Should HoTs stack?

i11ionward

No

WrathOfInnos wrote: »

This is not a simple issue. You can also ask "Should my chosen heal do nothing if someone else on my random BG team has the same ability?" Single instance heals were problematic.

The devs had a good reason to make heals stack, and for years it did not cause any significant problems. What is different now? Damage too low (DoTs and burst nerfed)? Tank meta (strong sets and access to defensive buffs)? There is surely a better solution.

I think hybridization played an important role, now anyone can take vigor and use it effectively. A team of 12 people practically does not need a special healer. And now it's definitely a bigger problem than before.

If HoTs stop stacking, I don't think it will affect PvE at all, it might even be a plus, since people will have to use more combinations of classes and skills, and not just take a skill from the general line.

i11ionward

No

Rasande_Robin wrote: »

"Heal stacking" is unbalanced because there is no hard counter to it such as cleanse on "dots" so dot stacking is not as effective.

By the way, most MMOs have the ability to quickly and effectively remove buffs (including HoTs) from opponents. But in TESO this possibility is very limited. Another reason why HoTs shouldn't stack since there is no counter to them.

katorga

No

Billium813 wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

All things being equal (skill, gear, CP, etc,) 2 players should beat 1. 3 should beat 2. 12 should beat 11.

It seems like your ignoring WHY 2 players should beat 1. Should it be because they out heal the 1 person? Or because there are literally 2 of them, with twice the potential action output (damage and healing)?

Each additional player is a reduction in GCD. A group can fire 2, 3, 4...12 skills per GCD. (in my opinion, this is the greatest advantage)

Each additional player is a 100% buff to healing and damage.

Each additional player is potentially a 100% buff to damage mitigation....if one of your group members intentionally or accidentally body blocks and attack meant for you.

Those advantages scale, but can also be magnified by coordination. A smaller, coordinated group can beat a larger, uncoordinated group. But eventually enough numbers will win out over coordination.

p00tx

Yes

WrathOfInnos wrote: »

This is not a simple issue. You can also ask "Should my chosen heal do nothing if someone else on my random BG team has the same ability?" Single instance heals were problematic.

The devs had a good reason to make heals stack, and for years it did not cause any significant problems. What is different now? Damage too low (DoTs and burst nerfed)? Tank meta (strong sets and access to defensive buffs)? There is surely a better solution.

What's changed is there are an insanely huge amount of gearing options available, dmg is crazy high, mitigation, is super high, and healing output is [individually] a little high. With all of that, people can play in a myriad of ways and they tend to play in large groups (zergs). If you have healers pumping out layers upon layers of insane healing while increasing group mitigation through sets and tanks increasing mitigation through sets, your dps can essentially be glass cannons and do a lot of damage. On top of that, there are sets designed to arrest momentum and pull players into the center of stacked damage AoEs. With damage this high, and healing this high, anyone who plays in smaller groups stands no chance of surviving unless they build super tanky, and then they'll lack the damage to actually kill anyone.

This makes smaller groups and solo players far less effective, if not completely ineffective, and it makes the whole environment completely unfun for anyone except well-stacked ball groups and zerg packs. When damage and healing was lower and more manageable, it was easier to create a balanced build that could effectively go toe-to-toe against groups on skilled players. The current meta potential has zapped even the most skilled players unfortunately. It takes very little skill to be successful in PvP now, which is fine, because it opens up that part of the game to more of the community, but it does really kill the game for the more skilled, competitive players.

It's unfortunately difficult to find that balance that makes room for everyone. How do you really balance a game to be open and welcoming to those at the bottom of the skill ladder without making the game boring and unchallenging for those at the top, or make it interesting enough to retain your top players without locking out those at the bottom?

Stx

No

I voted no because you didn’t have a third option.

I think Aoe instant cast hots should either not exist, or have a much shorter duration and increased cost. I would prefer them to be rebalanced over just making them not stack, but if the only option is to keep it as is or make them not stack, I think it’s better for the game for them to not stack.

OBJnoob

Yes

Thecompton73 wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

It is fine for 12 to beat 1 and it is also fine for 1 to beat 12. What isn't fine is to create limitations that artificially deflate the natural strength of numbers.

