Area-of-Effect Abilities - Maximum Target Cap Clarification

Xsorus

Cuddler wrote: »

While the fix is welcome, it's not nearly enough to address the issue with the excessive power of AOE abilities in EOS PVP. Some of them are widely considered overpowered for a reason, with Impulse and Bat Swarm being two prime examples. The current AOE power is discouraging the use of such standard PVP tactics as identifying priority targets and focus fire. The current imbalance in favour of AOE on live servers is so severe it makes these few abilities mandatory for a competitive PVP build. It also makes mindless AOE spam by far the best PVP "tactic", which no player who wants quality PVP experience - and not just AP farm - could possibly enjoy.

There are several potential solutions, not all may be equally good, but something has to be done:

- reduce the target limit selectively on some of the abilities;
- significantly reduce damage and weaken CC and healing effects on those abilities;
- make all AOE abilities that are not targetted on ground require a primary enemy target, with only that target taking full damage, and secondary targets only taking a percentage of it; this would also add a minimum awareness requirement on the part of the caster;
*- opponents of AOE caps keep mentioning DAOC, so another option is to make EOS AOE more like DAOC AOE, in other words, add long activation times or channeling to the more powerful AOE abilities, during which the caster would need to remain stationary and vulnerable to interrupts.*

ummmm PBAE's in DAOC were some of the fastest casting spells in that game.

and MoC.....which made it so you couldn't be interrupted.

You did need to be stationary though.

ValenWoody

RivenVII wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

His point was not the title of your post, which was very clear and honest. His point was where and how there was linked to your post, in placed such as Reddit, with post titles like he mentioned. This completely skewed the results of your poll to the point where it's nearly meaningless. You are not directly to blame for this.

I addressed that in my response. By the time that the post was linked there, the poll already received more than 2000 votes and was at 90% voting no. If anything, more people voted yes since his post than had before that. Additionally, regardless of the biased title, it makes it more polarizing, inadvertently encouraging people who do want an AoE cap to vote "Yes" in the poll as well. Either way, the point is moot and the results were statistically relevant long before that thread was made.

Sorry, but no SLOP (self-selecting opinion poll) is statistically valid because the sample population is automatically polluted.

ChairGraveyard

AoE Caps Enable Cheating:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=0hyK9tLzG5o

AoE Caps Enable Cheating

Milky

Lava_Croft wrote: »

RivenVII wrote: »

Except for the fact where my thread was titled objectively as "Do you want an AoE cap?" and the answers were simply yes or no.

His point was not the title of your post, which was very clear and honest. His point was where and how there was linked to your post, in placed such as Reddit, with post titles like he mentioned. This completely skewed the results of your poll to the point where it's nearly meaningless. You are not directly to blame for this.

Completely skewed the results? What are you smoking? If you think a poll of over 3,000 votes like that can be skewed in a significant way by reddit titles.... you're delusional. A landslide vote is a landslide vote.

bluntobjnub18_ESO

All this commentary from the "Cap" side about players not noticing the cap thus cap is fine fails in the face of behavior modification.

The lesson everyone has gotten in regard to AOE in PvE, Seigewar, and the previously non-capped AoE's is "Don't be there." People spread out, moved around, and generally did not stack in a tight cluster.

Now that rule is broken for player AoE's, the behavior that is optimal is to stack in a tight cluster, knowing that the concentration of firepower and healing will overcome any lesser numbers in any other situation than seigewar.

Keep fights still involve seige, and boiling oil will keep the stacking down. This will not be the same with open field AvA, or fights over farms/mines/caps, etc.

Behavior has changed, and now numbers are the only factor that matters anywhere but a keep or anyplace that you can put boiling oil.

I would like to posit a test for Zenimax:

Remove caps from all AoE (round, cone, and corridor), and see how behavior changes on the Player Test Server, versus the behavior given the knowledge of caps now.

skitznub17_ESO

Lame, inhale was a decent skill when standing in trash mobs in a dungeon but wtf? Heals me for 300hp now, delete that skill. Dk standard and roots clearing trash with inferno, guess thats over with since mobs will just attack the healer and run all over the place now.

DK Standard and roots have something like a 5-8 meter ability. I don't see how it matters if players are stupid enough to run into a standard.

SuperScrubby

Caps are super dumb in any game. There should always be risk vs reward for grouping together. You can buff and heal faster but you risk being caught jerking each other off. Now there's literally no reward for spreading out and so I can play like a *** and just blob.

