Do you think there should be an AoE cap?

ZOS_GregoryV

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

DKsUnite

No

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

yay we got a green ZOS sticker

Takllin

No

DKsUnite wrote: »

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

yay we got a green ZOS sticker

We did it!!! /s

LegendaryChef

No

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

And the wait for some form of answer actually concerning AoE caps continues......

K4RMA

No

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

remove AOE caps, its for the greater good

Jhunn

No

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

....... What a joke

ToRelax

No

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

I'd be so ashamed writing this. Is ZOS anywhere near friendly and constructive in this debate? I'd consider your behaviour pretty rude tbh, not even allowing a discussion between community and devs.

Enodoc

No

ToRelax wrote: »

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

I'd be so ashamed writing this. Is ZOS anywhere near friendly and constructive in this debate? I'd consider your behaviour pretty rude tbh, not even allowing a discussion between community and devs.

ZOS would actually have to post in the thread (aside from this post, obviously) for them to be friendly and constructive. One step at a time!

Anyway, someone tagged a load of staff in one post, which in itself is rude and spammy. That post seems to have been removed, but I imagine it was the cause of this moderator post; they don't want to prohibit discussion between community and devs, just avoid spam tagging. As I said above, I'm sure they have nothing against polite and reserved tagging that tries to enocurage Mr @Wrobel into joining the discussion. He has said before that they are investigating making ranged abilities more effective at damaging large groups of players. And I have three direct questions that I hope he would answer if he deigns to drop into this thread:

• How is the investigation into more effective damage of large groups going?
• What is the rationale behind the 6 people damage falloff cap?
• What is the rationale behind the 60 people hard cap?

eventide03b14a_ESO

No

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

Is this the best you can offer? What about a real answer? If you would have just addressed the issue there never would have been a need for a warning. I'm not exactly sure why this is such a complicated concept for admins on the forums to understand. You guys really just don't get it.

_Chaos

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?

I never got a response to these questions, can you guys possibly give an answer? @Wrobel @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Takllin

No

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

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?

I never got a response to these questions, can you guys possibly give an answer? @Wrobel @ZOS_BrianWheeler

They've previously said they can't change AoE caps and falloff for specific campaigns, as it's a global rule. I think they also explained that it would take a lot of coding effort to change this to a case by case basis.

Joy_Division

No

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

Greetings!

Although we do enjoy seeing the presence of the Green ZoS employee, we would like to request that you please try to constructively add insight as to why AoE caps exist, why 87% of the population's wishes have been ignored, and avoid forum policing. Let us keep it informative and resembling an actual discussion of give and take of ideas please.

Takllin

No

Joy_Division wrote: »

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

Greetings!

Although we do enjoy seeing the presence of the Green ZoS employee, we would like to request that you please try to constructively add insight as to why AoE caps exist, why 87% of the population's wishes have been ignored, and avoid forum policing. Let us keep it informative and resembling an actual discussion of give and take of ideas please.

+1

Constructive discussion for 200 please.

Wollust

No

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

Are you kidding me? 4k votes, 43 pages and this is the only official statement on this thread?

Wow. Just wow.

Karamis_Vimardon

No

I wonder just how difficult it would be to switch off AoE caps for say a week in April just for a "What if" look into how it affects current gameplay and performance.

#AbolishAoeApril

DKsUnite

No

markgd88nrb18_ESO wrote: »

I wonder just how difficult it would be to switch off AoE caps for say a week in April just for a "What if" look into how it affects current gameplay and performance.

#AbolishAoeApril

too much work when the crown store needs working on

Huggalump

No

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

reported for spam, I see this exact post in so many threads

_Chaos

No

@Wrobel there's some very specific questions in here that you should address, Enodoc covers them quite nicely below.

Enodoc wrote: »

And I have three direct questions that I hope he would answer if he deigns to drop into this thread:

• How is the investigation into more effective damage of large groups going?
• What is the rationale behind the 6 people damage falloff cap?
• What is the rationale behind the 60 people hard cap?

_Chaos

No

Just me again...

@Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert Could one of you guys give some insight to the below questions? It would be greatly appreciated throughout the entire PVP community.

Enodoc wrote: »

And I have three direct questions that I hope he would answer if he deigns to drop into this thread:

• How is the investigation into more effective damage of large groups going?
• What is the rationale behind the 6 people damage falloff cap?
• What is the rationale behind the 60 people hard cap?

Kindest Regards,
`Chaos

Bashev

No

@Castle It looks like that you voted that AoE caps were need at launch. I guess your motivation was the dynamic ultimate generation system at that time. Do you still keep your opinion that the AoE caps should be in the game or you changed it. It will be nice to have some information what is the ZoS point of view on this important PvP topic.

_Chaos

No

Good Morning @Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert,

Can the below questions be answered sometime today when you get a moment? Thanks a bunch in advance.

Enodoc wrote: »

And I have three direct questions that I hope he would answer if he deigns to drop into this thread:

• How is the investigation into more effective damage of large groups going?
• What is the rationale behind the 6 people damage falloff cap?
• What is the rationale behind the 60 people hard cap?

