Maintenance for the week of November 18:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 18, 4:00AM EST (09:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• Xbox One: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 20, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®4: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 20, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)

AoE Caps Discussion

  • Septimus_Magna
    Septimus_Magna
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    1) remove aoe caps for damage
    2) cap barrier at 12 players
    3) cap purge at 12 players

    TEST these changes thoroughly on PTS before making adjustments

    We can speculate all we want but its hard to say something meaningful without being able to back up our arguments with data gathered during tests.

    [Edit] Nice to finally see you on the forum @Wrobel definitely a step in the right direction!
    Edited by Septimus_Magna on November 25, 2015 7:41AM
    Septimus Mezar - Altmer Sorcerer
    Magna Firebreath - Dunmer Dragon Knight
    Septimus Jah'zar - Khajiit Nightblade
    Septimus Thragar - Dunmer Nightblade
    Septimus Rulanir - Altmer Templar
    Septimus Nerox - Redguard Warden
  • Cogo
    Cogo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Put proxy back to how it was for a start, its hard get the jump when youve got 8 seconds? With a red ring around you and it stops the bigger groups using it because it slows them and keeps them in that animation.

    Agree with mr Blue on this one.

    I never understood why proxy got changed. Wasn't the whole idea with this skill to blow up crowds?
    Defense against proxy = Don't stand next to someone who is about to go Ka-BLAM.

    The "larger" groups are not a problem. Players lack of imagination about how to defeat them, is.

    On another topic,
    ...as a DK, talons are FAR more suitable as they are now. If talons again can root 60 people.....Let's not go there!

    There are many valid points in this thread, but very few offers any kind of suggestion how to improve the mechanics. Most seams to only focus what THEY would gain from.

    AoE "spamming" is very easy to fix. Identify and engage them. Just like healers, etc.
    Or moving from the "spam".

    I hope this thread will enhance and evolve the conflict in Tamriel. Not making it easy to smash buttons.
    Flame away...
    Edited by Cogo on November 25, 2015 8:15AM
    Oghur Hatemachine, Guild leader of The Nephilim - EU Megaserver
    Orc Weapon Specialist and Warchief of the Ebonheart Pact - Trueflame Cyrodiil War Campaign
    Guildsite: The Nephilim

    "I don't agree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"
    -Voltaire

    "My build? Improvise, overcome and adapt!"
  • Cogo
    Cogo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Zheg wrote: »
    I want tactical pvp fights with skills and sets that allow me to counter some builds and be weak to other builds, with fights that last long enough for all players to react and put up a fight.

    Call me crazy, but I want pvp to be about actually fighting other players, not blowing them up in 2 seconds so they can ride back on their mount, or being blown up myself in 2 seconds so I can ride back.

    Anyway, aoe caps don't make sense as an artificial limiter, but their removal would require (imo) mechanic changes to make sure aoes don't just melt everybody now.

    This is so well put Mr @Zheg !

    The problem isn't AoE caps per say, but to balance a complex system, so we do not return to DKs in a robe with a stick.
    Edited by Cogo on November 25, 2015 8:44AM
    Oghur Hatemachine, Guild leader of The Nephilim - EU Megaserver
    Orc Weapon Specialist and Warchief of the Ebonheart Pact - Trueflame Cyrodiil War Campaign
    Guildsite: The Nephilim

    "I don't agree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"
    -Voltaire

    "My build? Improvise, overcome and adapt!"
  • Bashev
    Bashev
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Derra wrote: »
    Bashev wrote: »
    Wrobel wrote: »

    With that being said, there are a few situations where healing is able to out scale damage. The first step we are taking is to look at some of the abilities that heal far more than we would like in large group fights. We’re specifically looking at Purge and Barrier initially, and will be reducing the max targets these abilities can hit. While we are looking at specific abilities, we are also looking into Magicka Detonation. This ability was always intended to be more effective versus groups and less effective against individual targets, and it is not meeting those design goals currently.

    You should also reduce the target for maneuver too.

    Maneuver should just break on casted heals too (not hot ticks) - that would solve all of it´s issues.

    That's a wonderful idea. I like it very much. It should also break on purge too.
    Because I can!
  • Bashev
    Bashev
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Wrobel @FENGRUSH

    Since Barrier seems to be a major part of this problem, why not make a new Ultimate that instantly removes damage shields within a target area? That's what we want right? Counters to powerful abilities instead of just nerfs to those abilities, in order to reward smart play? Tweek the Ultimate cost of the "Anti-Barrier" ability if it's deemed too effective.

    Because without dynamic ult regeneration the big group will have advantage again. They will remove the barrier from the small group and they maintain another barrier on they group.
    Because I can!
  • Derra
    Derra
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Galalin wrote: »
    Xsorus wrote: »
    I have to question if anyone on Zos team understands how or why aoe abilities are used?
    I'll use an example; you are worried that if you remove aoe caps aoes will be the only thing that is used.
    However you have a perfect in an example of daoc where that is not the case. People used aoes when they were supposed to be used.... When you had multiple targets. If people are spread out it makes more sense to use single target higher damage abilities then it is to spam aoe abilities. Like when I use to run into dks who'd spam nothing but elemental ring back in the day. This worked great if there multiple enemies.. However in a one vs one I usually stomped the crap out of these dks with little effort.

    In short removing aoe caps will do one thing; force people to spread out this causing more single target abilities to be used.

    Also that 5 man group in your op already has the distinct disadvantage of fighting 15 more people then them. Why add a passive damage reduction for the 20 man? Is the 15 person advantage alone not enough?

    The problem is AoE does to much damage... look at prox det its been worked into so many single target builds its just stupid.