I don't know why you find me so irrational and stupid @Thecompton73

I will try to keep my posts shorter. Perhaps I am babbling and muddying my own point. It's a VERY simple point and not irrational at all.

I never said anything about you being stupid. But you will argue in one post greater numbers should always win but then in another claim it's perfectly fine for 12 people to stack enough heals that 50 people, including some using siege, can't kill them as they run the bigger group over again and again farming AP. Those are completely contradictory statements and to be able to hold both positions as valid at the same time is to defy rationality.
People aren't arguing because they want to "deflate the natural strength of numbers" they want that strength to be restored. Whether it's 12v20, 12v30, 12v40 or 12v50, when there are sufficiently greater numbers there needs to be a point in which heal stacking and LOSing and cross buffing each other with 15 different set bonuses is overcome. For every battle in history where smaller numbers used skill, gear and tactics to win a fight there are a hundred where the smaller force might decimate twice their own number yet the math of attrition can't be overcome when the enemy starts with 5X their force.

I'm 100% sure whatever contradictory post(s) you read of mine was responding to someone else's hypothetical scenario. The context for whatever reason made me want to attack the debate from a different direction.

I would like to ask you to quote two posts of mine that you feel are contradictory because I would either reconcile them for you or admit to having put my foot in my mouth. But I won't. If you want to, then by all means do so, but it seems unfair to ask you to comb through multiple fast-moving threads.

I've felt the same way the entire time about this discussion. I have criticized solo players for trying to unfairly nerf groups so they can handle them better. Yes. I have also defended a ballgroups right to win against a faction stack. Yes. These two things seem contradictory, yes.

But the thing is it doesn't matter (to me,) who wins the hypothetical fight. 1 should be able to beat 12 if the 12 aren't very good. It's a big ask, but the possibility should be there. And it is. Likewise, 12 should be able to beat 30 if they (the 12,)ARE organized. It should be possible. And it is. These aren't contradictory opinions. These are the same opinions-- one on a large scale and one on a small scale.

What it seems to me is that people want the 1 to have a chance against the 12 even if the 12 ARE organized. Or conversely, they want the 30 to beat the 12 even though the 30 are NOT organized. And their method for solving both problems is basically to introduce a new mechanic limiting possible teamwork. Benefitting people who aren't in teams to begin with AND people who are in teams that don't have very good teamwork.

I don't like the idea. Not sure why that doesn't make sense.

Dojohoda

Maybe put a cap on how many of the same types can be active on one player at a time. Looking back on the comments, I see that's already been suggested.

KingLewie_III

No

OBJnoob wrote: »

Thecompton73 wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

It is fine for 12 to beat 1 and it is also fine for 1 to beat 12. What isn't fine is to create limitations that artificially deflate the natural strength of numbers.

I don't know why you find me so irrational and stupid @Thecompton73

I will try to keep my posts shorter. Perhaps I am babbling and muddying my own point. It's a VERY simple point and not irrational at all.

I never said anything about you being stupid. But you will argue in one post greater numbers should always win but then in another claim it's perfectly fine for 12 people to stack enough heals that 50 people, including some using siege, can't kill them as they run the bigger group over again and again farming AP. Those are completely contradictory statements and to be able to hold both positions as valid at the same time is to defy rationality.
People aren't arguing because they want to "deflate the natural strength of numbers" they want that strength to be restored. Whether it's 12v20, 12v30, 12v40 or 12v50, when there are sufficiently greater numbers there needs to be a point in which heal stacking and LOSing and cross buffing each other with 15 different set bonuses is overcome. For every battle in history where smaller numbers used skill, gear and tactics to win a fight there are a hundred where the smaller force might decimate twice their own number yet the math of attrition can't be overcome when the enemy starts with 5X their force.

I'm 100% sure whatever contradictory post(s) you read of mine was responding to someone else's hypothetical scenario. The context for whatever reason made me want to attack the debate from a different direction.

