Do you think there should be an AoE cap?

Etaniel

No

Tower_Of_Shame wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

PainfulFAFA wrote: »

Master_Kas wrote: »

prootch wrote: »

kill aoe spamballs... just suppress aoe or decrease it's power enough to make them unefficient.
wether they are 5 or 50 brainless spammers does not change anything.

Before anyone believes this person is for helping smallscale / soloist players, think again. I guaranteee you this is not even half of his group, he usually runs with 30-40+ people for one raid.

brainless spammers eh ?



http://s3.postimg.org/f3j3nuosz/Prootch_1.jpg

Name and shame I know, but this guy is such a hypocrite xD

It all makes sense now.
Zergling defending his right to zerg in the safety of his numbers lol!

Well, to be fair, i think zerging the way he does creates less lag than stacking on crown, and it's more fun to fight that type of group.

With even numbers yes. 20 stacked people syncing det, spamming purge and steelnado cause more lag than 20 random pugs running around.
My idea of fun is not stacking on a crown, it's calling assists, calling out CC on single targets and winning outnumbered if possible.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Prootch, his mega zergs are toxic as well, I just think big ball groups are a bigger evil.

TL:DR Yes I'm serious

iosis13

No

#zergmeta -.-
If there are 40 on the same place they should all suffer from AoEs.

Enodoc

No

I think the worst thing about AOE caps is not so much that they exist, but that there's that ridiculous calculation that the more people that are hit, the less damage is done. If anything, you should do more damage depending on number of people hit, since AOEs are supposedly designed to be the "vs. group" skills.

The problem with not having AOE caps is the amount of server calculations that would be needed to apply damage to everyone.

MountainHound

No

If anything damage should be increased by 5% per one person stood in the same 2 meter radius pass 6 people.

6 people = no buff
7 people = 5%
8 people = 10%
etc etc

24 people = Lord @FENGRUSH shadow is summoned and like the shield protecting the scroll, spins around in your aid dealing 50k damage a second until balance is brought fourth to the game once again.

JaJaLuka

No

Tower_Of_Shame wrote: »

JaJaLuka wrote: »

Funny that a ZoS employee thinks there should be AoE caps, it shows at least that they don't play their own game.

ofc they do... Didn't you see when they were playing IC when it was coming out, they were streaming? there were like 6 of them and even a 1.7 naked magicka DK would have killed them...

No I didn't see them streaming because usually listening to them talk is a waste of my time... I mean, how important do you find the toiletry hygiene of the citizens of Tamriel?

Tower_Of_Shame

JaJaLuka wrote: »

Tower_Of_Shame wrote: »

JaJaLuka wrote: »

Funny that a ZoS employee thinks there should be AoE caps, it shows at least that they don't play their own game.

ofc they do... Didn't you see when they were playing IC when it was coming out, they were streaming? there were like 6 of them and even a 1.7 naked magicka DK would have killed them...

No I didn't see them streaming because usually listening to them talk is a waste of my time... I mean, how important do you find the toiletry hygiene of the citizens of Tamriel?

Sorry no ETA when will I care about that. hahhha^^

_Chaos

No

Enodoc wrote: »

The problem with not having AOE caps is the amount of server calculations that would be needed to apply damage to everyone.

I don't get this reasoning, can you elaborate?

I always thought removing the AOE cap would reduce server calculations, because currently damage can hit up to 60 targets (100% to the first 6, 50% to the next 24, and 25% to the last 30)

If you remove AOE caps it would change to: if any targets in ability range, deal 100% damage.

Frawr

No

Enodoc wrote: »

The problem with not having AOE caps is the amount of server calculations that would be needed to apply damage to everyone.

Surely it is LESS stressful for the server because it just Plies 1 number to everyone within a radius instead of rng assignment of 6 people at 100% 24 at 50% and 30 at 25%.

Applying the same number to everyone is a country mile simpler in excel formula and so surely the same in game code.

Rune_Relic

You could stand in all the red circles you wanted and would never take damage if you had superior numbers

That's the crux of the problem with an emphasis on Defense AoE was stronger than Offense AoE.
If it was the other way around groups could not exist as grouping wouldn't offer a defensive advantage.
Numbers are not the cause of the problem....the combat balance is.

Massive shields, purges and heal AoE vs Puny Damage AoE.

