Later when this is worked out we still need to address the other elephant in the room...Server stability, lag, and the added calculations due to open aoe caps. But we need to finish this first.

Lets say it's true that the output of healing while stacking is less than the output of aoe stacking. Is this still the case if you consider heal stacking and defensive stacking? Siege shield, Negate, Purge, Bone Surge, Ash Cloud, Veil of blades, igneous shield etc. If one person can put a 60% moral bubble and 18 spell damage like bone surge on the entire group every 4 seconds it seems like just that added with heal stacking would easily overwhelm any fear of open caped AOE.

Keron wrote: »

The main incentive to blobbing isn't because it gives you more damage output. The main incentive is - and I think all of us can agree on that - that blobbing makes you invulnerable.

Agreed.

I get where you were getting at about "incentives" being better to obtain desired behaviors, and we agree that it is. But in this case, I don't think it is the same discussion. The introduction of target caps wasn't an added incentive but the removal of a natural drawback to stacking.

I see the removal of the caps more as a return to the "natural order".
Aoes being a damocles sword encouraging to spread out.

Keron wrote: »

Removal of AoE caps may in certain circumstances punish you for blobbing but this punishment is alleviated by a much increased efficiency damage wise.

Well, the only circumstances where it will punish a group is when they are physically stacking. In most cases, a removal of the target cap will have little consequences.

While it is an argument I have used myself, the increased efficiency of damage doesn't entirely compensate for being a smaller group.
The larger group still is a flat increase of damage output and has a higher effective hp and resource regeneration.
There is just a better balance between risk and reward as more players mean more damage taken.
Going above 15 players is still more desirable than being only 15.
But once a group has reached the tipping point of one shotting, it can start attempting to "bomb" other groups and enjoy success or defeat through their skill rather than numbers alone.

Keron wrote: »

Zerg still gives you the best survivability because healing is still encouraging blobbing.

Not really. Being in a larger spread out group is beneficiary for individual survival, as you have several lines to go back to and get healed. Damage is also spread around more and is perhaps more random or more focused rather than being equal.

But for a larger stacking group, admiting all get hit by both damage and beneficial abilities, the dps abilities outweight the beneficial abilities both in speed and/or sustainability. Even if the entire group was barrier stacking.

ESO is designed so you cannot "tank" damage, you need to avoid it.
I won't post statistics here, but check online or on esohead, and you'll see the trend.

This is why spreading out would have a higher survivability than stacking.
Instead of having 50% dodge chances because you are stacked, you'd have 50% dodge chance because your group is in an area twice the size of an aoe. And any larger would increase that, with additional active attempts at dodging.

Healing abilities are "smart" and most have 28m range. Even grand healing.
Buff abilities also have larger areas than aoe. 10m is the maximum radius of offensive abilitites (batswarm) while it is the minimum for buffs.
So there again, spreading out has an advantage for survavibility.

Keron wrote: »

It does nothing to prevent you from annihilating enemies before they can stop your zerg.

Stopping isn't the purpose, removing the invulnerability is.
If a group of 10 gets faced with a group of 50, if they manage to take down at least a handfull of the 50, then they have contributed to slow down the zerg.
This is an attrition war.

And better groups will be able to have a better ratio.
When noobs will get wiped before reacting, uber leet pros could wipe out the 50 with only 10. You get a skill progression curve.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Exactly (except for your fixation on impulse). For the reasons above: Yes, the zerg would be less effective in defending against AoE but it would still be as effective as before in defending against single target damage. As opposed to two advantages over spreading you only have one remaining but you still have one more than with spreading!

But by stacking, your entire group gets hit by an aoe doing nearly as much damage as a single target ability.

Even by nerfing the damage ratio by 4, as you suggested, stacking would still be taking more damage than single target abilities.