I would like to ask you to quote two posts of mine that you feel are contradictory because I would either reconcile them for you or admit to having put my foot in my mouth. But I won't. If you want to, then by all means do so, but it seems unfair to ask you to comb through multiple fast-moving threads.

I've felt the same way the entire time about this discussion. I have criticized solo players for trying to unfairly nerf groups so they can handle them better. Yes. I have also defended a ballgroups right to win against a faction stack. Yes. These two things seem contradictory, yes.

But the thing is it doesn't matter (to me,) who wins the hypothetical fight. 1 should be able to beat 12 if the 12 aren't very good. It's a big ask, but the possibility should be there. And it is. Likewise, 12 should be able to beat 30 if they (the 12,)ARE organized. It should be possible. And it is. These aren't contradictory opinions. These are the same opinions-- one on a large scale and one on a small scale.

What it seems to me is that people want the 1 to have a chance against the 12 even if the 12 ARE organized. Or conversely, they want the 30 to beat the 12 even though the 30 are NOT organized. And their method for solving both problems is basically to introduce a new mechanic limiting possible teamwork. Benefitting people who aren't in teams to begin with AND people who are in teams that don't have very good teamwork.

I don't like the idea. Not sure why that doesn't make sense.

I think you're missing the point. The way things are now, you can stack HOTs to absurd numbers as we've seen in the photo posted in this thread. This makes groups unkillable, even if they're outnumbered 2 to 1 by another coordinated group. And when you get two groups like this that run into each other, no one dies. All it does is create more performance issues on the server for everyone else trying to enjoy the game. It's PVP, everyone should be able to die, and it shouldn't take an act of God to do so.

It's cringe when you've got a bunch of players running around with no buffs up, no heals of their own, just light attacking and roll dodging their hearts out, and they can't die because they've got 27 HoTs coming from external sources.

TechMaybeHic

Yes

Nah it's the challenge of taking in greater numbers.

I mean, 12 stacking health and healing so high that you have to coordinate a mass ultimate dump to kill 1 to 6 at a time around LOS from the others. Definitely outnumbered. Yep

WrathOfInnos

Yes

Billium813 wrote: »

Rasande_Robin wrote: »

Same buff should max stack 3 times... Not 12 echoing vigor's from 12 players... thats 144 active vigors...

That doesn't sound right

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't vigor only hit 6 allies? Could maybe get 12 with multiple casts, but at the cost of multiple GCD's and no guarantee it wouldn't just hit the same players again.

If target caps per cast were the topic I'd certainly be willing to have that discussion. Maybe vigor could only hit 4, so it remains useful in pug dungeons, BG's and small scale Cyro, but would need to be cast 3 or more times as the group scaled up to 12. 9k stamina and 3 GCD's is a high price.

Personally I think Radiating should also hit 4, even if that required a small nerf to its cost or healing output. 3 is just an awkward limit in 4 man groups.

The other related issue to HoT stacking is DoT stacking. If someone is not killable with 12 HoTs, wouldn't the flip side be that combat is not survivable with 12 of the same DoT applied (think Venomous Claw X12, or 12 Dawnbreakers). There have been many times where certain DoTs were only usable by one player at a time, as additional instances did no damage. Much like HoT stacking this was determined to be problematic by the devs (your cast being negated by an ally is frustrating and poorly designed), so they fixed nearly all cases (some exceptions remain, like Kjalnar and Plaguebreak). Skills need to work reliably, damage or heal.

i11ionward

No

WrathOfInnos wrote: »

The other related issue to HoT stacking is DoT stacking.

Yes, with DoTs there is also a logical stacking problem, but keep in mind that most of the DoTs in the game do little damage and DoTs can be dealt with by purge. And for those DoTs that have a strong impact on the balance, the possibility of stacking should be reconsidered.

Turtle_Bot

No

OBJnoob wrote: »

It is fine for 12 to beat 1 and it is also fine for 1 to beat 12. What isn't fine is to create limitations that artificially deflate the natural strength of numbers.

I don't know why you find me so irrational and stupid @Thecompton73

I will try to keep my posts shorter. Perhaps I am babbling and muddying my own point. It's a VERY simple point and not irrational at all.

but it's also not fine to create factors that also inflate the natural strength of those numbers either, especially on top of the existing natural strengths that those numbers already have. We are seeing the result of this currently with immortal ball groups that are abusing the factors that are over inflating their natural advantage of bigger numbers.