    DK Scrub Out

    Proxy det is about the only aoe doing to much dmg. Every other aoe only becomes superior to singeltarget abilities when hitting 2 to 3 targets (an issues with steeltornade because of it´s giant radius) - what other aoes do you see used where singletarget would not be better?

    AOE dmg currently is fine except for two skills overperforming imho.
    Every comment is from a pvp pov unless stated otherwise.

    <Noricum>
    I live. I die. I live again.

    Derra - DC - Sorc - AvA 50
    Derrah - EP - Sorc - AvA 50

  • Turelus
    Turelus
    Community Ambassador
    First a question directly at Mr @Wrobel . How hard development wise is it to change AoE caps. Is this simple numbers which can be changed and we could see come in an incremental patch or does it require much more development.

    I ask as it seems this is something you could try removing to see how it goes, then take feedback about it and adjust accordingly.

    I am with others in that it seems removing the AoE caps would be a solution to a lot of problems regarding people balling up. I think balancing siege back to where it was (pre battlespirit nerf) would help as well, as it's far to easy to heal through that now.

    I am not sure I like the sound of purge/barrier nerfs as these are very core skills to any group. It's always bugged me that siege weapons have direct counters in the forms of Rapid/Purge/Barrier but at the same time someone in your group has to actually be using those skills.

    The only closing comment I can make is that after years of playing in the EVE Online sandbox I have learnt that no matter how you change things players are going to adapt and the new meta will arise and upset people just as much as the one previous. Just keep doing passes on things, keep bringing skills up and down and we'll have a better game.
    @Turelus - EU PC Megaserver
    :: Unofficial Forums FAQ :: MissBizz ESO Guides :: AlcastHQ Guides :: Tamriel Foundry Forums :: UESP ESO Page :: ESO Sets :: Woeler Tank Guides :: ESO Community Discord ::
    "Don't count on others for help. In the end each of us is in this alone. The survivors are those who know how to look out for themselves."
  • Cinbri
    Cinbri
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Wrobel wrote: »
    Remember that a group of 5 players is not going to be able to kill a group of 20 players in most situations.
    Seems confirmed that old good time when 5 people could wipe 20 in a 6 sec won't come back.
  • altemriel
    altemriel
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Cinbri wrote: »
    Wrobel wrote: »
    Remember that a group of 5 players is not going to be able to kill a group of 20 players in most situations.
    Seems confirmed that old good time when 5 people could wipe 20 in a 6 sec won't come back.



    This should always depend on tactics and skills, not only on counts!!
    *********************************************************************************************************************************************
    Haishi Daikodarajen, Redguard, Stamina Dragonknight, CPs around 600, Damage dealer, Huntress of Hircine
    ** Her story (click here)**

    **Her image - click here**
    ""It's one thing to see your past from present memory. It is entirely another to step through the Dragon and be yourself remembering the present in the past as the future."
    - Karstine Zeterra (2E)


    **********************************************************************************************************************************************
    Maoimii Da, Khajiit Magicka Nightblade, CPs around 600, master enchanter, damage dealer, elder vampire shade of death
    ** Her story (click here)**
    **Her image - click here**
    "May you walk on warm sands!
    Maoimii


    meowz!!



    ****************************************************************************************************************************************************
    PC, EU

    **Ideas for making this game even more fun: Click here

  • Didgerion
    Didgerion
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The purpose of AOE skills is simple: it is to give one player an utility to fight against a group of players.

    The problem with AOE in ESO is that there is no friendly fire and large groups are using AOE with no negative consequences.
    In a real world environment an AOE skill is inflicting damage not only to enemies but to allies as well if not placed properly.
    Of course you cannot implement friendly fire in ESO. But you can add a debuff to an AOE ability for each friendly unit hit. It has to be calculated that a bigger group will always hit harder with their combined AOE abilities but not by much. So the group of 5 people will not get evaporated instantly by a group of 20.

    Add a debuff to healing as well instead of capping when healing big groups.
    This way the AOE heals and AOE damage of large groups will always be stronger if compared to small groups but not by much.

    With the current AOE cap you punish drastically those small groups.

    Cheers!
  • altemriel
    altemriel
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    The purpose of AOE skills is simple: it is to give one player an utility to fight against a group of players.

    The problem with AOE in ESO is that there is no friendly fire and large groups are using AOE with no negative consequences.
    In a real world environment an AOE skill is inflicting damage not only to enemies but to allies as well if not placed properly.
    Of course you cannot implement friendly fire in ESO. But you can add a debuff to an AOE ability for each friendly unit hit. It has to be calculated that a bigger group will always hit harder with their combined AOE abilities but not by much. So the group of 5 people will not get evaporated instantly by a group of 20.

    Add a debuff to healing as well instead of capping when healing big groups.
    This way the AOE heals and AOE damage of large groups will always be stronger if compared to small groups but not by much.

    With the current AOE cap you punish drastically those small groups.

    Cheers!

    that sounds interresting.
    *********************************************************************************************************************************************
    Haishi Daikodarajen, Redguard, Stamina Dragonknight, CPs around 600, Damage dealer, Huntress of Hircine
    ** Her story (click here)**

    **Her image - click here**
    ""It's one thing to see your past from present memory. It is entirely another to step through the Dragon and be yourself remembering the present in the past as the future."
    - Karstine Zeterra (2E)


    **********************************************************************************************************************************************
    Maoimii Da, Khajiit Magicka Nightblade, CPs around 600, master enchanter, damage dealer, elder vampire shade of death
    ** Her story (click here)**
    **Her image - click here**
    "May you walk on warm sands!
    Maoimii


    meowz!!



    ****************************************************************************************************************************************************
    PC, EU

    **Ideas for making this game even more fun: Click here

  • Turelus
    Turelus
    Community Ambassador
    One more thing to add actually.

