Do you think there should be an AoE cap?

Takllin · February 2016

No

Joy_Division wrote: »

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 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.

Ah okay, your wording confused me, I wasn't sure what you meant. Agree though with your sentiment. The difference between winning and losing should be purely based off of skill, not whomever brought the most numbers, and AoE Caps/Falloff creates this situation.

eventide03b14a_ESO · February 2016

No

Takllin wrote: »

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...

That just seems like a bad idea to me. I personally feel like zergs are a cancer in PvP.

Sallington · February 2016

No

42 pages, no dev response.

Takllin · February 2016

No

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

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...

That just seems like a bad idea to me. I personally feel like zergs are a cancer in PvP.

Over 3600 fellow players agree with you, but Wrobel/ZOS don't give a damn.

Takllin · February 2016

No

Sallington wrote: »

42 pages, no dev response.

Raise your hand if you are surprised...

Wollust · February 2016

No

Takllin wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

42 pages, no dev response.

Raise your hand if you are surprised...

Honestly, I am surprised. And disgusted at ZoS attitude towards this matter.

dantator · February 2016

No

I'm still confused to why AOE caps are still in the game knowing how many people are begging for it to be removed, probably increases lag due to the extra calculations the server needs to perform during massive zerg fights, the current state of PvP, logic behind aoe caps in general, and my personal experience. From my vague memory, I remember ZOS (correct me if I'm wrong) mentioning in one of their recent ESO live that the reason to why AOE caps are still around is because aoe caps are needed in pve. If that is so, separate PvE from PvP for goodness sake! Majority of the PvP community is disgusted by aoe caps and want it removed. It is simply necessary for the the well-being of PvP.

Why keep it in the game for this long...?

Joy_Division · February 2016

No

Takllin wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

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 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.

Ah okay, your wording confused me, I wasn't sure what you meant. Agree though with your sentiment. The difference between winning and losing should be purely based off of skill, not whomever brought the most numbers, and AoE Caps/Falloff creates this situation.

Agree, should have worded it better and will edit the post to lessen confusion.

Takllin · February 2016

No

Wollust wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

42 pages, no dev response.

Raise your hand if you are surprised...

Honestly, I am surprised. And disgusted at ZoS attitude towards this matter.

Ah, I'm at the point where it doesn't surprise me but still disgusted/extremely frustrated that they continue to *** away this game. There are some really good people that work there, but they have some extremely bad apples who are dragging this down.

eventide03b14a_ESO · February 2016

No

dantator wrote: »

I'm still confused to why AOE caps are still in the game knowing how many people are begging for it to be removed, probably increases lag due to the extra calculations the server needs to perform during massive zerg fights, the current state of PvP, logic behind aoe caps in general, and my personal experience. From my vague memory, I remember ZOS (correct me if I'm wrong) mentioning in one of their recent ESO live that the reason to why AOE caps are still around is because aoe caps are needed in pve. If that is so, separate PvE from PvP for goodness sake! Majority of the PvP community is disgusted by aoe caps and want it removed. It is simply necessary for the the well-being of PvP.

Why keep it in the game for this long...?

I really wish they would just explain it. It can't be because they don't care. There has to be some sort of technical limitation right? Why else would they anger so many people with such a terribly implemented mechanic?

_Chaos · February 2016

No

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

eventide03b14a_ESO · February 2016

No

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

I think you're right. It seems as though we have no choice but to keep this thread alive. As long we keep the discourse civil they will have no reason to shut it down.

Enodoc · February 2016

No

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

_Chaos · February 2016

No

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

Can you link me to the TOS rule that I'd be breaking?

FENGRUSH · February 2016

No

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

Can you link me to the TOS rule that I'd be breaking?

You naming and shaming!

eventide03b14a_ESO · February 2016

No

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

Can you link me to the TOS rule that I'd be breaking?

I'm pretty sure I never saw any rule about it. Do you think it's possible that @Wrobel is on vacation? Why else would he ignore this topic?

Sallington · February 2016

No

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

Can you link me to the TOS rule that I'd be breaking?

I'm pretty sure I never saw any rule about it. Do you think it's possible that @Wrobel is on vacation? Why else would he ignore this topic?

He's been on vacation since April 2014?

Actually.... that makes the most sense.

FENGRUSH · February 2016

No

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

Can you link me to the TOS rule that I'd be breaking?

I'm pretty sure I never saw any rule about it. Do you think it's possible that @Wrobel is on vacation? Why else would he ignore this topic?

Confirmed Wrobel has been on vacation since April of 2014 when thread was made.

#NoETA when hes returning yet.

eventide03b14a_ESO · February 2016

No

FENGRUSH wrote: »

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

Can you link me to the TOS rule that I'd be breaking?

I'm pretty sure I never saw any rule about it. Do you think it's possible that @Wrobel is on vacation? Why else would he ignore this topic?

Confirmed Wrobel has been on vacation since April of 2014 when thread was made.

#NoETA when hes returning yet.

I don't think @Wrobel is coming back then. Any word if they are going to hire a replacement?

Takllin · February 2016

No

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

Can you link me to the TOS rule that I'd be breaking?

I'm pretty sure I never saw any rule about it. Do you think it's possible that @Wrobel is on vacation? Why else would he ignore this topic?

Confirmed Wrobel has been on vacation since April of 2014 when thread was made.

#NoETA when hes returning yet.