10 people stacking facing equal number would receive overall:
For aoes: 10 stackers x10 attackers x 25 damage = 2500dmg
for single: 10 attackers x 100 damage = 1000dmg

Perhaps with such a nerf, healing would have a good enough resource per hp ratio to sustain the damage if the groups weren't able to one shot each other. However, it wouldn't be able to outheal burst damage strong enough to one shot or double shot.

Even if everyone were to pop a barrier ultimate, it gives non protected hit points.
That's around 600hp for 250ultimate, which would be canceled by dawbreaker for 125 ultimate. Or simply two normal aoe attacks.

In short, healing/buffing aren't a reason to stack, but tools to extend the life span of the group in the event you are forced to stack.
For instance, rushing through a door, or clearing a wall.

In my opinion, this is a good thing. Spreading out and fighting over multiple rotating lines (melee, ranged, healers) with a proper line of skrimmage is a much more interesting form of gameplay.
It also encourages more active gameplay: active dodging, active repositioning, active healing and leaders having an actual purpose rather than being just a waypoint on the map.

Keron wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

Later when this is worked out we still need to address the other elephant in the room...Server stability, lag, and the added calculations due to open aoe caps. But we need to finish this first.

Which is the more relevant thing anyways. Currently, the best tactics to regain a scroll is to force server crash by constantly increasing numbers while spamming high server load spells like healing springs.

If done at the keep the scroll is secured, you have a 8 in 10 chance that after crash your scroll is back home. UNFUN!

Ok now I'm really concerned.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

Lets say it's true that the output of healing while stacking is less than the output of aoe stacking. Is this still the case if you consider heal stacking and defensive stacking? Siege shield, Negate, Purge, Bone Surge, Ash Cloud, Veil of blades, igneous shield etc. If one person can put a 60% moral bubble and 18 spell damage like bone surge on the entire group every 4 seconds it seems like just that added with heal stacking would easily overwhelm any fear of open caped AOE.

Well, it is true for now.
Damage mitigation is hard capped at 50%. Meaning that no matter how many buffs you stack, you can't avoid more than 50% damage.
And that mitigation isn't applied to shields like barrier or any other "wards".

In the current state, all heals give back less hp for much more mana than damage abilities. They also come in much slower by either having a cast time or simply requiring more casts to be equivalent to damage abilities.

If a stacking group is facing anywhere close to their numbers, even going all to healing mode, it wouldn't suffice to hold on.
So nope, healing/buffing with the current numbers will not be enough to be a reason to continue stacking.

But the good thing is, it will get buffed by spreading out, as the average target hit would be lower than the current guaranteed 6, the smart healing mechanism will have an easier time keeping up with the incoming damage.
It should give slower pace to battles and have that iconic feel of armies fighting.

Who would win, a blob with heal stacking and defense stacking, or a spread out zerg with no heal stacking, or defense stacking?

Group A who likes to blob has...
*Focused Single target dps due to visibility
*Collimated AOE uncapped dps
*Maximized healing
*Maximized defenses

Group B who likes to spread out has
*Unfocused Single target dps due to player obstruction
*Non Collimate AOE upcapped dps
*Less internal healing
*Less internal Defense

Single target fight.
A single target pew pew fight begins between Group A and Group B.
Both of them have equal Single target dps, however Group A has significantly better healing and defenses. Group A is more likely to win.

AOE Fight.
Group A pushes the Right Flank of Group B.
Group B has less dpsers in that flank than group A has in their blob. Group A is able to focus fire all of Flank B while group B is split between the the unfocused single target dps of Left flank and the PBAOE of right flank. Group A still has better healing and defenses than either the right flank or the entirety of Group B. Group A is more likely to win because their dps is more focused and they are greater in healing and defensive capacity.

Reverse AOE Fight.
Because Group B does not like to blob, they send Right Flank into Group A.
Group B's dps is split between the PBAOE of Right Flank and unfocused Single target dps of Left Flank. Group A's DPS is entirely focused on the Smaller Right Flank. Group A has greater internal healing and Defenses than Right Flank has. Group A is more likely to defeat Right Flank.