    Removing the AoE cap may break up trains, however this won't stop zergs. It's very important that people understand the difference in these.

    Zergs which most people consider to be any mass number of players running around together are more free flowing and stack up less than full trains which are the AoE spam/stacking groups you see.
    @Turelus - EU PC Megaserver
    :: Unofficial Forums FAQ :: MissBizz ESO Guides :: AlcastHQ Guides :: Tamriel Foundry Forums :: UESP ESO Page :: ESO Sets :: Woeler Tank Guides :: ESO Community Discord ::
    "Don't count on others for help. In the end each of us is in this alone. The survivors are those who know how to look out for themselves."
  • ToRelax
    ToRelax
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Zheg wrote: »
    The biggest concern I would want to see addressed if the aoe cap is removed are added measures to prevent group v group fights from being over even quicker than they already are. Lag permitting, most group v group fights come down to who gets their own bomb off successfully and can wipe the entire (or a large percentage of the) opposing group in one shot. If those fights are already over in literally <4 seconds, and the aoe caps are already in place to mitigate damage, their removal will make those fights even shorter because the bombs will be bigger. I know a few small-group minded players salivate at that thought, but I've always preferred long drawn out battles where sides clash and have chances to regroup, maneuver, and strategize DURING a fight. Most of our meta is already bomb and done, and I'd very much prefer to not see pvp go even further down that path.

    I'm not sure what concerns you here - you talk about problems in the current meta yet you object to changes aiming to shift it into a direction you'd appearantly like to see. Spread out fights with more room for strategy and tactics. Of course I hope the fight will be over very soon if even one side decides to stack up in a small radius, unless they just want to buff up and spreat out before they get wiped. That's the whole point.

    altemriel wrote: »
    Cinbri wrote: »
    Wrobel wrote: »
    Remember that a group of 5 players is not going to be able to kill a group of 20 players in most situations.
    Seems confirmed that old good time when 5 people could wipe 20 in a 6 sec won't come back.



    This should always depend on tactics and skills, not only on counts!!

    I think @Cinbri must have just dreamed that. :sleeping:
    Edited by ToRelax on November 25, 2015 11:13AM
    DAGON - ALTADOON - CHIM - GHARTOK
    The Covenant is broken. The Enemy has won...

    Elo'dryel - Sorc - AR 50 - Hopesfire - EP EU
  • Enodoc
    Enodoc
    Community Ambassador
    Dagoth_Rac wrote: »
    This would probably be difficult to implement, but what if AoE caps applied to new PvP players but not experienced PvP players? Like once you reach a certain Alliance War Rank, AoE will always hit you for 100% damage. This would hurt the "pro zergs" where everyone has millions and millions of AP and all the top skills and passives unlocked. But it would still allow new and casual players to go for a "safety in numbers" approach so that they don't get wrecked nonstop by experienced pro players. By the time they reach the rank cutoff where AoE hits them 100% all the time, hopefully they have played enough in Cyrodiil to spread out and still be good.
    I know nothing about the game's coding, but based on what exists currently, I think technically that would be doable. Battle Spirit can already affect HP, resistance, shields, and range, so it would be reasonable to assume that something to affect AoE abilities would also be possible. For example: Abilities with range greater than 5m deal p% damage to the first x targets, q% damage to the next y targets, and r% damage to the last z targets. This passive would apply to everyone in Cyrodiil with PvP rank less than 7.
    Crown wrote: »
    I'm curious how difficult it would be to remove the AoE caps on the coding side.
    Why not make a 7-day campaign to test PvP changes like this?
    I don't think it would be possible for a single campaign to have different AoE rules. Abilities are at worst global (meaning any change would have to apply everywhere), and at best restricted by passives like Battle Spirit, which are dependent on certain flags which exist in the game like IsPlayerInAvAWorld().
    Crown wrote: »
    Jaronking wrote: »
    If they make AP and Alliance Skill accounts wide they should do the same thing for the Undaunted skill line become account wide.Am tired of having to run Dungeons over and over again on my Alts to become better in PVP.
    Not the skill line, only the Alliance War Rank.
    If you don't make the skills account-wide, what is the benefit of making rank account-wide? I thought that request was based primarily on the skills. Related; since the skill lines are currently based on the rank, would you detach them so that the number of AP gained by that character for a particular rank was still the requirement for the skill line unlock at that rank?
    UESP: The Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages - A collaborative source for all knowledge on the Elder Scrolls series since 1995
  • Etaniel
    Etaniel
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Zheg wrote: »
    @Wrobel , I hope you timed this thread creation with the intention of having mass amounts of pumpkin pie to gorge on and get through the angry posts (that are mostly warranted, to be fair...).

    I truly don't think removing the aoe cap is going to have as pronounced an effect as has been sold to the general playerbase by a few well known names, but on that same vein of thought, I don't see too much harm in removing the aoe cap. The biggest concern I would want to see addressed if the aoe cap is removed are added measures to prevent group v group fights from being over even quicker than they already are. Lag permitting, most group v group fights come down to who gets their own bomb off successfully and can wipe the entire (or a large percentage of the) opposing group in one shot. If those fights are already over in literally <4 seconds, and the aoe caps are already in place to mitigate damage, their removal will make those fights even shorter because the bombs will be bigger. I know a few small-group minded players salivate at that thought, but I've always preferred long drawn out battles where sides clash and have chances to regroup, maneuver, and strategize DURING a fight. Most of our meta is already bomb and done, and I'd very much prefer to not see pvp go even further down that path. I know some of the small groupers want to be able to run into a juicy stack of players with <=4 of their own and blow everyone up in a second with ulti and aoe, but at that point it comes down to ego and wanting to be able to brag about kill counts rather than promoting a pvp environment focused on actual fighting with counters, strategy, LOS, terrain, etc. If I wanted to oneshot people, I'd play an FPS. I want tactical pvp fights with skills and sets that allow me to counter some builds and be weak to other builds, with fights that last long enough for all players to react and put up a fight. As fun as it is to stealth one-shot a vampire using the ridiculous mechanics of camo hunter, if all of pvp was like that it'd be boring as hell and people would spend more time on their horses (or in fact, running, because of the stuck in combat bug -_-) than actually fighting. Being blown up by prox det, ults, and aoe even quicker than the current meta does not sound like healthy or fun pvp.