Melzo

No

I suggest that the copy of the effect heals 50 percent less than the previous one. For example 1 heals 100 percent second 50 third 25 fourth 12.5 fifth 6.25 and so on.

mocap

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

We are seeing the result of this currently with immortal ball groups

This is true only for CP campaign. In non CP campaign ballgroups dying left and right. Also they get a lot of survivability from Snow Treaders. And if ZOS somehow nerf heal stacking, ballgroups will start stacking 10-12 Hiti's Hearth set.

I think we should leave it as it is.

i11ionward

No

mocap wrote: »

And if ZOS somehow nerf heal stacking, ballgroups will start stacking 10-12 Hiti's Hearth set.
.

Only this effect is similar to HoTs and should not stack either.

OBJnoob

Yes

KingLewie_III wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. The way things are now, you can stack HOTs to absurd numbers as we've seen in the photo posted in this thread. This makes groups unkillable, even if they're outnumbered 2 to 1 by another coordinated group. And when you get two groups like this that run into each other, no one dies. All it does is create more performance issues on the server for everyone else trying to enjoy the game. It's PVP, everyone should be able to die, and it shouldn't take an act of God to do so.

It's cringe when you've got a bunch of players running around with no buffs up, no heals of their own, just light attacking and roll dodging their hearts out, and they can't die because they've got 27 HoTs coming from external sources.

The performance issue is a serious problem but I wouldn't be so sure casting any 1 skill creates significantly more lag than any other. They could cast radiating Regen every 5 seconds-- or they could spam Breath of Life, Flames of Oblivion, RaT, or just throw Caltrops everywhere they go. Would one be noticably better than the other? Or is the real problem just the number of people in any given place?

As far as the absurdity of having 24 HoTs... I just don't think it's absurd. 1 good solo player probably has 2 HoTs and a burst heal... Probably another 1 or 2 "passive" small heals as well. As such they can survive against twice their numbers, sometimes more. Is 12 people having exactly 12x the same not a perfect mathematical balance? In fact isn't it WEAKER, per Capita, since selfish morphs of heals are like twice as strong?

People may think, as you say, that they just run around without buffs up light attacking and roll dodging willy nilly. This simply isn't the case, and you aren't giving them enough credit.

Bushido2513

No

Not in pvp anyways or at least there should be a diminishing returns mechanic.

Dr_Con

Billium813 wrote: »

Rasande_Robin wrote: »

Same buff should max stack 3 times... Not 12 echoing vigor's from 12 players... thats 144 active vigors...

That doesn't sound right

i used to think it was 144 as well, turns out it only hits 6 people (caster included) = 6*12 = 72

still they just gotta hit it again /shrug

Thraben

No

Reactive healing should always outperform Healing over Time in emergency heal situations to encourage skillful healers.

Btw that does not automatically mean "on demand" reactive healing. E.g. in LOTRO, a captain had to get kills or melee crits to unlock the main group healing skill, or the loremaster needed his/her pet to score a flank hit to do this with a certain set.

TechMaybeHic

Yes

Maybe the cost needs to go up to match burst heas. Imagine if it cost as much as hasty prayer which is almost double. Radiating Regen heal more total per target and 1 more target than breath of life at 2k less mag

Or maybe they need a ramping cost ala streak

Billium813

No

What if they completely removed the skill Vigor from the game; not just nerfed it again? What would PvP look like? What is the generic alternative? Is Vigor THE most commonly used skill in PvP?

KingLewie_III

No

OBJnoob wrote: »

KingLewie_III wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. The way things are now, you can stack HOTs to absurd numbers as we've seen in the photo posted in this thread. This makes groups unkillable, even if they're outnumbered 2 to 1 by another coordinated group. And when you get two groups like this that run into each other, no one dies. All it does is create more performance issues on the server for everyone else trying to enjoy the game. It's PVP, everyone should be able to die, and it shouldn't take an act of God to do so.