Does anyone recall what the magicka return of healing springs is per player and if it occurs per tick? Also I thought healing springs was locked on as well but I have never deliberately payed attention to it.

@Keron‌
That's where you have me confused.
You're wondering what we should define as a zerg when the discussion isn't really about numbers. Or at least for me, it is irrelevant.

When I say "stacking group", it really is people clipping into each other, sharing physical space. Doesn't matter how many they are.
This is what I want to prevent, whether it is for cap +1 or cap +50.

Target caps removal will not prevent people from zerging it up, and I certainly hope it doesn't. It is just very important that groups never gain invulnerability.
Especially not an invulnerability that is obtained passively through numbers.

You didn't really answer to that part of my post, but without the damage mitigation from the caps, healing really doesn't stand up to damage in ESO.
For instance, the two spells you gave as an example do not provide enough hps to compensate damage. Even templar ones barely do, as they are often limited to 3 targets and yet they cost a lot more magicka.
But with caps in place, they are buffed to the point of invulnerability.

However, even without healing or shields in the game ,stacking would still be the preferable tactic.
Healing/buffing is not, by itself, a reason to stack.

Perhaps that without caps, aoe damage will need to be adjusted a bit to accomodate single target abilities more, and if that is done, then maybe healing/buffing may need to be addressed.
But that's a lot of "ifs", and a question for after the removal of the target caps.
Removing stacking would be a graat first step towards a more balanced PvP.

---

The attack as a whole has a higher survivability if spread out because of the rolling lines that form organically.
It still occurs nowadays when you have decent forces (40vs40) fighting without neither of them using the stacking tactics. (players without a unique leader)

You get to the frontline, you get damaged, healers in the back sustain heal you with grand healing and try to keep rapid regeneration/mutagen up.
If you get focused, they can use their single/3 target spells that are non sustainable, but have enough burst quality to get you at the back of the line where you can get healed more fully.

The group that handles that rotation the most efficiently and manages focus fires the best is the one that wins the fight as it keeps more people in the fight while keeping more enemies away from the fight and forcing enemy healers to waste more resources.

The figths overall last longer, with more possibilities of come backs and more variation on possible tactics, like flanking, or spearheading, falling back or whatever strikes your fancy.

If a stacking group were to face a spread out group, they would be an easy target to get focused fired all at the same time while they wouldn't be able to hit many of the spread out group members.
In essence, all of them would be simultaneously in range of attack for the spread out, while not all spread out would be simultaneously in range for them.

This sort of fighting is also the case when preparing to assault the inner keep.
The attackers are spread around the courtyard and the walls, tending to their siege equipment, healers guarding the engineers and some people in sneak to cover everyone.
Inside the keep, you have people spread out on the stairs, at the top floor, on the other side of the first flag room, in the second flag room.
All positions that are hidden from outside the breach, but can serve to cover it.
It is actually easier to break line of sight like that.
If the door/wall is breached, you'll have some back and forth, with everyone able to pull back and heal, just like in open field fights, until an actual push is made.

Neither sides are stacked, and neither sides can get one shotted, or hit more than a few at a time. The one moment where they can be is when a push is made trough the breach.
That's where multiple barriers could make it possible to go through the intitial blast, then spread out again after it.

If you're the defenders doing a sortie, then you'd just spread in the courtyard, trying to get as many siege engines as possible.
If you're the attackers, you pick a direction to "clean" in the building, then use it as a foothold to try to keep a presence inside the keep. Or at the very least killing as many as possible so that the next charge is easier.

That's why the attack is easier as a whole by spreading out.

Keron wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

Later when this is worked out we still need to address the other elephant in the room...Server stability, lag, and the added calculations due to open aoe caps. But we need to finish this first.

Which is the more relevant thing anyways. Currently, the best tactics to regain a scroll is to force server crash by constantly increasing numbers while spamming high server load spells like healing springs.