Which also brings the other problem of everyone using AoE instead of single target.
If AoE is more powerful than single target at 3+ targets...and you are guaranteed 3+ targets with AoE (often significantly more)...there is absolutely no reason to even have single target skills on your bar.

Spammable AoE.
The only way to get single target / AoE balance is to limit Cap the targets at where single target and aoe targets balance.
This then gives parity and choice.
Regardless... defensive AoE should not be more powerful than offensive aoe or vice versa.

Non-Spammable AoE
There is of course a need for large Target AoE and game changing moments to mix things up ...but it cant be spammed as doing so destroys the servers. Amply demonstrated on many videos at ball groups, breeches and flags.
ie Ultimate and Siege

Too many people on here expect permanent God-mode and 1 v Infinite

Enodoc

No

Enodoc wrote: »

The problem with not having AOE caps is the amount of server calculations that would be needed to apply damage to everyone.

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I don't get this reasoning, can you elaborate?

I always thought removing the AOE cap would reduce server calculations, because currently damage can hit up to 60 targets (100% to the first 6, 50% to the next 24, and 25% to the last 30)

If you remove AOE caps it would change to: if any targets in ability range, deal 100% damage.

Frawr wrote: »

Surely it is LESS stressful for the server because it just Plies 1 number to everyone within a radius instead of rng assignment of 6 people at 100% 24 at 50% and 30 at 25%.

Applying the same number to everyone is a country mile simpler in excel formula and so surely the same in game code.

You're both absolutely correct in that the current formula presumably involves more calculations due to the things it needs to do in order to apply different amounts of damage to different people, and that applying the same amount of damage (100%) to all of those 60 people would logically involve less calculations in comparison to that.

What I'm getting at is that applying 100% damage to everyone within radius, which is what it would be with no cap, is countably infinite, and would require more calculations that applying 100% damage to just 60 people within radius.

_Chaos

No

Enodoc wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

The problem with not having AOE caps is the amount of server calculations that would be needed to apply damage to everyone.

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I don't get this reasoning, can you elaborate?

I always thought removing the AOE cap would reduce server calculations, because currently damage can hit up to 60 targets (100% to the first 6, 50% to the next 24, and 25% to the last 30)

If you remove AOE caps it would change to: if any targets in ability range, deal 100% damage.

Frawr wrote: »

Surely it is LESS stressful for the server because it just Plies 1 number to everyone within a radius instead of rng assignment of 6 people at 100% 24 at 50% and 30 at 25%.

Applying the same number to everyone is a country mile simpler in excel formula and so surely the same in game code.

You're both absolutely correct in that the current formula presumably involves more calculations due to the things it needs to do in order to apply different amounts of damage to different people, and that applying the same amount of damage (100%) to all of those 60 people would logically involve less calculations in comparison to that.

What I'm getting at is that applying 100% damage to everyone within radius, which is what it would be with no cap, is countably infinite, and would require more calculations that applying 100% damage to just 60 people within radius.

Only in extremely rare cases will there be more than 60 people in an abilities range. Sure I tagged 75+ people during the keep take, but that was over a 2 minute span of running between the upper and lower levels of a well defended keep, not all simultaneously in one ability. I think it would be quite the stretch to say that the removal of AOE caps would cause more calculations.

Enodoc

No

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

The problem with not having AOE caps is the amount of server calculations that would be needed to apply damage to everyone.

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I don't get this reasoning, can you elaborate?

I always thought removing the AOE cap would reduce server calculations, because currently damage can hit up to 60 targets (100% to the first 6, 50% to the next 24, and 25% to the last 30)

If you remove AOE caps it would change to: if any targets in ability range, deal 100% damage.

Frawr wrote: »

Surely it is LESS stressful for the server because it just Plies 1 number to everyone within a radius instead of rng assignment of 6 people at 100% 24 at 50% and 30 at 25%.

Applying the same number to everyone is a country mile simpler in excel formula and so surely the same in game code.

You're both absolutely correct in that the current formula presumably involves more calculations due to the things it needs to do in order to apply different amounts of damage to different people, and that applying the same amount of damage (100%) to all of those 60 people would logically involve less calculations in comparison to that.

What I'm getting at is that applying 100% damage to everyone within radius, which is what it would be with no cap, is countably infinite, and would require more calculations that applying 100% damage to just 60 people within radius.

