Lowbei wrote: »

lol wait, are you claiming im wrong for not including a link to gallup polling procedures?

its not my fault that you dont understand how a poll works. its only something we use daily in news and politics in our country.

No im saying you are wrong for stating "facts" with no evidence and comparing Zenimax to a nation wide polling procedure.

Its not my fault that you are acting like this is your first MMO. Its probably not, but your biased opinion is showing.

"Remove caps" is not a solution. Personally i would enjoy not having a cap on my fear.

TheBucket wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

TheBucket wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

TheBucket wrote: »

Ever growing game has caps and public says ESO deceived them lol. Man...Yet im being called a troll

Not every game has caps

In fact the game this one was attempting to copy in terms of PvP, does not have Caps.

Not having Caps is why it was so successful, and why Games like GW2 were laughed at in terms of how bad its PvP was in WvW.

Key word was EVER, not every. I didnt say every game has caps

Saying Ever Growing games actually makes it worse...Cause you're implying that the reason they're growing is entirely based on the fact they have AoE caps.

or maybe you're going with the amount of games that have AOE caps in general is growing. In which case that's also a bad argument, Because the people who came to PvP in this game were looking for something similar to DAOC. Since they went out of their way to copy it. A lot of us also played GW2, for the same reason, and a lot of us were disgusted with AOE caps in that game (In fact it and the downed system is often stated as the reason people think WvW in that game sucks, even on their forums). So Naturally during Beta, we specifically asked ZOS about AOE caps. Wanna know their response?


The question asked
"Are you going to make sure that AOE skills will be strong enough to help small and coordinated groups fend off larger and less organized groups? That'd totally be the B Wheels I know and love if so."

The Response Brian Wheeler
"I can say that Siege weaponry and the like have been adjusted to help make this a possibility (and in fact was proven as a legitimate tactic at Chalman Keep during Beta), and we are always balancing our abilities across the board to find the right population and skill ratio so small groups and large groups are effective in the open field. As Elder Scrolls Online will receive updates through out it's lifetime, there will be many passes at skills, weapons, armor and abilities that will benefit everyone both small and large, open field or not, in PvE and PVP."

This was in a thread that had multiple questions asking about the Cap, and they chose not to answer it.

instead they went vague as possible...Because if they had come out before hand and said "yes there is a 6 man cap for AOE's in ESO" they could of gotten substantially less people to buy the game. I know that I would have originally not of bought the game if i'd know it was going to have caps.

http://forums.elitistjerks.com/topic/132215-dec-18th-4pm-est-exclusive-qa-with-zenimax-studios-pvp-developer-brian-wheeler/

Thread for reference.

No. Ever growing game is what an MMO is. It has nothing to do with AoE caps. You guys are stating Zenimax lied by saying Nothing. Lol..

Come on now

A lie by omission is still a lie.

Lowbei wrote: »

... this isnt rocket science

we asked them a clear and direct question that would affect our decision to buy the game.

they dodged the answer, period.

They couldnt possibly of not had one right?

People.. get your aluminum hats.

Lowbei wrote: »

lol whoa...

i dont think i can take you seriously anymore.

gg

We finally agree on something.

You are still saying Zenimax lied about a project they had in beta by not telling you a direct answer lol. Then ignored the playbase because they didnt use a poll that involved less then 1%.


That.. ....is......hilarious

Lowbei wrote: »

lol whoa...

i dont think i can take you seriously anymore.

gg

Oh the irony ...

TheBucket wrote: »

Lowbei wrote: »

trust me, we 89% of the playerbase who use these forums and voted on the issue, also find your statements to be hilarious. especially the one about them simply not having an answer lolol

89%? Is that another one of your known "facts"? XD

I got more of a chuckle out of "trust me"

just point and laugh ....

TheBucket wrote: »

Lowbei wrote: »

... this isnt rocket science

we asked them a clear and direct question that would affect our decision to buy the game.

they dodged the answer, period.

They couldnt possibly of not had one right?

People.. get your aluminum hats.

So wait, if it was planned for so long to be in the game, Why didn't they come out and state the intended cap size?