I don't think @Wrobel is coming back then. Any word if they are going to hire a replacement?

#NoETA

eventide03b14a_ESO · February 2016

No

By ESO logic only 6 people would die from a nuclear bomb and 12 others would have a minor sunburn

eventide03b14a_ESO · February 2016

No

FENGRUSH wrote: »

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

Can you link me to the TOS rule that I'd be breaking?

I'm pretty sure I never saw any rule about it. Do you think it's possible that @Wrobel is on vacation? Why else would he ignore this topic?

Confirmed Wrobel has been on vacation since April of 2014 when thread was made.

#NoETA when hes returning yet.

There is another thread suggesting you should go for the job.

Enodoc · February 2016

No

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

Can you link me to the TOS rule that I'd be breaking?

I think it comes under spamming. I know people have had warnings before for excessive tagging of staff, so it's reasonable to assume that would then become a ban if it continued.

eventide03b14a_ESO · February 2016

No

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

Can you link me to the TOS rule that I'd be breaking?

I think it comes under spamming. I know people have had warnings before for excessive tagging of staff, so it's reasonable to assume that would then become a ban if it continued.

Does that only apply if we use the @ name? Like I could get in trouble for saying @Wrobel too much but not Wrobel?

Enodoc · February 2016

No

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

Can you link me to the TOS rule that I'd be breaking?

I think it comes under spamming. I know people have had warnings before for excessive tagging of staff, so it's reasonable to assume that would then become a ban if it continued.

Does that only apply if we use the @ name? Like I could get in trouble for saying @Wrobel too much but not Wrobel?

Yeah, just the @ name, because that's the one that pings a notification. And I think it was primarily people who were tagging a load of different staff in a single post for "attention", rather than, for example, to ask a direct question. So posts consisting solely of "@ Dev"s with no other meaningful content are the grey area here, as they could come under the Posting messages that are nonsensical or have no real content example of spam.

eventide03b14a_ESO · February 2016

No

Enodoc wrote: »

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

All we can do is tag the devs and forum moderators to the point where they have no choice but to acknowledge this pressing issue.

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom amirite?

I encourage all others to do the same. I'll continue bumping posting my thoughts on this matter until we get a definitive answer from a ZOS rep.

You keep tagging everyone you'll just get banned

Can you link me to the TOS rule that I'd be breaking?

I think it comes under spamming. I know people have had warnings before for excessive tagging of staff, so it's reasonable to assume that would then become a ban if it continued.

Does that only apply if we use the @ name? Like I could get in trouble for saying @Wrobel too much but not Wrobel?

Yeah, just the @ name, because that's the one that pings a notification. And I think it was primarily people who were tagging a load of different staff in a single post for "attention", rather than, for example, to ask a direct question. So posts consisting solely of "@ Dev"s with no other meaningful content are the grey area here, as they could come under the Posting messages that are nonsensical or have no real content example of spam.

I see. Well I'm certainly not doing it just for attention. I find it odd that nobody, including @Wrobel, has ever bothered to respond to this thread though.

Ishammael · February 2016

No

Takllin wrote: »

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.

I see. This is totally intellectually delinquent. Here's the rub for @Wrobel :

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

Joy summarizes nicely.

The artificial damage mitigation does nothing to help Joe Pug. In fact, groups that are skilled can more effectively take advantage of the damage mitigation by stacking tight and running as a ball with coordinated Proxy Dets and ultimates. Lesser skilled groups -- by definition -- are unable to do these things. Dynamic Ultimate and Zero AoE caps would therefore help Joe Pug because it would give him a tool to combat these stacked groups -- because they are stacked!

eventide03b14a_ESO · February 2016

No

Ishammael wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

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.

I see. This is totally intellectually delinquent. Here's the rub for @Wrobel :

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

Joy summarizes nicely.

The artificial damage mitigation does nothing to help Joe Pug. In fact, groups that are skilled can more effectively take advantage of the damage mitigation by stacking tight and running as a ball with coordinated Proxy Dets and ultimates. Lesser skilled groups -- by definition -- are unable to do these things. Dynamic Ultimate and Zero AoE caps would therefore help Joe Pug because it would give him a tool to combat these stacked groups -- because they are stacked!

I suppose the main question is do these large zerg groups that spam AoE's, both beneficial and damage, cause massive amounts of lag? If so, wouldn't breaking them up by removing the cap not solve the major issue of lag in Cyrodiil? If they don't in fact cause lag, when did my computer become sentient, and more importantly decide that it hates it when I get near these zergs? Perhaps @Wrobel has some insight.

Takllin · February 2016

No

Ishammael wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

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.

I see. This is totally intellectually delinquent. Here's the rub for @Wrobel :

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

Joy summarizes nicely.

The artificial damage mitigation does nothing to help Joe Pug. In fact, groups that are skilled can more effectively take advantage of the damage mitigation by stacking tight and running as a ball with coordinated Proxy Dets and ultimates. Lesser skilled groups -- by definition -- are unable to do these things. Dynamic Ultimate and Zero AoE caps would therefore help Joe Pug because it would give him a tool to combat these stacked groups -- because they are stacked!

We all know logic doesn't work here :P

They are so stubborn they aren;t even willing to try the change on PTS to even see what the effects would be. Or give it a shot on a live campaign, worst comes to worst they just do a rollback...

FENGRUSH · February 2016

No

Zergbusting skills and sets instead of adjusting AOE caps - Big plays!