It's cringe when you've got a bunch of players running around with no buffs up, no heals of their own, just light attacking and roll dodging their hearts out, and they can't die because they've got 27 HoTs coming from external sources.

The performance issue is a serious problem but I wouldn't be so sure casting any 1 skill creates significantly more lag than any other. They could cast radiating Regen every 5 seconds-- or they could spam Breath of Life, Flames of Oblivion, RaT, or just throw Caltrops everywhere they go. Would one be noticably better than the other? Or is the real problem just the number of people in any given place?

As far as the absurdity of having 24 HoTs... I just don't think it's absurd. 1 good solo player probably has 2 HoTs and a burst heal... Probably another 1 or 2 "passive" small heals as well. As such they can survive against twice their numbers, sometimes more. Is 12 people having exactly 12x the same not a perfect mathematical balance? In fact isn't it WEAKER, per Capita, since selfish morphs of heals are like twice as strong?

People may think, as you say, that they just run around without buffs up light attacking and roll dodging willy nilly. This simply isn't the case, and you aren't giving them enough credit.

You're looking at it purely under the scope of "well 12 people should have 12 times the healing" and missing the problem entirely. I understand how you come to that conclusion, but again that isn't the point. The mechanic itself is being exploited to the degree that you cannot be killed, even by other large, coordinated groups due to the amount of healing coming in every second, opposed to the possible amount of damage coming in. With groups like this, you have to put all your damage into one GCD to kill anyone since the hots alone will take them from 0.01% to 100% in one GCD. And since Cross healing is also a thing, you get random players following the Ballgroup taking benefit of the HOTs, acting as a meat shield, and becoming unkillable themselves just because they're in the vicinity of the group.

Again, this isn't simply just a matter of bigger numbers should win. It's a threshold that gets passed where healing will outpace incoming damage regardless of what your opponent does. The only "counter" is hoping for half of them to stop casting heals.

In regard to performance, it does appear that certain skills effect performance more so than others. Specifically, abilities that require several checks per second to quantify the correct value of the "tick". When you have 30 of these ticking on everyone each second, it's definitely more impactful than something like RAT or Caltrops.

Thecompton73

No

mocap wrote: »

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

We are seeing the result of this currently with immortal ball groups

This is true only for CP campaign. In non CP campaign ballgroups dying left and right. Also they get a lot of survivability from Snow Treaders. And if ZOS somehow nerf heal stacking, ballgroups will start stacking 10-12 Hiti's Hearth set.

I think we should leave it as it is.

Lol, no they wouldn't. Do you know how much power an optimized group would have to give up to drop half their group buff sets? A huge part of the advantage they have over solo, small man and unoptimized groups comes from being able to make use of nearly every single group oriented set to provide a variety of powerful offensive, defensive and regen buffs.
Not to mention if healing sources get limited to being effected by no more than two of the same source at a time what makes you think the Devs would exempt healing given by sets from that rule?

Militan1404

If dots with the same name would stack then hot should also, and vice verse

TechMaybeHic

Yes

Militan1404 wrote: »

If dots with the same name would stack then hot should also, and vice verse

It's like groundhogs day with this point.

Again; there is no ability that stops all HOTs off an enemy. And then something like vigor heal tick is almost 4 times the average DOT and; it is not mitigated. Then DOTs usually require a target so are less likely to stack on one specific target in a tight stack while the hots just automatically find the most needy

Really not the same application

Thecompton73

No

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

Militan1404 wrote: »

If dots with the same name would stack then hot should also, and vice verse

It's like groundhogs day with this point.

Again; there is no ability that stops all HOTs off an enemy. And then something like vigor heal tick is almost 4 times the average DOT and; it is not mitigated. Then DOTs usually require a target so are less likely to stack on one specific target in a tight stack while the hots just automatically find the most needy

Really not the same application

Yeah, too many people want to focus on debating theoretical "fairness" divorced from the discussion pertaining to actual gameplay conditions. But those doing it certainly aren't also arguing for all AOE applied sticky Dots to be brought up in damage to match AOE applied HOT values and duration's (E.g. Acid spray's dot should hit as hard and last as long as Echoing Vigor) and for smart heals to have mirrored smart executes that cause them to seek out and automatically apply to the lowest health individual in a group without having to aim them. Or for an synergy on a large AOE ability that lets us purge all Hots and Buffs from someone since that can be done for all Dots and Debuffs.

