE cap as Fengrush suggested seems to be the most popular, this is just another way of trying to get the same result.

Takllin

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

I don't think she is wanting only people who agree with her to post.

the core of the issue she is getting at is what Fengrush talked about on his podcast....these ball groups are getting a 50% damage reduction after 6 targets...its nonsense.

If im running a 6 man group and i ambush a 16 man group only 6 of them will take full damage from my attacks, the other 10 take half damage. As the group gets larger, only 6 take full damage. in a 24 man raid only 6 take full damage, 18 people are getting a 50% damage reduction just because they are standing enxt to someone else...this is just garbage...its absolute rubbish.

the only thing in the game that ignores this 50% reduction is siege and its been nerfed and does less damage then a Wrecking Blow....i can hit a single target harder with Wrecking Blow then i can with a Fire Ballista and this is the core issue.

I don't want one shot siege, what i do want is siege that does oh..lets say 5% more damage for each target hit up to a max of 300% with no AOE cap as it is currently.

this means large zergs dropping siege against smaller groups is pointless because siege won't be a heavy hitter unless its hitting 20 targets or more, but it will ensure these large zergblobs get wrecking for balling up which is how it should be.

In PVE you die for standing in stupid, in PVP you cna stand in stupid, bathe in oil and giggle...all while taking 50% less damage from most attacks this is why you can't even have a 20v20 in this game without server performance going to poo.

this suggestion in this thread is just one of many ideas being tossed around to address this core problem with the game....Removing the AOE cap as Fengrush suggested seems to be the most popular, this is just another way of trying to get the same result.

I understand all of this.

So then what is her point? Just post once you disagree and leave? The only ones who can post multiple times are those who agree with her and want to further this idea?

This change has for more implications than anything else being proposed so far. I'm all for evening out the playing field, but eliminating the existence of a zerg is not the way to go about it. Your going to have players worrying if they are too close to other players. Inside keeps is going to be an issue. Seiging keeps is going to be an issue, taking resources, scrolls, etc. How can you have massive war and PvP if you get punished for being near your allies? That's silly. Everything in this game is all about being centered in a designated area to take an objective. You now want to penalize people for doing so? That's backwards.

Look if killing people was the only way to win campaigns, and score points for your faction. Sure, I get that this could be a viable option. It's not though. You get points by capturing objectives, and to do so you need to stack in small designated areas to flip or grab the objectives.

That's why I think it's a bad idea, among other things. I'm interested in having discussions about why you want these changes and what the effects of it will be. If people don't want to do that, then like I said I'll see myself out.

_adhyffbjjjf12

the issue is zerg balls not zergs, the latter of which is simply a faction with a large numerical advantage in a particular warzone which is all good and natural. The answer does not involve giving a skill that you can use to attack a zerg, because the zergers can use it as well. That leaves siege, or skills that dynamically alter their effect based on numbers hit. Calculating hits based on range scales out exponentially, so that's not gonna happen without bringing a server to its knees quickstyle.

Siege in warfare is IS the conduit for aoe, not players spamming knives or explosions or whatever out of their arses instantly as they move (????) Siege should be absolutely lethal but costly and time consuming to place.

To address zergs in particular I suggest a siege spike trap triggered with weight, i.e when > x players trigger within 1 second (can be disabled). Get rid of spammy aoe in wvw now, job done.

God_flakes

Taklin, I don't want only people who agree with me. I don't want people who only seem capable of crying "it's too hard to fix". This is BS. If zos can create a problem with coding they can darn well fix it with coding.