Maintenance for the week of December 23:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
Do you think there should be an AoE cap?
-
Sirlex✭✭✭No1200:100 against this change. Send that up to the suits - 8% approval rate to this change - possible 92% loss in sales/money.0 -
Xsorus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭NoNo here.... I wonder if Zenimax will actually listen to this?
They'll probably come back with the same *** response Anet did
"We had to add an AOE cap because performance issues!"
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXpX7JMwRXtczc5GTrIYRIw
ESO and GW2 PvP videos0 -
LowestFormOfWit✭✭✭NoNo. No. No. No. No.
This is affecting EVERY AOE ABILITY in BOTH PVE -and- PVP.
No. It's a garbage knee-jerk fix to a few OBVIOUS PROBLEMS with a few abilities (Bat-Swarm, Banner, etc.)
If you ruin the PVP here and drop it to GW2 tier I'm probably not going to keep playing this game for more than a month.0 -
NoLowestFormOfWit wrote: »If you ruin the PVP here and drop it to GW2 tier I'm probably not going to keep playing this game for more than a month.
Could not have said it better. I pay the 15$ a month for a premium game with premium content. Don't low ball me with half-assed fixes.
0 -
prana33b14_ESO✭✭✭NoThe worst part is that I've been defending the other issues with this game so far while trying to get my friends to buy that have been hesitant to because of the support/decisions of the past mmos towards pvp with the idea that these guys were going to make sure pvp was done right. They are going to LOL at me when they hear this one.Edited by prana33b14_ESO on April 26, 2014 4:24PM1 -
Aeronaut✭1200:100 against this change. Send that up to the suits - 8% approval rate to this change - possible 92% loss in sales/money.
You've already paid up front for the game - anywhere between $60-90. They could care less about subs - that's residual income for them.
And a PC game? 90% of people that were going to buy this game, already have. Plus, many people have threatened to quit about other balance issues, so threats really are a moot point here.0 -
Spryt✭✭NoVoted no.
Having a cap will only benefit large zerg balls and make them almost impossible to take down if they have enough healers. Removes a lot of tactical play.
Like leaving a small group of ranged dps to defend a position. As they will become next to useless if a big group attacks. So It will end just being two big zergs running around in circles capturing the same keeps from each other.
Like others have said. GW2.1 -
Razeo✭NoTo the sheep who voted "Yes", I hope your prepared to roam Cyrodiil for an hour to get your first pvp fight. Clearly no thought came behind this change, it goes against the mechanics of how skills work in this game since you can't tab or click target (especially heals.)Edited by Razeo on April 26, 2014 4:39PM1
-
RivenEsq✭✭✭✭NoThis isn't a balance change. This is something that changes the entire landscape of PvP. With this change, a group of 100 can walk into a group of 40 and kill them where they stand because if you have enough healers, you can just tank right through any damage that they can put down because you can heal through a couple AoEs hitting a target and then, on top of that, damage is likely evenly distributed across the ENTIRE 100 people.
When you group tightly in this game and stand in an oil pot of fire, that kills you and that is AMAZING. Putting AoE caps on things that they have no business being on such as Wall of Elements, Lightning Splash, Absorption Field, Impulse, etc. makes no sense at all. Someone standing in a field of fire should be burning, not unscathed because 6 other guys were standing with him.
And rager, you are trolling this thread so hard it isn't funny. I will unsub and so will thousands of others. This will singlehandedly kill PvP in this game. Period. It was horrible in GW2 that there was a cap and it will be terrible here.
This is the equivalent of amputating a leg because you skinned your knee when all it needs is a bandaid.
If it is true that ZOS is only capping "some" abilities, I'd really love to hear which ones. There is a definite difference between MULTI-TARGET and AoE. Multi-target hits a set number of players and the skill's effectiveness is balanced around that. It doesn't have a red circle on the ground and is pretty much just proximity. Channels that heal for an amount, provide armor, shields, tankiness, life drain, are generally things affected by a multi-target cap. AoE, however, is a static red circle on the ground. It does NO damage if the enemy doesn't stand in it. Now, if 100 people stand in it, only 6 will take damage and then they'll one shot you. AoE stacking is a very viable tactic against a larger force than you if they are grouped. If they are spread out sufficiently, you won't be able to kill them all as a smaller force.