Only in extremely rare cases will there be more than 60 people in an abilities range. Sure I tagged 75+ people during the keep take, but that was over a 2 minute span of running between the upper and lower levels of a well defended keep, not all simultaneously in one ability. I think it would be quite the stretch to say that the removal of AOE caps would cause more calculations.

I've never really paid much attention to how many people there are in range .

If you're not likely to hit over 60 players anyway, then the cap doesn't need to be removed. All they need to remove is the diminishing returns formula.

eventide03b14a_ESO

No

So basically the only method of busting up zergs is something ZOS is against?

Takllin

No

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

The problem with not having AOE caps is the amount of server calculations that would be needed to apply damage to everyone.

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I don't get this reasoning, can you elaborate?

I always thought removing the AOE cap would reduce server calculations, because currently damage can hit up to 60 targets (100% to the first 6, 50% to the next 24, and 25% to the last 30)

If you remove AOE caps it would change to: if any targets in ability range, deal 100% damage.

Frawr wrote: »

Surely it is LESS stressful for the server because it just Plies 1 number to everyone within a radius instead of rng assignment of 6 people at 100% 24 at 50% and 30 at 25%.

Applying the same number to everyone is a country mile simpler in excel formula and so surely the same in game code.

You're both absolutely correct in that the current formula presumably involves more calculations due to the things it needs to do in order to apply different amounts of damage to different people, and that applying the same amount of damage (100%) to all of those 60 people would logically involve less calculations in comparison to that.

What I'm getting at is that applying 100% damage to everyone within radius, which is what it would be with no cap, is countably infinite, and would require more calculations that applying 100% damage to just 60 people within radius.

Only in extremely rare cases will there be more than 60 people in an abilities range. Sure I tagged 75+ people during the keep take, but that was over a 2 minute span of running between the upper and lower levels of a well defended keep, not all simultaneously in one ability. I think it would be quite the stretch to say that the removal of AOE caps would cause more calculations.

I've never really paid much attention to how many people there are in range .

If you're not likely to hit over 60 players anyway, then the cap doesn't need to be removed. All they need to remove is the diminishing returns formula.

That's what most people are referring to in terms of the AOE cap, for whatever reason it isn't referred to directly though.

Rune_Relic

Enodoc wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

The problem with not having AOE caps is the amount of server calculations that would be needed to apply damage to everyone.

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I don't get this reasoning, can you elaborate?

I always thought removing the AOE cap would reduce server calculations, because currently damage can hit up to 60 targets (100% to the first 6, 50% to the next 24, and 25% to the last 30)

If you remove AOE caps it would change to: if any targets in ability range, deal 100% damage.

Frawr wrote: »

Surely it is LESS stressful for the server because it just Plies 1 number to everyone within a radius instead of rng assignment of 6 people at 100% 24 at 50% and 30 at 25%.

Applying the same number to everyone is a country mile simpler in excel formula and so surely the same in game code.

You're both absolutely correct in that the current formula presumably involves more calculations due to the things it needs to do in order to apply different amounts of damage to different people, and that applying the same amount of damage (100%) to all of those 60 people would logically involve less calculations in comparison to that.

What I'm getting at is that applying 100% damage to everyone within radius, which is what it would be with no cap, is countably infinite, and would require more calculations that applying 100% damage to just 60 people within radius.

But that's not the cap.....thats the falloff
I dont think anyone wants the falloff.

Some are arguing because the want the 6 player falloff raised.
Some are arguing because they want the 60 man cap removed.

_Chaos

No

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

The problem with not having AOE caps is the amount of server calculations that would be needed to apply damage to everyone.

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I don't get this reasoning, can you elaborate?

I always thought removing the AOE cap would reduce server calculations, because currently damage can hit up to 60 targets (100% to the first 6, 50% to the next 24, and 25% to the last 30)

If you remove AOE caps it would change to: if any targets in ability range, deal 100% damage.

Frawr wrote: »

Surely it is LESS stressful for the server because it just Plies 1 number to everyone within a radius instead of rng assignment of 6 people at 100% 24 at 50% and 30 at 25%.

Applying the same number to everyone is a country mile simpler in excel formula and so surely the same in game code.

You're both absolutely correct in that the current formula presumably involves more calculations due to the things it needs to do in order to apply different amounts of damage to different people, and that applying the same amount of damage (100%) to all of those 60 people would logically involve less calculations in comparison to that.

What I'm getting at is that applying 100% damage to everyone within radius, which is what it would be with no cap, is countably infinite, and would require more calculations that applying 100% damage to just 60 people within radius.