It was asked multiple times.

lets make this clear

Here is what Columba stated just up above

Columba wrote: »

I agree that this game can better enable small groups to defeat large groups. I don't agree that aoe cap removal is the best way to do so. Limiting stacking, diminishing marginal returns are also tools. Secondly, the game wasn't designed around no aoe caps. A radical change like this will cause dozens of other, worse problems. Small changes like above and raising the aoe cap are better than drastic changes.

So the game wasn't designed around no aoe caps according to Columba, and a radical change like that might cause trouble.

Yet in a thread in December of 2013.... just a few months before the game was released

They were asked 3 separate times in that thread if there was an AOE cap

Very Specific Questions... and they still didn't say there was a cap.

Yes, it was a statistically relevant poll.
At the very least, it was a strong form of feedback coming from a portion of the population that cared enough about the game to register and post on forums.
http://http://http://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/us-digital-games-market/
There is a reason Eve online is growing, that lineage1/2 are still in the top 10 and wow declining: MMOs are built on power users, not the masses.

But discussing polling methods or their results is irrelevant, especially in design decisions. It is distracting from the main argument.
And remember, I'm saying that with the moral high ground of having the polls in favor of my thesis.

First, popularity isn't a sign of quality and certainly not a proof of being correct.
Discussing the poll itself is a moot point.
The idea of a flat earth was popular enough that humans burned other humans. Let that sink in.

Not only this, but popularity is more often than not an emotional process rather than a reasoned argument.
Games are work of engineering not only on the technical side, but also on the design of mechanics.
It uses:
- Behavioralism
http://http://http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_design.php?page=1
- the statistics and game theory aspects of math
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
- and is closer to a learned science with sometimes unintuitive rules.
http://http://chocolatepi.net/articles/

MMOs are complex systems, they can't be designed by committe.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee

Yes they avoided answering direct questions in several AMAs and when they did respond, it was irelevant to the argument.
Wether it is failure to understand the question or ill intent doesn't matter.
What matters is that whatever decision ends up being made is the best.

"Why do you kill small children? Don't you think you should stop?"
"***, I've always done it, you just didn't know about it so it's not a big deal."
This doesn't make it right.

AoE caps have been proven to have negative impacts on PvP games both historically (Shadowbane, Gw2 and ESO itself) and on paper.(for that I refer you to my first answer in this thread.)

There is no argument here: arbitrary AoE target caps are an "evil".
And contrary to beliefs some here have expressed, it is neither a necessary nor a lesser one.

Historically, many games have had uncapped aoes and it was integral to their success. For instance DAOC.
And on paper, there are MANY ways of balancing AoE abilities.
http://http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/121403/suggestion-ways-to-balance-aoe-abilities-without-an-arbitrary-target-cap
Most of these encourage thought process, decision making and skill tests of various kind that are much more interesting design and gameplay wise than one optimum strategy.

I'd actualy love to have people unsure about the removal of the cap go on this thread and try to contribute.
The more we refine these concepts together, the better they will be.

Finally, to those that say "this is how they designed it, and they a re not going to change it", I have only two words to say: veteran ranks
They have shown a willingness to refactor massive systems if it were to improve the game.

And what they've show us at quakecon is amazing. It actually made me find the faith to convince 5 new people to try out the game, and I keep on pushing.
This team and their game have a great future ahead of them, and it is worth trying to help them.

AoE caps are the only flaw,that I'm aware of, that has yet to be addressed. Everything else is already either on PTS, in the works or has received a relevant answer.

And the efforts required to fix this issue are far bellow most of the things they are fixing.

Technically, they already know all potential targets as they pick 6 at random amongst them. They had non restricted AoE as a "bug", which means it takes extra coding for them to add this limitation.
The suggestions I offer in my other thread are not hard to implement. Most reuse existing mechanics. The hardest would be the damage drop of over range, but even that they already have a function to reuse.(Invasion/Long shots bow passive)
Performances are a non-issue, it could even improve networking strain.
If DAOC could make it more than a decade ago and if the small greek team of Darkfall could do it with player colisions and fps projectile physics, so can ESO.

Design wise, this is far less heavy than creating new abilities, content, quests or balancing encounters.
It would take at most 40 man hours to place each aoe in one category. Probably the same amount of time to code and test the relevant features necesary for each category.
All in all, two guys for a couple weeks worth of work to get a preliminary version out on the PTS, and then do some iterative work on feedback/metrics observed.
They could even keep the cap in PvE until they get more time to test its impact on trials. PvP really is the priority here.