If done at the keep the scroll is secured, you have a 8 in 10 chance that after crash your scroll is back home. UNFUN!

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Armitas‌

You forgot to take into account that single target damage is inferior to aoe damage when hitting sufficient enough targets.
And group B is always a sufficient enough target so there wouldn't be any single target abilities going its way, only aoes hitting most members of the group.

At best:
Group B dps: single_target_damage x B_members
Group A dps: aoe_damage x A_members x B_members

If B is using aoe focus fire too, then they are still dishing less damage than they are taking since they hit only a subset of A while A's aoe hits most of B.

Also, you're under the assumption that being spread out means having less healing abilities, which isn't true.
Single target and 3 target abilities have 28m range.
Healing spring has a 28m range, with a 8m radius.
Even blessing of protection has a 20mx4m area.
So right or left flank, healers would still heal the players taking damage thanks to smart healing.

The only difference could be barrier being usable by B, but that would be canceled by A's ultimates.
For illustration, barrier creates a 600hp shield for 250 ultimate, dawbreaker does 500/1000 damage for 125 ultimate. Meteor does 900dmg and has a knockback for 250 ultimate.
Barrier is not viable.

Both group A and group B have identical access to both single target or PBAOE dps. However Group A is not locked into using PBAOE, they are able to switch optimally between AOE or single target whereas group B is locked into a partial commitment to aoe or unfocused single target due to player obstruction.

The range of heals does minimize the loss due to spreading but it is still less because while heals are long range they are also cones or in the case of healing springs a long range but small diameter heal. A healer of a blob is certain to hit every heal while a healer for a spread out group is not certain to hit every player, and so their healing is not maximized.

It is true that left flank is able to cone Right flank, but it is not true that Right flank is able to appropriately cone itself. Group B is also unable to use certain heals effectively, while Group A has no restriction to it's heals, nor any doubt that they will apply fully.
____
What advantage does group B have that would lead to it's success? Also I wonder if healing spring could ever become a magicka positive cast for a blob.

As one of many who played both games with AoE caps and without AoE caps, I think we do know what will happen.

In my opinion it doesn't matter that much if AoE is capped or not, I think the main problem is AoE itself. Removing AoE caps will only, again in my opinion, change the way the problem manifests itself on the battlefield.

A small group spamming AoE makes more damage than single player trying to make single target hits. That small group gets the advantage of heals and other buffs and most of them are AoE based or "smart".
So while a small group can easily kill single players a spread out group of spread out single target attacks using players won't get the same benefits from heals and buffs.
The stacked group doesn't have to aim, they just have to move to the target. The spread out group has to aim, they have to aim on the same player to get this player down fast enough and outdamage the heals.
The "stacked" group as enough advantages to make stacking the easiest way to kill enemies.
In the end it doesn't matter if the "stacked" group has 6 players or 60.

Removing the AoE cap would only allow a smaller group of players kill a bigger group of players if they use AoEs (and probably stack to get the advantages of heals and buffs).

The whole discussion is about fighting AoE groups with other, smaller AoE groups. It's exchanging a few big annoying groups with a lot of small annoying groups.

In my opinion single target damage should be higher and AoE should be noticeable weaker. This would have a big impact on PvE, so Zenimax would have to change the size of NPC groups in the VR zones and dungeons.

Melee ranged single target attacks should make the most damage.
Ranged single target attacks should make less damage as they involve less risk.
Melee ranged AoEs should make even less damage per target. Enough damage that they only become interesting against (maybe) 4-6 or more enemies. (As a result 4-6 stacked players would only make the amount of damage one of these players would deal with a single target melee attack)
Ranged AoEs should make almost no damage
This would make AoEs in most cases useless and only a good method against large groups*.

Healing should follow the same pattern. Aimed close ranged heals should be the most powerful, ranged aimed heals (not existent in ESO) should be good and probably the standard method of healing … Smart healing should be removed form the game completely.