But that's not the cap.....thats the falloff
I dont think anyone wants the falloff.

Some are arguing because the want the 6 player falloff raised.
Some are arguing because they want the 60 man cap removed.

True say, maybe this whole time we've just been wording it wrong to the devs.

@Wrobel Can we have the damage falloff removed from AOE caps for a week or two? Maybe just on one campaign to test it out?

@ZOS_BrianWheeler is it feasible to add a campaign with a modified rule set?

Enodoc

No

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

If you're not likely to hit over 60 players anyway, then the cap doesn't need to be removed. All they need to remove is the diminishing returns formula.

That's what most people are referring to in terms of the AOE cap, for whatever reason it isn't referred to directly though.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

But that's not the cap.....thats the falloff
I dont think anyone wants the falloff.

Some are arguing because the want the 6 player falloff raised.
Some are arguing because they want the 60 man cap removed.

These two posts exemplify the problem here. Some people are throwing the word "cap" around when it's the "falloff" that they actually want removed. So who wants what, exactly?

eventide03b14a_ESO

No

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

The problem with not having AOE caps is the amount of server calculations that would be needed to apply damage to everyone.

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I don't get this reasoning, can you elaborate?

I always thought removing the AOE cap would reduce server calculations, because currently damage can hit up to 60 targets (100% to the first 6, 50% to the next 24, and 25% to the last 30)

If you remove AOE caps it would change to: if any targets in ability range, deal 100% damage.

Frawr wrote: »

Surely it is LESS stressful for the server because it just Plies 1 number to everyone within a radius instead of rng assignment of 6 people at 100% 24 at 50% and 30 at 25%.

Applying the same number to everyone is a country mile simpler in excel formula and so surely the same in game code.

You're both absolutely correct in that the current formula presumably involves more calculations due to the things it needs to do in order to apply different amounts of damage to different people, and that applying the same amount of damage (100%) to all of those 60 people would logically involve less calculations in comparison to that.

What I'm getting at is that applying 100% damage to everyone within radius, which is what it would be with no cap, is countably infinite, and would require more calculations that applying 100% damage to just 60 people within radius.

But that's not the cap.....thats the falloff
I dont think anyone wants the falloff.

Some are arguing because the want the 6 player falloff raised.
Some are arguing because they want the 60 man cap removed.

True say, maybe this whole time we've just been wording it wrong to the devs.

@Wrobel Can we have the damage falloff removed from AOE caps for a week or two? Maybe just on one campaign to test it out?

@ZOS_BrianWheeler is it feasible to add a campaign with a modified rule set?

They have said they can only really test these things live. Why not create a stress test on the PTS? There has been zero effort to do this, and you KNOW there are plenty of willing people who would love to get the lag fixed in Cyrodiil. The number 1 problem in Cyrodiil right now is zergs. They are the main cause of the lag and they make absolutely no sense. Yet currently they are encouraged as the only way to be successful in PvP.

frozywozy

No

Enodoc wrote: »

I think the worst thing about AOE caps is not so much that they exist, but that there's that ridiculous calculation that the more people that are hit, the less damage is done. If anything, you should do more damage depending on number of people hit, since AOEs are supposedly designed to be the "vs. group" skills.

The problem with not having AOE caps is the amount of server calculations that would be needed to apply damage to everyone.

1204 posts in this thread and you haven't understood the repercussions of AOE caps on the server.

Enodoc wrote: »

What I'm getting at is that applying 100% damage to everyone within radius, which is what it would be with no cap, is countably infinite, and would require more calculations that applying 100% damage to just 60 people within radius.

The moment when an aoe such as Steel Tornado, Impulse, Sap Essence or Proximity Det will hit 60players at the same time will never happen. The average players that get hit by an AOE during a huge fight is probably around 15 or so. So your argument doesn't really make any sense. Removing AOE caps lower the amount of calculation and has a less important impact on the server, end of story.

Sorry if I sound a lil bit irritated but that needs to be clear. There is no reason to still support aoe caps at this point. Zenimax is the only one who keep supporting it because they care more about casual gameplay than fixing the performance issues.

Takllin

No

Enodoc wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

If you're not likely to hit over 60 players anyway, then the cap doesn't need to be removed. All they need to remove is the diminishing returns formula.