Of course the larger force should kill the smaller force, but this makes that a forgone conclusion. There will be no potential to outplay anyone because of a pure numbers game. When a game becomes that, it is no longer PvP.Edited by RivenEsq on April 26, 2014 4:42PM2 -
No100% in agreement with this thread. If this goes through we go back to DAOC being the only game that stayed true to this style. In fact, still yet did it even better with damage that falls off the further away you are from the center of the effect. Why is that not an option in this case?
As many have said time and time again, there's a reason GW2's rvr was a zergborefest. Between limited aoe and downed targets, and downed targets contributing to that aoe cap, it was just silly.
I have immensely enjoyed the little RvR i've gotten to do whiled waiting for my guild to join me in levels... this is just going to take our legs out before we get running.
Very sad.1 -
NoAOE cap means Farewell TESO AvA.
It's would be a shame to shoot themselves in the foot with a silly decision ...1 -
NoNo here.... I wonder if Zenimax will actually listen to this?
You people never read, I already posted the ZOS responseZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »To add a little explanation, all area-of-effect abilities in ESO--except a few edge cases (the ones we fixed)--have always had some sort of a cap. We simply fixed the handful that did not, and were supposed to. We haven't touched any of the others. We're editing the note to make it a bit more clear.
0 -
Razeo✭NoAnd to others saying that the people who voted against this are quitting is only an empty threat. Don't kid yourselves, I can't speak for everyone but I'm willing to bet that most DAoC vets (like myself) are very disappointed in this. After waiting for over a decade of looking for a game that would be a worthy successor to Daoc's RvR and for it to be ruined by some knee-jerk reaction on ZOS's part. You can bank that most if not all of us ex-DAoCers to quit over such a thoughtless change.0
-
prana33b14_ESO✭✭✭Noand "some sort of cap" is entirely ambiguous. Basically a non-answer. Is "some sort of cap" 20? 30? 100?0
-
Teulu✭NoYou've already paid up front for the game - anywhere between $60-90. They could care less about subs - that's residual income for them.
And a PC game? 90% of people that were going to buy this game, already have. Plus, many people have threatened to quit about other balance issues, so threats really are a moot point here.
This is just not true. They have not even come close to getting the money that they put into the game.
They need a good 5 year game with 100k+ to make a profit from it. At least that is my own personal estimate with some tid bits of inside info.0 -
NoThis is disturbing news. The fact that they would even consider this indicates they are out of touch with what makes for good pvp, and won't make good decisions in the future. I changed my sub from 6mo to 1mo just in case, and will cancel entirely if this goes through.
This sucks. In my experience with MMOs, PTS basically means it's going live, no matter how bad the change is.0 -
Ruphas✭NoWhy is it not obvious that the best solution would be to reduce the overall damage of AOE skills such that they are not viable as single target attacks. This would allow nuking of uncoordinated zergs with AOE, yet still incentivise single target damage specs. AOE makes more sense and is more fun as a tool for attacking large crowds and in it's current state is too bursty anyway. A maximum of 6 targets impacted by a given AOE is similar to an invisible wall out in the world, it's a clumsy and non fun way to fix a problem which has other obvious solutions.Edited by Ruphas on April 26, 2014 4:55PM0
-
RivenEsq✭✭✭✭NoZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »To add a little explanation, all area-of-effect abilities in ESO--except a few edge cases (the ones we fixed)--have always had some sort of a cap. We simply fixed the handful that did not, and were supposed to. We haven't touched any of the others. We're editing the note to make it a bit more clear.
Except for the part where this is a LIE. A game doesn't "accidentally" launch with no AoE caps when all abilities were supposed to have them. Don't be a sheep and don't tolerate them lying to our faces! They think we are stupid and will just roll over at this. We have to put our foot down!
1 -
Noyou guys mentioning daoc as a reference of no cap on aoe... you have to realise in daoc the big aoe were from caster that you could easely kill and any hit on them would interupt them and make them not able to cast and yeah if the caster would cast MoC you just had to spread but in this game you have heavyarmor dk who are not easy to kill who spam aoe while not being interupted and its even more stupid if they are the emperor. im not saying there should be a cap on aoe but they need to nerf some stuff for sure.
oh and btw there is a cap on bainshee aoe bolt in daoc
0 -
Daendur✭✭✭Noif aoe skills are too strong, lower the damage or the area, but don't put an cap. It's a bad and extremely short sighted decision.1
This discussion has been closed.