OBJnoob

Yes

Fairness "divorced" from actual gameplay? Aaah, I see. I let you off way too easy.

It is not me trying to divorce fairness from gameplay in order to "have fun." That was you. In darn near those exact words.

If a soccer team is really good at passing, has 70% of possession, and wins 1-0 should we stipulate that every 3 passes someone has to dribble for 10 seconds so that the lesser team has a chance to get the ball?

If I'm playing Monopoly and someone has better properties than me do I get to not pay sometimes so I can have more fun?

Or is the fun from sports and games supposed to be derived from a fairness in rulesets that leads to desire for improvement on the losing end and a feeling of accomplishment on the winning side?

You're all trying to subvert the most basic principal of competition. And therefore diminish the game. Because you can't compete.

The principals of fairness and gameplay are tied snugly together in MY mind. Please don't accuse me of something you are guilty of. Our very brief understanding will evaporate immediately. I thought you said something wise. Turns out you said something subversive.

Turtle_Bot

No

OBJnoob wrote: »

Fairness "divorced" from actual gameplay? Aaah, I see. I let you off way too easy.

It is not me trying to divorce fairness from gameplay in order to "have fun." That was you. In darn near those exact words.

If a soccer team is really good at passing, has 70% of possession, and wins 1-0 should we stipulate that every 3 passes someone has to dribble for 10 seconds so that the lesser team has a chance to get the ball?

If I'm playing Monopoly and someone has better properties than me do I get to not pay sometimes so I can have more fun?

Or is the fun from sports and games supposed to be derived from a fairness in rulesets that leads to desire for improvement on the losing end and a feeling of accomplishment on the winning side?

You're all trying to subvert the most basic principal of competition. And therefore diminish the game. Because you can't compete.

The principals of fairness and gameplay are tied snugly together in MY mind. Please don't accuse me of something you are guilty of. Our very brief understanding will evaporate immediately. I thought you said something wise. Turns out you said something subversive.

In regards to your soccer analogy, you have completely missed the mark, the soccer equivalent would be 1 team full of professional players that constantly turns around and abuses the rules and controls the referee to ensure that they are getting a guaranteed favorable outcome against an opposing team full of casuals that may have 1 or 2 good players. Also, they are not winning 1-0, the scoreline would likely be closer to 20-0 or 30-0.

You're also completely disregarding the fact that whenever this tends to occur in sports, that same team tends to get promoted up a bunch of leagues to better suit their skill level and as for the monopoly player, they tend to end up not being invited back to play with their friend group anymore unless they agree to take it easy and allow others to have some fun as well.

Fun from sports and games inherently has an equal balance associated by an overarching ruleset that separates players into different rankings where they face other players of similar skill level allowing them the opportunity to grow and improve if they choose to do so while not creating this negative feeling of helplessness and that there's zero chance to improve because any time they get better the group above them just gets exponentially better at a faster rate.

This is where that threshold that ball groups are currently exploiting needs to be addressed, they are the only ones having "fun" in PvP at the moment and it has become so detrimental to the player base with them being completely immortal to even the largest of numbers possible as well as the effects they are clearly having on server performance which straight up makes the game unplayable for most players causing many of them to leave and not want to come back.

That doesn't sound like a fun game to me or to anyone who values healthy competition over 1 sided stomps (which to be clear, should be possible, but should never be the norm for any length of time as is currently the case).

Ishtarknows

Yes

In PVE absolutely. There's no way the most recent DLC trial hard modes can be completed without HoTs stacking .

In PvP - personally I don't care much for PvP, but if this complaint is all about that then HoTs need balanced by battle spirit not by fundamentally changing how they stack. There's no need to help one at the expense of the other.

Sussuris

I did not vote, because I think they should stack, but not to their current extent. 2 external stacks + 1 internal stack is a good cap.