That's what most people are referring to in terms of the AOE cap, for whatever reason it isn't referred to directly though.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

But that's not the cap.....thats the falloff
I dont think anyone wants the falloff.

Some are arguing because the want the 6 player falloff raised.
Some are arguing because they want the 60 man cap removed.

These two posts exemplify the problem here. Some people are throwing the word "cap" around when it's the "falloff" that they actually want removed. So who wants what, exactly?

We want the falloff removed, it was just improperly named at the beginning when the falloff was implemented and has stuck ever since.

I don't think it's a problem if you understand the context of the discussion.

The problem here is ZOS unwillingness to even have a discussion on the matter, @Wrobel makes a thread and doesn't even touch the issue, and had said in guild meetings that he will more than likely never get rid of it because he doesn't want small groups to wipe baddies like him in bigger groups.

It's the same reason we will likely never see any form of Dynamic Ulti return, he doesn't want small groups to have any kind of mechanic that they can use to their advantage over the large groups of baddies. To him, if he bring more numbers, regardless of skill, he wins.

eventide03b14a_ESO

No

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

If you're not likely to hit over 60 players anyway, then the cap doesn't need to be removed. All they need to remove is the diminishing returns formula.

That's what most people are referring to in terms of the AOE cap, for whatever reason it isn't referred to directly though.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

But that's not the cap.....thats the falloff
I dont think anyone wants the falloff.

Some are arguing because the want the 6 player falloff raised.
Some are arguing because they want the 60 man cap removed.

These two posts exemplify the problem here. Some people are throwing the word "cap" around when it's the "falloff" that they actually want removed. So who wants what, exactly?

We want the falloff removed, it was just improperly named at the beginning when the falloff was implemented and has stuck ever since.

I don't think it's a problem if you understand the context of the discussion.

The problem here is ZOS unwillingness to even have a discussion on the matter, @Wrobel makes a thread and doesn't even touch the issue, and had said in guild meetings that he will more than likely never get rid of it because he doesn't want small groups to wipe baddies like him in bigger groups.

It's the same reason we will likely never see any form of Dynamic Ulti return, he doesn't want small groups to have any kind of mechanic that they can use to their advantage over the large groups of baddies. To him, if he bring more numbers, regardless of skill, he wins.

What you are suggesting is that a developer, @Wrobel , is purposely creating an environment that helps him gain an advantage despite that it negatively impacts everyone's performance? It's almost as though you suggesting he's cheating or at the very least using ESO as his own personal playground.

Takllin

No

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

If you're not likely to hit over 60 players anyway, then the cap doesn't need to be removed. All they need to remove is the diminishing returns formula.

That's what most people are referring to in terms of the AOE cap, for whatever reason it isn't referred to directly though.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

But that's not the cap.....thats the falloff
I dont think anyone wants the falloff.

Some are arguing because the want the 6 player falloff raised.
Some are arguing because they want the 60 man cap removed.

These two posts exemplify the problem here. Some people are throwing the word "cap" around when it's the "falloff" that they actually want removed. So who wants what, exactly?

We want the falloff removed, it was just improperly named at the beginning when the falloff was implemented and has stuck ever since.

I don't think it's a problem if you understand the context of the discussion.

The problem here is ZOS unwillingness to even have a discussion on the matter, @Wrobel makes a thread and doesn't even touch the issue, and had said in guild meetings that he will more than likely never get rid of it because he doesn't want small groups to wipe baddies like him in bigger groups.

It's the same reason we will likely never see any form of Dynamic Ulti return, he doesn't want small groups to have any kind of mechanic that they can use to their advantage over the large groups of baddies. To him, if he bring more numbers, regardless of skill, he wins.

What you are suggesting is that a developer, @Wrobel , is purposely creating an environment that helps him gain an advantage despite that it negatively impacts everyone's performance? It's almost as though you suggesting he's cheating or at the very least using ESO as his own personal playground.

He's explained this in private guild meetings. He does not want Dynamic Ulti or AoE Cap Falloff removal because it gives an advantage to highly skilled solo/small group players to wipe lesser skilled, larger groups.

It;s not a suggestion, it's his own words. They also don't feel as though AoE Caps or the falloff create much if any of a server performance issue.

Takllin

No

I recently watched a lot of The Division streams, and the Developers would take turns streaming the game.