With their "bang for our buck" philosophy, I understand they prioritize PvE content. Redoing the VR experience eventually affects 100% of their playerbase while only a sub section of this ever gets involved in AvA.
But it is a close second, it is a medium buck for an immense bang for AvA quality and long term appeal.

All things said, the least they could do is give us a direct answer.

Edit: edited to get more readability on links

Jesus Lowbei you are persistent with ignorance.

DAoC didnt have caps but they had a system and they didnt even add diminishing returns on the range of AoE till well after the first 8 months. I still remember the Camelot forums raging screams when it happen.

Removing AoE caps would be a huge mistake. We are talking only a handful of abilities that were missing them at launch. Not every AoE ability... Yet you are persistent on removing all AoE caps for every ability that allows them with no sense of diminishing return or anything.

Fear abilities
Weapon abilities
Snares
Roots
U ltimates

All because a handful of abilities were put on par with EVERY other ability on every class tree. Be rational amd help with conclusions or just get over it? At t hi is point your irrational thoughts are distracting to this thread.

On a whole different subject we have no idea what the synchronizingwith the lack of caps did to the server load or the string of code that was involved. It might of caused other issues like perhaps the crashing from the 100+ spamming heals to gain ultimate or etc.

TheBucket wrote: »

Yet you are persistent on removing all AoE caps for every ability that allows them with no sense of diminishing return or anything.

Both your sentiments are correct:
AoE cap < No AoE cap < AoE balanced through engaging mechanics.

The ballancing of AoE isn't really hard. It can be just a matter of cost vs damage ratio to make them prohibitively expensive compared to single target abilities.
It can be balanced without the use of diminishing return.

But I agree with you, that's not the most interesting way it could be done.
I'd like to see all kind of AoE abilities, some that can be sustained, some that are risky to use, some other that put you at a disadvantage or that are harder to aim than the single target abilities.(not very hard, we have auto aim on most)
Take a look at the post linked in my sig.

TheBucket wrote: »

On a whole different subject we have no idea what the synchronizingwith the lack of caps did to the server load or the string of code that was involved. It might of caused other issues like perhaps the crashing from the 100+ spamming heals to gain ultimate or etc.

Highly unlikely. Maybe you didn't read my previous entry because I went full wall of text, but I mentionned this in it.

See, for abilities to "bug" and have no cap, they would need to have some knowledge of all possible targets. It means there is an extra work done to select the targets out of that pool. Be it at random, or by sorting them by closest to the impact location.
Even more for smart heals when having to look up all possible targets, sort them by health remaining and the apply the heal.
The additional cost wouldn't be that much more, definitely an increase, but nothing drastic.

The only drawback that could happen is that clients could lag for some AoEs that apply a graphic effect to their targets.
But with the particule effect culling configuration tool they announced at Quakecon, someone could chose to just show the main aoe effect and not suffer from this change at all.

TheBucket wrote: »

Jesus Lowbei you are persistent with ignorance.

DAoC didnt have caps but they had a system and they didnt even add diminishing returns on the range of AoE till well after the first 8 months. I still remember the Camelot forums raging screams when it happen.

Removing AoE caps would be a huge mistake. We are talking only a handful of abilities that were missing them at launch. Not every AoE ability... Yet you are persistent on removing all AoE caps for every ability that allows them with no sense of diminishing return or anything.

Fear abilities
Weapon abilities
Snares
Roots
U ltimates

All because a handful of abilities were put on par with EVERY other ability on every class tree. Be rational amd help with conclusions or just get over it? At t hi is point your irrational thoughts are distracting to this thread.

On a whole different subject we have no idea what the synchronizingwith the lack of caps did to the server load or the string of code that was involved. It might of caused other issues like perhaps the crashing from the 100+ spamming heals to gain ultimate or etc.

DAOC didn't have diminishing returns, That would imply that if you nuke 50 people the first 20 would take X amount of damage, while the next 20 would take Y amount of damage while the last 10 would take Z amount of damage.

What daoc had was only for PBAE's mind you, was the further you got from the center point of the PBAE the less damage it did.

This did not work on AOE spells (It might of worked on some, I know for example it didn't work on any of my Valkyries cone abilities or any of my Runemasters abilities as well)