    Call me crazy, but I want pvp to be about actually fighting other players, not blowing them up in 2 seconds so they can ride back on their mount, or being blown up myself in 2 seconds so I can ride back.

    Anyway, aoe caps don't make sense as an artificial limiter, but their removal would require (imo) mechanic changes to make sure aoes don't just melt everybody now. A strong prox det + ult combined with someone else's ult and a steel tornado can obliterate most players' health bar, and I'd don't see it as a healthy thing for the meta to shift even more towards a buff and bomb mentality. PLEASE be wary of that, as I don't think you're going to be able to placate the playerbase unless you remove the aoe caps - they've been whipped into such a frenzy over this you really don't have an alternative. Just make sure the aoe caps are removed responsibly so that TTK is not even shorter that it currently is for group v group fights.

    Half of your post makes sense, the other half doesnt.
    You don't want group fights to end faster than they already do, I agree, group fights are for the most part boring atm, it's whoever has the biggest bomb impact wins. removing aoe caps will make it even faster, yes. But that's only if groups keep playing the way they do, with crown stacking being the prominent strategy.

    you want "tactical pvp fights with skills and sets that allow me to counter some builds and be weak to other builds", and that is just not part of large group play I'm sorry. Group play requires group focused builds, and not builds that focus on countering what your enemy is using atm.

    If group think a bit, removal of aoe caps will make them spread out when they are being engaged by a bomb group, rendering the bomb group's aoe useless, and they'll work from there.
    Noricum | Kitesquad

    Youtube

    AR 41 DC DK

  • Joy_Division
    Joy_Division
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hi @Wrobel !

    We never wanted AoE caps. http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/88049/do-you-think-there-should-be-an-aoe-cap. April 2014. 87%. Overwhelming majority. Look at all the prescient forecasts how the game would devolve if implemented, Look at tall the players who are gone. We have seen what AoE caps have made Cyrodiil. Nobody likes it. They have to go.

    I'm going to say something that I bet a lot of people will scoff at, but I don't care, I stand by my assessment: AoEs really aren't that good. Steel tornado and Prox det are the only ones worth a damn and even then it requires multiple players using these to actually kill me. If you watch the best 1vX videos, how is it that they take those multiple targets down? Do they spam AoEs or do they use single target abilities and take them out one at a time? The latter. AoEs simply do not do enough damage as other players can mitigate, shield, and heal through them. It is the single target abilities that offer the burst necessary to actually score a kill. They will *not* be obsolete and anyone who is salivating to fill their bars with AoE in a post no-cap Cyrodiil is a sucker and in for a rude awakening. The only reason spin-to-win works is because ball-groups + AoE caps give provide the protection necessary for the critical mass it takes to kill people to actually survive. Just about every AoE in the game, wall of elements, impulse, volley, brawler, fire rune, etc., is just bad. I really think the fear of AoE domination is misguided.

    I'm going to echo what many other posters said. We aren't asking you to design the game so 5 beats 20. We are asking for equality, fairness, and for both sides to play by the same rules. It was always incredibly stupid that somehow 14 players of the group of 20 got free significant damage, but none of the 5 did not. A completely indefensible and incomprehensible scenario. Maybe when the idea was first proposed ZoS did not anticipate ball groups making it so the 20 had free damage reduction. Ignorance is no longer an excuse: 18 months of PvP have exposed how bad the AoE cap idea was.

    With the momentum (finally) against AoE Caps, I hate to be "that guy," but I am going to be in light of the accompanying reaction against healing. Be very very careful here lest the pendulum swings too far. Healing is *not* the problem. Heals are actually pretty weak compared to the damage flying around. The most powerful heal in the game (rushed ceremony) arguably cannot keep pace with a high-damage NB who animation cancels a heavy attack + surprise attack. I play a healer and I know it's a losing battle trying to keep my raid alive with the ridiculous damage flying around Cyrodiil in the era of no soft-caps. If you remove AoE caps, which was artificially providing my raid with free damage mitigation, people are going to die even faster. As it is, when two raids meet, the outcome is typically decided in less than 5 seconds. It won;t necessary be AoEs that dominate, but when people are running 4K spell/weapon power builds, if you remove the tools we have to heal through this, players are going to melt (because their opponents won't be using wall of elements!).

    Truth be told, like AoEs, most heals are just trash. The restoration staff is a terrible weapon that causes you to lose upwards of 700 spellpower (and also lose the benefit of a shield which a healer will need since they get targeted) and none of its skills will keep players alive in PvP. I know healing springs is a great PvE spell and back in 1.5 when there were soft caps that actually made sustained healing a thing, it worked very well. Healing Ritual is completely counterproductive, Blood Funnel is lol, and even the Templar ultimate is a very inefficient use of 150 ultimate. Healing passive lag far far behind damage passives. It's *hard* to keep players alive in Cyrodiil and some of the suggestions thrown out there such as randomizing the heals that do go out or breaking beneficial effects like Rapid Maneuver just make me shudder. People, you are going to need *more* healing when AoE Caps are gone and with every DLC that is released that further ups the damage players can do.