One of them, Emil was his name, responded to a question about the potential for Horse Head masks to be introduced into the game. He went on a bit of a funny story about it, but then got serious. He said that if he goes to his Director and says a bunch of people in twitch chat said they want horse heads, his Director would respond with a sort of meh, it's just twitch chat.

He told everyone look, if you want a change, go to the forums, make a thread or a poll, get all your friends and everyone else who wants this change to come in, vote, support it, and then once we see the support we'll more than likely see Horse Head masks in the game.

Yet people do the same exact thing here, start threads for changes or suggestions, get lots of support and votes, and ZOS just pisses away laughing at everyone and disregards it all. It's a big *** you to the playerbase.

Joy_Division

No

Takllin wrote: »

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

If you're not likely to hit over 60 players anyway, then the cap doesn't need to be removed. All they need to remove is the diminishing returns formula.

That's what most people are referring to in terms of the AOE cap, for whatever reason it isn't referred to directly though.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

But that's not the cap.....thats the falloff
I dont think anyone wants the falloff.

Some are arguing because the want the 6 player falloff raised.
Some are arguing because they want the 60 man cap removed.

These two posts exemplify the problem here. Some people are throwing the word "cap" around when it's the "falloff" that they actually want removed. So who wants what, exactly?

We want the falloff removed, it was just improperly named at the beginning when the falloff was implemented and has stuck ever since.

I don't think it's a problem if you understand the context of the discussion.

The problem here is ZOS unwillingness to even have a discussion on the matter, @Wrobel makes a thread and doesn't even touch the issue, and had said in guild meetings that he will more than likely never get rid of it because he doesn't want small groups to wipe baddies like him in bigger groups.

It's the same reason we will likely never see any form of Dynamic Ulti return, he doesn't want small groups to have any kind of mechanic that they can use to their advantage over the large groups of baddies. To him, if he bring more numbers, regardless of skill, he wins.

What you are suggesting is that a developer, @Wrobel , is purposely creating an environment that helps him gain an advantage despite that it negatively impacts everyone's performance? It's almost as though you suggesting he's cheating or at the very least using ESO as his own personal playground.

He's explained this in private guild meetings. He does not want Dynamic Ulti or AoE Cap Falloff removal because it gives an advantage to highly skilled solo/small group players to wipe lesser skilled, larger groups.

It;s not a suggestion, it's his own words. They also don't feel as though AoE Caps or the falloff create much if any of a server performance issue.

Unfortunate. Apparently he thinks it's OK that highly skilled large groups wipe the floor with lesser skilled people.

Edit: When Havok, VE, Alacrity, Rage, etc., run in 24 man ball-groups and enjoy all that free damage mitigation, they are by far the biggest beneficiaries of AoE caps. PUGs and lesser skilled players lacked the coordination to similarly take advantage of AoE caps.

In essence skilled ball-groups and PuGs play by two different sets of rules regarding damage mitigation. That's a huge problem.

Takllin

No

Joy_Division wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

If you're not likely to hit over 60 players anyway, then the cap doesn't need to be removed. All they need to remove is the diminishing returns formula.

That's what most people are referring to in terms of the AOE cap, for whatever reason it isn't referred to directly though.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

But that's not the cap.....thats the falloff
I dont think anyone wants the falloff.

Some are arguing because the want the 6 player falloff raised.
Some are arguing because they want the 60 man cap removed.

These two posts exemplify the problem here. Some people are throwing the word "cap" around when it's the "falloff" that they actually want removed. So who wants what, exactly?

We want the falloff removed, it was just improperly named at the beginning when the falloff was implemented and has stuck ever since.

I don't think it's a problem if you understand the context of the discussion.

The problem here is ZOS unwillingness to even have a discussion on the matter, @Wrobel makes a thread and doesn't even touch the issue, and had said in guild meetings that he will more than likely never get rid of it because he doesn't want small groups to wipe baddies like him in bigger groups.

It's the same reason we will likely never see any form of Dynamic Ulti return, he doesn't want small groups to have any kind of mechanic that they can use to their advantage over the large groups of baddies. To him, if he bring more numbers, regardless of skill, he wins.

What you are suggesting is that a developer, @Wrobel , is purposely creating an environment that helps him gain an advantage despite that it negatively impacts everyone's performance? It's almost as though you suggesting he's cheating or at the very least using ESO as his own personal playground.

He's explained this in private guild meetings. He does not want Dynamic Ulti or AoE Cap Falloff removal because it gives an advantage to highly skilled solo/small group players to wipe lesser skilled, larger groups.