Good job ZM, once again another terrible move from immature developers that don't understand how these changes will affect gameplay. I'll add another point on the board for poor knee jerk fixes.

ValenWoody

Milky wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

RivenVII wrote: »

Except for the fact where my thread was titled objectively as "Do you want an AoE cap?" and the answers were simply yes or no.

His point was not the title of your post, which was very clear and honest. His point was where and how there was linked to your post, in placed such as Reddit, with post titles like he mentioned. This completely skewed the results of your poll to the point where it's nearly meaningless. You are not directly to blame for this.

Completely skewed the results? What are you smoking? If you think a poll of over 3,000 votes like that can be skewed in a significant way by reddit titles.... you're delusional. A landslide vote is a landslide vote.

OK, I'll say it again. The poll is useless because of self-selection bias. Nothing else about it matters. It is an indicator of nothing except the fact that just about anybody can create an Internet poll to inaccurately portray just about anything.

prana33b14_ESO

While self selection bias may be at play, not even Nate Silver is going to run with "that means a majority of people could want caps" when it is that much of a landslide. Pretty sure we can infer that over 50% of pvpers want caps gone.

ValenWoody

RivenVII wrote: »

ValenWoody wrote: »

Well, I hate to break it to you two, but the poll, like most Internet polls, is completely useless because responders self-select.

So do those that take online surveys from stores or companies. They choose whether to take it or not. By your logic, anyone who ever chooses to vote or take a survey for anything doesn't count because they had enough of an opinion to vote for or against something so it must be biased. The thread title was unbiased, meaning that both those who favor an AoE cap and those who were against it would visit the thread to chime in if they cared enough, regardless of which side they are on. The results of that poll mean a hell of a lot.

1). It's not my logic, it's a well-understood concept in statistics.

2). Apparently, you don't understand what self-selection bias means. In order to be statistically valid, a poll's sample population must be selected by the pollster to be representative of the overall target population, and the selection criteria must be published for validation by anyone wishing to make use of the results. It's not about whether or not you decide to take the poll, it's about whether or not you were selected to take it in the first place. If the sample population self-selects, the poll is polluted right out of the gate because the poll will be taken primarily by those who have a strong feeling about the topic(s) being polled.

3). You aren't really going to keep arguing about something that every statistician in the world would dismiss, are you? What am I saying? This is the Internet -- of course you are.

RivenEsq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

Read the "example" in there. I can see how that is bias. However, I'm not taking these results from a specific kind of "player".

You can see how there are a million threads in that subforum asking to "nerf veteran players" because their stats, abilities, and gear are too strong against level 16s. Those same players with that same mindset would have voted in that thread. Because of these other threads, it is clear that I'm not just getting responses from "hardcore PvPers". The poll is open to everyone. It isn't from a specific website or only voted on by a certain group. It is on the official forums, a place that includes every single person that plays ESO and has been included on a variety of websites that also include RP players, casuals, PvE players, etc. This poll has indiscriminately taken the opinions and votes of ANY ESO player that felt like they wanted to vote in it. It is as unbiased as it can be.

So is that all you've got? Show me all these players that support an AoE cap. Please, I'm begging you. If my poll is so skewed and so valueless, tell me where all the players that I am "excluding from the results" are located. If it was really self-selection bias, you could easily point out where they are and where my poll is so horribly invalid.

The fact of the matter is you think I and everyone else that sees that poll as meaning something are stupid and I take offense to that. You think that you can throw around a buzzword and pass yourself off as some statistical expert witness on the internet and then assume that I'm uneducated enough to just take you at face value. Please, stop talking, because no one is fooled by your rhetoric.

ValenWoody

prana33b14_ESO wrote: »

While self selection bias may be at play, not even Nate Silver is going to run with "that doesn't mean most people want
caps" when it is that much of a landslide. Pretty sure we can infer that over 50% of pvpers want caps gone.

There's no "maybe" here. Self-selection bias is automatically in play in this type of poll. It is completely unreliable. It doesn't matter whether it's a landslide or a squeaker. That's what "unreliable" means -- you can't infer ANYTHING from it, and thus ZOS will give it the attention it merits.