    Regarding barrier and purge, somehow these get thrown in with "healing," even though they are not strictly healing. When I say healing is weak, I am not referring to these abilities because 1) they aren't heals and 2) they are very strong. You actually say you are going to reduce the number of players these abilities hit so I guess that is decided. That's fine. BUT, do remember these skill serve a legitimate function in that as much as we may hate ball groups, sometimes we do have to be in a confined area: castle breech, flag, etc. Maybe make it so some of the useless heals nobody uses like blood funnel or healing ritual replicate some of the functionality of barrier and purge and thus make it so there are alternatives to get this functionality aside from the boring and not so skillful raid "designated purger."

    As far as Magicka Detonation, well, this was our promised replacement for our beloved Ground Oils and the votes are in: it's a stinker. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, how about you make it so magicka detonation follows the already proven zerg-busting function of Ground Oils? If you made it so the caster was immobile, had a cast time, a produced a large AOE fast ticking Dot, many of us would be happy Cyrodiil campers as it would solve several problems. It would stop abusing the skill as a tool for single target assassination (it was very hard, albeit amusing, to try and "gank" someone with a ground oil), it would deprive ball-groups of their primary means of mobile attack, and, *claps loudly* give outnumber defenders back their zerg-buster.

    My final suggestion is that you reach out to the more well-known guilds who field raids, what others call "ball-groups" or "zergs," and ask them exactly what has made stack-on-crown such a successful tactic for a year and a half. Whatever secrets they may have had are going to be obsolete the instant AoE caps are gone, and besides, people love to brag how smart they are. Get it straight from the horses mouth. For whatever reason, their representation of these forums is of a much less magnitude than their presence in Cyrodiil. I won't speak for other guilds who may have their own opinions, but I do know that Vehemence's GM would be happy to give you the input and answers to many of the questions you ask.
    Edited by Joy_Division on November 25, 2015 11:43AM
  • Docmandu
    Docmandu
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Wrobel wrote:
    For feedback this week, we’d love to hear about situations in which you feel like you are having problems against large groups of players. Include the number of players you’re fighting against, abilities you believe they are using, and abilities you feel need tweaks to make them more effective against larger numbers.

    To answer the question...

    Dealing with zerg balls (ie. 12+ players):

    - siege does nothing to them => issue with a few players in the ball spamming purge
    - ranged attacks by multiple people => does nothing, due to constant uptime of Barrier in these balls
    - there is no tool / skill to try and cause these balls to disperse
    - anyone that gets within 38 range of these balls is DEAD => issue of gap closers shortly stunning people, retreating maneuver does nothing to get away from this
    - as you already mentioned yourself, Proxy Detonation just doesn't do what it's designed for. It's mostly used BY the zerg balls and in solo fights.. don't think anyone ever killed a zerg ball with this skill.


    My idea / wish:

    1. Make balling a dangerous ordeal

    Still allow people to ball up and let the ball be able to deal a great amount of damage with AOEs like Steel Tornado, proxy det, banners and the likes.
    BUT.. make it so that you are very fragile when you're in ball form and risk a great deal if you do. This to prevent people ONLY running in a ball.

    Provide some tools / skills to cause a ball to disperse or to create danger for the ball. ie ranged small radius high damage AoEs, negates, poison clouds, shield inversion field that turns a shield into a self damage (spam barrier and wipe yourself), ...

    For example, you want it so that nobody in their right mind would even think about balling up in the open field, as it should be a death sentence... while it would be beneficial in a choke point like a mile gate, or a broken keep wall.


    2. Provide skills to be able to kite / get away from a ball

    Game is full of gap closers that momentarily stop your movement. It just takes 1 person in the ball to notice you, to kill you as there is no escape possible. If I see a ball in 20+ range, I should have a fair chance in using some skills to get away.. ie. skills like Retreating Maneuver which are supposed to do this, don't work due to the implied stun on gap close.


    3. Make Barrier a small group only skill

    Limited to the 4 players in the group.


    4. Healing

    Turn the smart heals into 4 player group first, with reduced effect on people outside your 4 player group.
    This one is actually about making it viable to run as a 4 player group. Too many times if you try this, you'll be healing somebody outside your group while your own group dies because heals are not going to the people you want. (ie. the dumb people that use siege and don't pay attention and just stand inside siege damage until they die)

    Bonus points if the smart heal would prioritize the friendly target you have in your cross hair, even if that one is outside the group... ie. for the cases you really want to keep that n00b up that doesn't see he's standing in siege.

    5. Stealth

    Having stealth is nice and works very nicely.. but somehow have my doubts about being able to stealth with 30+ people in 1 spot. I admit, not a major issue.



    IMHO groups should be 4 players .. with the large group just a tool to see where everybody is and for communication, but with little to no beneficial spells being extended to the entire large group.
  • Hektik_V
    Hektik_V
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Wrobel wrote: »
    For feedback this week, we’d love to hear about situations in which you feel like you are having problems against large groups of players. Include the number of players you’re fighting against, abilities you believe they are using, and abilities you feel need tweaks to make them more effective against larger numbers.

    Well this one situation where there's a blue guild and a yellow guild that can field upwards of 60-80 players into one area. The way that AoE damage falls off so extremely sharply makes taking these groups down impossible even with a solid 20 man raid (as they can stack so deep to the point that they reach the AoE cap and are no longer taking damage). As @FENGRUSH has said "the only advantage they should have is numbers, not artificial mitigation."

    Wouldn't potential server performance skyrocket without the additional calculations of the AoE falloff formula?
    Hektik-One
    Hektik V
    Hektiksaurus
    Hekspawn

    @HEKT1K
  • Forztr
    Forztr
    ✭✭✭✭
    Purge needs to put a debuff on the recipient so that they can only receive one Purge every 2-4secs. This will help make siege effective again.