It;s not a suggestion, it's his own words. They also don't feel as though AoE Caps or the falloff create much if any of a server performance issue.

Unfortunate. Apparently he thinks it's OK that highly skilled large groups wipe the floor with lesser skilled people.

What?

eventide03b14a_ESO

No

Takllin wrote: »

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

If you're not likely to hit over 60 players anyway, then the cap doesn't need to be removed. All they need to remove is the diminishing returns formula.

That's what most people are referring to in terms of the AOE cap, for whatever reason it isn't referred to directly though.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

But that's not the cap.....thats the falloff
I dont think anyone wants the falloff.

Some are arguing because the want the 6 player falloff raised.
Some are arguing because they want the 60 man cap removed.

These two posts exemplify the problem here. Some people are throwing the word "cap" around when it's the "falloff" that they actually want removed. So who wants what, exactly?

We want the falloff removed, it was just improperly named at the beginning when the falloff was implemented and has stuck ever since.

I don't think it's a problem if you understand the context of the discussion.

The problem here is ZOS unwillingness to even have a discussion on the matter, @Wrobel makes a thread and doesn't even touch the issue, and had said in guild meetings that he will more than likely never get rid of it because he doesn't want small groups to wipe baddies like him in bigger groups.

It's the same reason we will likely never see any form of Dynamic Ulti return, he doesn't want small groups to have any kind of mechanic that they can use to their advantage over the large groups of baddies. To him, if he bring more numbers, regardless of skill, he wins.

What you are suggesting is that a developer, @Wrobel , is purposely creating an environment that helps him gain an advantage despite that it negatively impacts everyone's performance? It's almost as though you suggesting he's cheating or at the very least using ESO as his own personal playground.

He's explained this in private guild meetings. He does not want Dynamic Ulti or AoE Cap Falloff removal because it gives an advantage to highly skilled solo/small group players to wipe lesser skilled, larger groups.

It;s not a suggestion, it's his own words. They also don't feel as though AoE Caps or the falloff create much if any of a server performance issue.

Let's say they don't cause server performance issue. What they are encouraging is people balling up spamming AoE's. Let's start off by simply stating this in no way makes any sense from a realisitic perspective as the AoE's would hurt your own group as they do in EVERY OTHER TES GAME. Okay no friendly fire, fine. What is the logic of getting hit by an AoE but taking no damage because X amount of other people already have? Most importantly why would they discourage good players from playing their game? I'm trying to understand exactly who they are trying to make PvP appeal to.

Tankqull

No

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

"Removing Aoe Caps means there's a higher chance for smaller group to wipe larger group. For one example like 6 vs 40 or 50."

50 player zerg ball can aoe for 50k plus a second, and can shield for 50k + a second. 5 players can do 10% of that max if they are themeselves balled up. So Zerg ball gains from no aoe caps.

The game can't handle aoe so people argue for more aoe, it's amazing how dense people can be.

actaully the problem is people NOT dying by AOE´s thanks to AOE-caps while spammin further AOEs for the next two hours. instead of dying within 5sec.

eventide03b14a_ESO

No

Tankqull wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

"Removing Aoe Caps means there's a higher chance for smaller group to wipe larger group. For one example like 6 vs 40 or 50."

50 player zerg ball can aoe for 50k plus a second, and can shield for 50k + a second. 5 players can do 10% of that max if they are themeselves balled up. So Zerg ball gains from no aoe caps.

The game can't handle aoe so people argue for more aoe, it's amazing how dense people can be.

actaully the problem is people NOT dying by AOE´s thanks to AOE-caps while spammin further AOEs for the next two hours. instead of dying within 5sec.

This should be obvious. The main problem of course it that heals have no AoE cap so one would assume that they actually cause more lag just by simple logic than wiping out that same group, thus preventing them from spamming AoEs including healing and every other cheesy one that shows up on a death recap.

Takllin

No

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

If you're not likely to hit over 60 players anyway, then the cap doesn't need to be removed. All they need to remove is the diminishing returns formula.

That's what most people are referring to in terms of the AOE cap, for whatever reason it isn't referred to directly though.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

But that's not the cap.....thats the falloff
I dont think anyone wants the falloff.

Some are arguing because the want the 6 player falloff raised.
Some are arguing because they want the 60 man cap removed.