I'm not coming down on either side of this argument, BTW. I just don't want to see anybody hang their hats on something that can be so easily (and rightly) dismissed.

prana33b14_ESO

Yes you can. It isn't accurate but inferences can be made. Surprisingly all the posts and visitors in that forum other than that thread are whiners crying ABOUT the AOE but you (or people itt at least) think it's probably all the pro-no cap people choosing to vote at a disproportionate rate and skewing the poll. LOL.

WE need the unskew the polls guy up in here.

ValenWoody

RivenVII wrote: »

The poll is open to everyone.

I'll just bypass your strawmen here and say "That's the point." Responders CHOOSE to take it rather than being randomly selected from a population, or preselected to represent specific demographics. That's where the bias is, and that's why self-selecting polls are useless.

I actually have no horse in this race, but I do object when someone tries to misrepresent an entire population with a self-selecting poll.

RivenEsq

Holy s***, is it really that hard of a concept to actually balance skills instead of implementing a cap?

SuperScrubby

Yes because you know that takes actual work.

TheBull

ZEN IS LYING THERE NEVER WERE CAPS AND ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS DESTROY THEIR GAME!


cmon guys...

RivenEsq

I'm done with you, ValenWoody. You are discounting the opinions of 3,000 people that were 90% of the poll respondents and claiming it is biased and invalid yet providing no numbers or any reasoning other than saying "self-selection bias" over and over.

This is an awful decision by ZOS and it is clear as f***ing day that the majority of players disagree with this change.

slander36

I'm not taking these results from a specific kind of "player".

The type of "player" you're taking these results from is one who is either strongly for or against caps. In this case those against caps turn out to be the majority of people with extremist views on caps. Yay you! In all actuality you would have to also take into consideration the number of people who viewed the link and either didn't vote or didn't even click on it as well, as they are in the "I don't care" category. Because you can't get those numbers without a statistically accurate polling method, you cannot say that your poll is meaningful in any way. I know this is hard to accept as you seem to be firmly in the "No Caps!" group, but the chance that the majority of players just don't care is >> the chance that the majority of players want caps removed.

And just for the record, I can see the advantages and disadvantages of both caps and no caps. I think not having caps would eliminate the style of gameplay the developers are looking for, however, and see why they made the move they did. I'm also sure that if the moving blob actually becomes a problem then changes will be made, either to how siege works (hopefully adding some non-keep-oriented siege) or by removing or expanding caps. However, if it turns out to be the flavor-of-the-month, a la DK/Vamps right now, then life will go on.

For those of you afraid of the blob, I posit you a question: do you honestly think a group of 24 people will be able to stay within 8m of each other on a full run between keeps? If not, then your group of 4 can have quite a bit of fun thinning them out during their run. This isn't GW2, you have a mile to run between keeps and good luck keeping a blob tight during that run without any negative consequences.

ValenWoody

prana33b14_ESO wrote: »

...It isn't accurate...

Did you see the point as it went whizzing over your head, because... THERE IT IS.

Make your case and present it, but, for the love of Shalidor, don't use an Internet poll as part of your argument.

ValenWoody

RivenVII wrote: »

I'm done with you, ValenWoody. You are discounting the opinions of 3,000 people that were 90% of the poll respondents and claiming it is biased and invalid yet providing no numbers or any reasoning other than saying "self-selection bias" over and over.

This is an awful decision by ZOS and it is clear as f***ing day that the majority of players disagree with this change.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Just because you don't understand the significance of self-selection bias does not mean that it isn't, on its own, sufficient to invalidate your poll (or any other open Internet poll).

Because it is.

Make your case, but don't use a vehicle that any statistician would laugh at to substantiate your position.

prana33b14_ESO

lolz. I said you can still make inferences from a landslide poll even though it isn't accurate. You can. Again, all the people making posts in that forum are crying about how they have to move and push skills and stuff to avoid the aoe. Trying to pretend this is inaccurately represented by the crowd not wanting a cap is hilarious.

Digerati

all this bickering about whether or not the poll is valid is ridiculous and absolutely besides the point..

What value does the target-cap bring to the game? What is the merit? Wouldn't forcing strong AoEs to be cast while stationary and be interrupt-able be a better fix? wouldn't implementing damage based on how close you are to the center of the AoE be a better fix? Wouldn't evaluating the abilities on a case-by-case basis be a better strategy than implementing an illogical and arbitrary cap?