    Barrier should be a 6-12m skill. So if you're within 6m of the caster you don't get it but within 6-12m you do there by creating a barrier of protected players around the caster.

    If you do remove AOE caps the the radius of AOEs will need reviewing. eg Steel Tornado.

  • tinythinker
    tinythinker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Ffastyl wrote: »
    Removing AoE caps, as many call for, allows AoE abilities to form zones of control as well. By uncapping the targets and damage, the area of effect of AoE abilities becomes a place players want to avoid, forcing scattering similar to siege. Because these are abilities players can cast on demand, zones of control can be made quickly and tactically, something the sluggish siege engines struggle to do. However AoEs are inherently less debilitating than siege, making siege the winner in any straight fight between the two tools. This is as @FENGRUSH has argued. Removing AoE caps will incentivise players to spread out, leaving the range of healers and becoming susceptible to the (generally) stronger single target attacks.

    But there is a downside to removing AoE caps shown to us by pre-1.6 behavior: impulse trains. While impulse itself has been tweaked, any AoE ability can be used in its stead. A group can ball up tightly and spam a single AoE, the collective damage enough to destroy any who fall within range. Other groups will scatter to avoid such high damage but the AoE train, being mobile, will lock onto a pocket of scattered players and eliminate them, then turn to another pocket of scattered players and repeat. The scattered group can no longer muster the collective damage to stop the train, especially since getting close means death.

    The counter pre-1.6 players found was siege. Siege will always deal more damage than AoE abilities, thus one of the players in the scattered group could place a siege and force the AoE train to scatter. Previously oil pots were the best option because it was easy to lure impulse trains into them and dump. With the 6m minimum height limitation, players will have to use ballistae and catapults to counter AoE trains. It takes skill to hit a moving target with siege, so PvP will not be threatened with returning to a numbers game.

    So, AoE caps. If removed ESO will become a more skill based game on the small to medium scale PvP conflicts. On the large scale conflicts, the group that can ball up tightest and spam AoE most efficiently will win, unless siege is made so significantly stronger that even these large groups will scatter when under siege fire.



    What do you think of Endoc's suggestion of inverting the caps?
    Enodoc wrote: »
    Currently, the more enemies there, the less damage is effectively done. Why not increase the damage done based on the number of players hit? So 25% to the first 6, 50% to the next 24, and 100% to the last 30. That way, the AoE abilities are good against large groups, but single-target spells remain useful in 1-on-1 situations. Zergs spamming the AoEs wouldn't be very effective, as they will be up against a smaller number, and healers wouldn't be able to heal the zerg as effectively because more people will have taken more damage.
    Like removing AoE caps, it allows instant-cast AoE to control areas of the battlefield by encouraging people to scatter to avoid taking damage, thus as you say going out of the range of healing. If abilities like Purge and Barrier had cool-downs with player immunity (i.e. can't receive the ability again for X seconds after it ends), spreading out would be encouraged even more.

    You could even up the damage, so that the first 6 targets take 25%, the next 24 targets take 50%, and the last 30 take 125%. The advantage of this system is that it takes four players per bomb group to do the same damage to 6 people or less than one player can now, yet, those 6 people would be doing more damage to the larger group.

    You could keep playing with these numbers to find a good balance:

    1. First 6=25%, next 24=50%, last 30=100%
    2. First 6=25%, next 24=50%, last 30=125%
    3. First 6=25%, next 24=75%, last 30=100%
    5. First 6=25%, next 24=75%, last 30=125%
    6. First 6=25%, next 18=50%, last 34=100%
    7. First 6=25%, next 18=50%, last 34=125% (<-- my favorite)
    8. First 6=25%, next 18=75%, last 34=100%
    9. First 6=25%, next 18=75%, last 34=125%
    10. Etc.

    The advantages to this kind of inverted cap are:
    • Large bomb groups and zergy blobs are punished by the AoE of small groups while doing less damage to small groups with their own AoE. Same type of benefit as removing AoE caps (can hit big groups for more) but better but the old "pain trains" are also discouraged. By just removing AoE caps, super high damage builds can still bunch together to wreck both smaller groups as well as larger groups. That would be harder with inverted caps, and require *actual* skill rather than calling uber-builds, lots of CP, and the passives from higher alliance ranks "skill". I think players like Fengrush would thrive in an inverted cap scheme.
    • Newer and less skilled players would be able to stand up better to "pain trains" and bomb groups, not just skilled high alliance rank players.
    • By splitting up big groups and making AoE less useful in small-group fights, it encourages single-target skills.
    • Adjustments could be made to the break points and damage multipliers in the inverted cap system to find the best balance, and such and changes could be made more quickly to address concerns.
    • With cool-downs added to Purge and Barrier, healers would be more vulnerable targets and their smart heals would better fit the battlefield.

    Scenarios (using my favorite set of numbers for an inverted AoE cap):

    A. A 24-player or fewer group meets a 24-player or fewer group. They try spamming AoE, but, at best those abilities are doing half damage. If one group is 6 players or smaller, they are only taking 25% damage. If the smaller group is going against a group larger than 6, they can actually hit harder with their own AoE. Yes, numbers still favor the over-6 group but not because they can just AoE-spam the smaller group to death. If the 6 players are very skilled versus a bunch of neophytes, they can still win.

    B. A10-24 player group meats a 35-45 person group. The larger group tries to spam AoE but is only doing half damage whereas the smaller group is doing 25 to 125% damage with its AoE. A much fairer fight that encourages the larger group to split up or stay in a blob and switch to single target while getting hammered by the opposing group's amped up AoE.

    C. A 35+ group versus a 35+ group go head to head. They can mostly annihilate each other with up to 125% damage on their AoE spam after hitting the Purge/Barrier cool-down or they can split up.