These two posts exemplify the problem here. Some people are throwing the word "cap" around when it's the "falloff" that they actually want removed. So who wants what, exactly?

We want the falloff removed, it was just improperly named at the beginning when the falloff was implemented and has stuck ever since.

I don't think it's a problem if you understand the context of the discussion.

The problem here is ZOS unwillingness to even have a discussion on the matter, @Wrobel makes a thread and doesn't even touch the issue, and had said in guild meetings that he will more than likely never get rid of it because he doesn't want small groups to wipe baddies like him in bigger groups.

It's the same reason we will likely never see any form of Dynamic Ulti return, he doesn't want small groups to have any kind of mechanic that they can use to their advantage over the large groups of baddies. To him, if he bring more numbers, regardless of skill, he wins.

What you are suggesting is that a developer, @Wrobel , is purposely creating an environment that helps him gain an advantage despite that it negatively impacts everyone's performance? It's almost as though you suggesting he's cheating or at the very least using ESO as his own personal playground.

He's explained this in private guild meetings. He does not want Dynamic Ulti or AoE Cap Falloff removal because it gives an advantage to highly skilled solo/small group players to wipe lesser skilled, larger groups.

It;s not a suggestion, it's his own words. They also don't feel as though AoE Caps or the falloff create much if any of a server performance issue.

Let's say they don't cause server performance issue. What they are encouraging is people balling up spamming AoE's. Let's start off by simply stating this in no way makes any sense from a realisitic perspective as the AoE's would hurt your own group as they do in EVERY OTHER TES GAME. Okay no friendly fire, fine. What is the logic of getting hit by an AoE but taking no damage because X amount of other people already have? Most importantly why would they discourage good players from playing their game? I'm trying to understand exactly who they are trying to make PvP appeal to.

Casuals, baddies, etc.

There is no logic behind the AoE cap falloff, it was put in place so that highly skilled players/groups can't easily wipe larger unskilled players/groups.

His logic is also that by removing AoE caps/falloff, you'd encourage even more of this ball group behavior...

Joy_Division

No

Takllin wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

If you're not likely to hit over 60 players anyway, then the cap doesn't need to be removed. All they need to remove is the diminishing returns formula.

That's what most people are referring to in terms of the AOE cap, for whatever reason it isn't referred to directly though.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

But that's not the cap.....thats the falloff
I dont think anyone wants the falloff.

Some are arguing because the want the 6 player falloff raised.
Some are arguing because they want the 60 man cap removed.

These two posts exemplify the problem here. Some people are throwing the word "cap" around when it's the "falloff" that they actually want removed. So who wants what, exactly?

We want the falloff removed, it was just improperly named at the beginning when the falloff was implemented and has stuck ever since.

I don't think it's a problem if you understand the context of the discussion.

The problem here is ZOS unwillingness to even have a discussion on the matter, @Wrobel makes a thread and doesn't even touch the issue, and had said in guild meetings that he will more than likely never get rid of it because he doesn't want small groups to wipe baddies like him in bigger groups.

It's the same reason we will likely never see any form of Dynamic Ulti return, he doesn't want small groups to have any kind of mechanic that they can use to their advantage over the large groups of baddies. To him, if he bring more numbers, regardless of skill, he wins.

What you are suggesting is that a developer, @Wrobel , is purposely creating an environment that helps him gain an advantage despite that it negatively impacts everyone's performance? It's almost as though you suggesting he's cheating or at the very least using ESO as his own personal playground.

He's explained this in private guild meetings. He does not want Dynamic Ulti or AoE Cap Falloff removal because it gives an advantage to highly skilled solo/small group players to wipe lesser skilled, larger groups.

It;s not a suggestion, it's his own words. They also don't feel as though AoE Caps or the falloff create much if any of a server performance issue.

Unfortunate. Apparently he thinks it's OK that highly skilled large groups wipe the floor with lesser skilled people.

What?

When Havok, VE, Alacrity, Rage, etc., run in 24 man ball-groups and enjoy all that free damage mitigation, it takes 3 to 4 times their numbers of PUGs and lesser skilled players to defeat them. Groups like that are the biggest beneficiaries of AoE caps. The PUGs and lesser skilled players cannot similarly take advantage of the AoE caps because they lack the coordination to do so.

I'm not saying if we remove AoE caps all of a sudden these ball groups will go away or be seriously weakened, I am saying the playing field between them and their opponents will become more leveled as at least they would play by the same rules.