Cheers,
`Chaos

Solariken

No

No, but I do think that AoE abilities are too strong in this game and per-target damage should be reduced if caps are removed.

Elsonso

No

Enodoc wrote: »

And I have three direct questions that I hope he would answer if he deigns to drop into this thread:

• How is the investigation into more effective damage of large groups going?
• What is the rationale behind the 6 people damage falloff cap?
• What is the rationale behind the 60 people hard cap?

I agree. I think that answering these specific questions, particularly the last two, would go a long way to demystifying the whole AOE cap thing. This would be particularly beneficial if the answer was something players might not be thinking about, but if it just confirms what people in the forum might be thinking, that would also help.

Ghostbane

No

ZOS_GregoryV wrote: »

Greetings,

Although we do enjoy seeing so many members in an active discussion/poll, we would like to request that we please try to refrain from any spamming, such as spammy tagging, as that can be considered non-constructive. Let us keep it friendly and constructive please.

You have caused a tsunami of table flipping. Well done.

LokoMatic

No

Let me chime in on something....

I work within the Market Research Industry. We frequently run studies for digital media companies, as well as video game corporations. When a company decides to submit a survey or demographic study, they generally will rely on 500 "respondents" as a bench mark for data legitimacy.

These 500 respondents can be polled on virtually anything, however they will always look for something greater than a 60/40 split concerning any particular section as to utilize on behalf of making a decision. These companies look for specific pattern's to discover areas in which the population has a skewed opinion. This shows proof of concept through actual human interaction, as it is backed by data legitimacy.

Within this pool, companies are able to gather and grow a group of like minded individuals in which they can continuously poll, allowing them to always improve on their game /product. Some game's even have poll's included in their load screen's, or ones they launch through email campaigns.

To see a total poll of over 4,000 respondent answers is quite common in the industry, as typical gamers assume that their data will be used to improve game mechanics and overall experience (LOL ZENI) so they have more of a reason to participate.

But to see an 87% split in 1 direction in the gaming industry is extremely prolific. I have seen companies hotfix, patch, and change games within a week after receiving polling results such as these. This is a very bad signal to the company and their investors as it shows an immediate need which has to be addressed. I was extremely shocked to see this, (while not surprised) but I was even more shocked when I didn't see AOE Cap removal in the patch notes!

I find this preposterous and I will most likely quit if they don't change the AOE cap. At this point, immediate action needs to be taken. This is the crunch time in which companies realize an immediate serious mistake and fix it instantly to prevent their loyal playerbase (one's who are more affected and aware of the circumstances) from jumping ship. I feel like I have a new friend quit every day and this is the main reason. Cmon guys, lets get it together a bit and start making moves.

_Chaos

No

Happy Friday! @Wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert

Enodoc had some great questions that a lot of the active player base would like answered. Could you possibly give them a read(See Below) and provide us with some insight. These would be great to have answered on todays episode of ESO live as well.

Enodoc wrote: »

And I have three direct questions that I hope he would answer if he deigns to drop into this thread:

• How is the investigation into more effective damage of large groups going?
• What is the rationale behind the 6 people damage falloff cap?
• What is the rationale behind the 60 people hard cap?

Regards,
`Chaos

Taryf

i "pass" on poll.
Why?
Need to be tested.

@ZOS make a patch on PTS for a week and look how remove AoE will change gameplay.

There is... strange thing right now on PvP at PTS.
Vicious Death + unreflectable Meteor + maaany other changes.
Some ppl says that all changes are for better, some that all are crap... Just give testers another toy and remove cap
Let's see what will happen.

Sureshawt

Yes

This game already has AoE caps and any large scale PvP

Taryf wrote: »

i "pass" on poll.
Why?
Need to be tested.

@ZOS make a patch on PTS for a week and look how remove AoE will change gameplay.

There is... strange thing right now on PvP at PTS.
Vicious Death + unreflectable Meteor + maaany other changes.
Some ppl says that all changes are for better, some that all are crap... Just give testers another toy and remove cap
Let's see what will happen.

LOL....they don't even need to do this. Simply multiply the numbers of exploding players.

I would at first laugh my ass off at the sight off it and then become saddened that this what now qualifies as PvP in ESO.

Bashev

No

I guess that we PvPers should stop complaining for the AoE caps cause @wrobel will put cap to AP too.

Taonnor

No

If @wrobel will cap AP im gone. Its like he is actively killing pvp in this game.


I think one of the reasons of not changing aoe caps are PvE. They have to many issues to adjust in PvE, that aoe without a cap not too powerful.

Another reason i think is ZOS have another vision of large scale PvP in this game. Cyrodiil war should a war like PUG ZERG vs ZERG, without ball groups. That i think i see if i try to look between the lines at wrobels sentences. But they forget the keep fights in this vision and that the peoples will automatically ball on a keep fight and they forget unbalanced campaigns and they forget that not all peoples like PUGS.


So if arenas are coming, the not PUG pvper will be only going arena and the PUGS can have their PUG ZERG vs ZERG. If arenas are failing, pvp is gone.