    The only reason I can see for preferring removing AoE caps to using some version of an inverted cap is to make it easier for people to 1vX and show off, as an inverted cap otherwise does what cap removal does but does it in a way that doesn't put less skilled/poorer geared/lower ranked players at as much of a disadvantage (yet at more of a disadvantage than the current system) and forces 1vx or very small group vs. large group to use actual skill to pull off impressive stands.

    EDIT: Hmmm, I am think now that I would prefer any targets after the first 24 to be hit for more like 150% or maybe more, to really discourage blobs.
    Edited by tinythinker on November 25, 2015 1:51PM
    Make-A-Friend! Experienced, new, returner? Help keep ESO's community strong ᕙ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ᕗ and add someone new to your friend list ʕ·ᴥ·ʔ

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Fifth anniversary year for ESO - Share your Best Memories! ◔ ⌣ ◔

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Support Mudcrab Mode for ESO (\/)!_!(\/)
  • Bashev
    Bashev
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    As far as Magicka Detonation, well, this was our promised replacement for our beloved Ground Oils and the votes are in: it's a stinker. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, how about you make it so magicka detonation follows the already proven zerg-busting function of Ground Oils? If you made it so the caster was immobile, had a cast time, a produced a large AOE fast ticking Dot, many of us would be happy Cyrodiil campers as it would solve several problems.
    I think it will be better if they bring back ground oils than the skill that you proposed because you cannot stack oils on the same location. Can you imagine 5-6 people using this skill stacked and 3-4 people just spamming heals. Everything what gets inside will melt down (As you said not like wall of elements melt down).

    Can anyone remind me why ZoS removed ground oils? Was it because people can use it next to keeps and use the siege limit? If that was the reason they just can remove the oils from the siege limit counter.
    Because I can!
  • Etaniel
    Etaniel
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Bashev wrote: »
    As far as Magicka Detonation, well, this was our promised replacement for our beloved Ground Oils and the votes are in: it's a stinker. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, how about you make it so magicka detonation follows the already proven zerg-busting function of Ground Oils? If you made it so the caster was immobile, had a cast time, a produced a large AOE fast ticking Dot, many of us would be happy Cyrodiil campers as it would solve several problems.
    I think it will be better if they bring back ground oils than the skill that you proposed because you cannot stack oils on the same location. Can you imagine 5-6 people using this skill stacked and 3-4 people just spamming heals. Everything what gets inside will melt down (As you said not like wall of elements melt down).

    Can anyone remind me why ZoS removed ground oils? Was it because people can use it next to keeps and use the siege limit? If that was the reason they just can remove the oils from the siege limit counter.

    But they would have to stay still, making them vulnerable to ground aoe/siege. Of course ground static aoe would have to be buffed (cough cough wall of elements cough cough)
    Noricum | Kitesquad

    Youtube

    AR 41 DC DK

  • Merlin13KAGL
    Merlin13KAGL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    How about removing the 'random' factor entirely? No 100%/50%/25% needed that way.
    • Make AoE Skills Heal/Damage for an amount, hitting up to a max # of targets (6/60 or whatever is determined)
    • Take that amount and distribute it equally among the first X individuals in the area of effect, with preference to group members first, non group members second.
    This way, it evens out for large and small groups, as the same skill cast on a 4 man group will heal / damage considerably more than when cast on a 24 man group. There is also not the concern of happening to be (or not be, depending on if it's a heal or a damage skill) one of the lucky 6.

    The number of calculations server-side should be reduced, as the server would only have to find the first X people in the area of effect and apply the same effect equally to all of them (pre-mitigation, etc, of course).

    Per person damage/healing may still have to be capped to keep this from backfiring, but I feel it would even out the damage in a more reasonable manner.
    Just because you don't like the way something is doesn't necessarily make it wrong...

    Earn it.

    IRL'ing for a while for assorted reasons, in forum, and in game.
    I am neither warm, nor fuzzy...
    Probably has checkbox on Customer Service profile that say High Aggro, 99% immunity to BS
  • Manoekin
    Manoekin
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Galalin wrote: »
    Xsorus wrote: »
    I have to question if anyone on Zos team understands how or why aoe abilities are used?
    I'll use an example; you are worried that if you remove aoe caps aoes will be the only thing that is used.
    However you have a perfect in an example of daoc where that is not the case. People used aoes when they were supposed to be used.... When you had multiple targets. If people are spread out it makes more sense to use single target higher damage abilities then it is to spam aoe abilities. Like when I use to run into dks who'd spam nothing but elemental ring back in the day. This worked great if there multiple enemies.. However in a one vs one I usually stomped the crap out of these dks with little effort.

    In short removing aoe caps will do one thing; force people to spread out this causing more single target abilities to be used.

    Also that 5 man group in your op already has the distinct disadvantage of fighting 15 more people then them. Why add a passive damage reduction for the 20 man? Is the 15 person advantage alone not enough?

    The problem is AoE does to much damage... look at prox det its been worked into so many single target builds its just stupid.