Lava_Croft

Why are people constantly asking what the value is of an AoE cap, while a cap was already in place for a lot skills and there hasn't been a single argument against an AoE cap that didn't involve speculation and Guild Wars 2, while the actual practice in PvP has proven the past month that it just doesn't really matter that there's a cap in place?

Kiwi

once again the overly verbal portion of the community suffers foot in mouth.
it was adorable once, now its sickening.

Digerati

Lava, you're an argument for why they should implement the ability to block/ignore posters on this forum.

Kingslayer

Ahhhh the post i didn't see this, Well you have missed abilities which don't obey any cap. Wheres the bloody bat ultimate for the vamp line??. And also its cost reduction??. something needs to be done with this. This is the most broken ability i know of in the game right now @ZOS_JessicaFolsom‌ please listen to the community. Its clearly broken and you fix things which don't need fixing. This game is in its infancy and so far its not gone well.

valkaneer2b14_ESO

Lava_Croft wrote: »

valkaneer2b14_ESO wrote: »

WTF dude stop your trolling, read the damn post, even the guy that agreed with you that you quoted.. even that you got wrong.

Maybe you should read the thread first, since nowhere in that thread there is any statement about there being an AoE cap in place.

Your right.... and I never said he guarenteed the AoE cap. What we did say though is that people have been asking about the AoE caps for months before this game ever came. Look at what Jnaathra wrote, People were asking in droves.... Brian never answered though again read my previous post...... v

"I have been looking at old questions that have been asked about the AoE cap. Brian was asked over and over and over about it and never answered that question on the EJ forums. A lot of people were not happy that he did not answer it, it was very important to them. The consensus was... Well he is from DaoC and I think that is good enough to believe he won't put caps in......

Boy were they wrong."

Reading comp FTW

valkaneer2b14_ESO

jdoe wrote: »

OK guys, I won't share my opinion on the cap, as I don't PVP all that much anyway. That said, as a practicing engineer with a decent background in statistics currently engaged in designing stratified random samples for academic assessment, you guys really need to let the Poll stuff die (appeal to authority aside). Every time you say it's a statistically significant, I think I die a little inside.

That poll is the very definition of not statistically significant, for so many reasons it hurts my head. The smaller your sample, the more careful you have to be to select the sample. There is a reason pollsters are paid egregious amounts of money, and why you can't get thousands/hundreds of thousands of dollars just by opening your phone book and calling the first 1,000 names and emailing the results to the news stations. It's important that you understand such things, as throughout your life people are going to try to get you believe all sorts of things using bad statistics. Bad statistics are far worse than no statistics at all. Think about this. If I stand outside the football stadium and poll people coming in for a game on whether or not they feel that the funding for the athletic department is high enough, do you think my results would be the same as if I polled the entire student body?

So, it could very well be that 90% of people want no caps. My point is just that the poll does nothing at all to prove/disprove that claim.

LOL ok, so I guess they should have picked 1500 people that were going to answer yes,, and 1500 people that were going to answer No.... And I guess sample out of that right????

And what in the hell are you talking about polling the entire student body, a bit out in left field somewhere don't ya think? We are not students, we are paying adults. Adults who has been playing in the game for years. I think we know how the game works better than those in the stands. To be accurate your poll should be taken from the thousands of football players that have played the game, and the poll should be taken on the Rules of the game not how much money is being spent on it.

Big difference there.

BTW, it's not like any coalition of players have sued the NFL for bad rules right??? Oh wait.......

valkaneer2b14_ESO

ValenWoody wrote: »

prana33b14_ESO wrote: »

While self selection bias may be at play, not even Nate Silver is going to run with "that doesn't mean most people want
caps" when it is that much of a landslide. Pretty sure we can infer that over 50% of pvpers want caps gone.

There's no "maybe" here. Self-selection bias is automatically in play in this type of poll. It is completely unreliable. It doesn't matter whether it's a landslide or a squeaker. That's what "unreliable" means -- you can't infer ANYTHING from it, and thus ZOS will give it the attention it merits.

I'm not coming down on either side of this argument, BTW. I just don't want to see anybody hang their hats on something that can be so easily (and rightly) dismissed.

Self selection?

Himmm Did I log on to the computer, and see the patch notes and hunt down a Poll to vote in?

Or was I randomly viewing post and just happened to see the top post there was a poll and so I clicked on it and voted. Was I self selected or not.... Nope someone might as well called me and asked me to participate in a poll, which is how it works,,,,,

Everyone chooses to participate in any poll they take.