    DK Scrub Out

    That's because it's delayed. You can time it with a high damage single target ability to great effect. You're not going to put steel tornado into your rotation or anything. Prox and Inevitable do no damage when you block them anyway, so in a single target situation I don't see the issue. It has nothing to do with AOE caps. It's just being smart.
    Alacrity, RÁGE
    Founder of: Estoy Aqui, NaC
    Imperial Templar

    World First Dragonstar Normal and Veteran Modes
    World Fastest Aetherian Archive and World Second Hel'Ra Citadel
  • Enodoc
    Enodoc
    Community Ambassador
    Enodoc wrote: »
    Currently, the more enemies there, the less damage is effectively done. Why not increase the damage done based on the number of players hit? So 25% to the first 6, 50% to the next 24, and 100% to the last 30. That way, the AoE abilities are good against large groups, but single-target spells remain useful in 1-on-1 situations. Zergs spamming the AoEs wouldn't be very effective, as they will be up against a smaller number, and healers wouldn't be able to heal the zerg as effectively because more people will have taken more damage.
    Like removing AoE caps, it allows instant-cast AoE to control areas of the battlefield by encouraging people to scatter to avoid taking damage, thus as you say going out of the range of healing. If abilities like Purge and Barrier had cool-downs with player immunity (i.e. can't receive the ability again for X seconds after it ends), spreading out would be encouraged even more.

    You could keep playing with these numbers to find a good balance:

    1. First 6=25%, next 24=50%, last 30=100%
    2. First 6=25%, next 24=75%, last 30=125%
    3. First 6=25%, next 18=50%, last 34=100%
    4. First 6=25%, next 18=50%, last 34=125% (<-- my favorite)

    Scenarios (using my favorite set of numbers for an inverted AoE cap):

    A. A 24-player or fewer group meets a 24-player or fewer group. They try spamming AoE, but, at best those abilities are doing half damage. If one group is 6 players or smaller, they are only taking 25% damage. If the smaller group is going against a group larger than 6, they can actually hit harder with their own AoE. Yes, numbers still favor the over-6 group but not because they can just AoE-spam the smaller group to death. If the 6 players are very skilled versus a bunch of neophytes, they can still win.

    B. A10-24 player group meats a 35-45 person group. The larger group tries to spam AoE but is only doing half damage whereas the smaller group is doing 125% damage with its AoE. A much fairer fight that encourages the larger group to split up or stay in a blob and switch to single target while getting hammered by the opposing group's amped up AoE.

    C. A 35+ group versus a 35+ group go head to head. They can mostly annihilate each other with 125% damage on their AoE spam after hitting the Purge/Barrier cool-down or they can split up.

    The only reason I can see for preferring removing AoE caps to using some version of an inverted cap is to make it easier for people to 1vX and show off, as an inverted cap otherwise does what cap removal does but does it in a way that doesn't put less skilled/poorer geared/lower ranked players at as much of a disadvantage (yet at more of a disadvantage than the current system) and forces 1vx or small group v large group to use actual skill to pull off impressive stands.
    Thanks for providing some validation to my suggestion :) I agree that the numbers could do with some balancing, and I like your suggestion of 6+18 for the lower values, as that directly equals one full group. To make it up to 60 (does anyone know what the relevance is of 60?), you would need the last grouping to be 36 rather than 34.

    Your scenarios show that there is still an advantage in having a larger group, as there should be, but there is less incentive for that group to blob up. If the aim is to remove caps completely, I assume that also applies to the hard cap of 60? In which case, you could have 25% damage for the first 6, 50% damage for the next 18, 125% damage for the next 36, and then 100% damage for everyone else. Or is the hard cap of 60 still required to alleviate computing time and prevent more lag?
    UESP: The Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages - A collaborative source for all knowledge on the Elder Scrolls series since 1995
  • Ishammael
    Ishammael
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    FENGRUSH wrote: »
    <snip>

    Fengrush covered most of the details. Agree completely with his assessment. I'm going to hit the issue from a different angle.

    First: Purge and barrier are not core issues. How they interact with game mechanics is the issue.

    Premise: AoE caps, ultimate generation, and skill balance are completely inter-twinned.

    The following characteristics define the current group meta in ESO:
    1. Coordinated Prox Det
    2. Rotating Barriers
    3. Steel Tornado for absurd AoE damage scaling (execute bonus damage, bonus damage vs CC'd target)
    4. Ultimates for AoE crowd control (Nova, meteor, Banner, leap) and to add bonus damage to ST.
    5. Rotating rapid maneuvers to keep the group moving.

    This meta exists because:
    1. AoE caps artificially reduce damage to large groups.
    2. Barrier creates a huge damage shield on 24 people.
    3. Heals automatically target lowest-health players. Damage does not.
    4. Feature (1) and (2) and (3) couple together: 20k+ shield on 24 people (not crit-able), with >50% damage reduction beyond 6, heals automatically target the players that get hit with damage!!!!!!
    6. Therefore an opposing group must put out enormous BURST damage in order to wipe the entire group before they react (i.e. pop a barrier, which will save an entire raid by itself). Hence, Prox det and coordinated ultimate.

    Considerations: AoE caps and dynamic ultimate interplay. Pre patch 1.6 dynamic ultimate enabled small groups to consistently wipe large groups via smart play. Ultimate gain was the equalizing dynamic -- the more people engaged, the faster i could gain ultimate. The cost was risk: I had to be able to survive against much larger numbers. AoE caps were somewhat sensible in this case because ultimate generation was based on how many players were hit, criticals, and so forth. HOWEVER, balance changes could have scaled ultimate generation better while enabling the ability to uncap AoE.

    Current situation: static ultimate generation means that the large group ALWAYS has more ultimate available than a smaller group. When added to the AoE cap, this gives the large group an artificial, unfair playing advantage. The large group already has the advantage of numbers and the ability to prepare a larger number of ultimates for an initial use.

    I've already touched on skill balance. AoE removal requires consideration of all skills as they stand. The changes required for these skills are different depending on the AoE cap mechanic, whether or not dynamic ultimate stays, and so forth. For example, barrier is much less of a problem without AoE caps.

    Finally, can you comment on the performance consideration of AoE caps? The meta as I've described it absolutely destroys servers and the ability to have fun. Changes which break this up are important.
    Edited by Ishammael on November 25, 2015 2:06PM
Sign In or Register to comment.