I think with this changes the whole problem of zergs and stacked groups would vanish - with or without AoE caps.

Players won't have an advantage by stacking since healing would be extremely difficult (just like aiming at a certain player in a stack of players). AoEs won't be the best way to deal damage since single target attacks would result in quicker kills.

This won't allow a small group to easily wipe out a large group, but I think that shouldn't be the case in most situations - unless the small group is a group of skilled players fighting a large group of unorganized unskilled players.

TL;DR: Nerf AoEs, buff single target attacks, change the healing system and zergs won't be a problem with AoE caps or without


*) And it would be much more realistic in a fantasy way of realism

Armitas wrote: »

Keron wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

Later when this is worked out we still need to address the other elephant in the room...Server stability, lag, and the added calculations due to open aoe caps. But we need to finish this first.

Which is the more relevant thing anyways. Currently, the best tactics to regain a scroll is to force server crash by constantly increasing numbers while spamming high server load spells like healing springs.

If done at the keep the scroll is secured, you have a 8 in 10 chance that after crash your scroll is back home. UNFUN!

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Armitas‌

You forgot to take into account that single target damage is inferior to aoe damage when hitting sufficient enough targets.
And group B is always a sufficient enough target so there wouldn't be any single target abilities going its way, only aoes hitting most members of the group.

At best:
Group B dps: single_target_damage x B_members
Group A dps: aoe_damage x A_members x B_members

If B is using aoe focus fire too, then they are still dishing less damage than they are taking since they hit only a subset of A while A's aoe hits most of B.

Also, you're under the assumption that being spread out means having less healing abilities, which isn't true.
Single target and 3 target abilities have 28m range.
Healing spring has a 28m range, with a 8m radius.
Even blessing of protection has a 20mx4m area.
So right or left flank, healers would still heal the players taking damage thanks to smart healing.

The only difference could be barrier being usable by B, but that would be canceled by A's ultimates.
For illustration, barrier creates a 600hp shield for 250 ultimate, dawbreaker does 500/1000 damage for 125 ultimate. Meteor does 900dmg and has a knockback for 250 ultimate.
Barrier is not viable.

Both group A and group B have identical access to both single target or PBAOE dps. Group B is not locked into using PBAOE, they are able to switch optimally between AOE or single target.

The range of heals does minimize the loss due to spreading but it is still less because while heals are long range they are also cones. A healer of a blob is certain to hit every heal while a healer for a spread out group is not certain to hit every player, and so their healing is not maximized.

It is true that left flank is able to cone Right flank, but it is not true that Right flank is able to appropriately cone it self. Group A is also unable to use certain heals effectivley, while Group B has no restriction to it's heals, nor any doubt that they will apply fully.

What advantage does group A have that would lead to it's success?

In your initial example, A is the spread out group, and B is the stacking group.
I understood what you meant though.(edited the reference so you didn't get confused)

Heals are not cones, they hit everywhere around the player using it.
The only "cone" is blessing of protection, as an illustration that even a directional heal has the range necessary.
A spread out healer is just as certain to hit all heals than a blob healer.

Whether B uses pbaos or aoes doesn't matter.
They are barely hitting a fraction of A while A are hitting most of B.
Using ranged aoes is even harder for B because it requires actual coordination and hitting even less targets than with pbaoes.
For A, ranged aoes is just casting at a single possible target: the visible bunch of people that is B.

Without target caps, a stacking group has no advantages.
It doesn't have more effective hp, it takes more damage and dishes less.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

...Without target caps, a stacking group has no advantages
It doesn't have more effective hp, it takes more damage and dishes less.

Group A is the stacking group and B is the spread out group. I will look back and make sure I do not have anything reversed but for now lets go with that. Edit your references to reflect that so it doesn't get confused.

I had thought combat prayer a cone based on it's animation, but I see now it's an area. If not a cone then it's distance is it's diameter and it's reach is it's radius. Making it's reach half the listed area. Healing springs for group A is 100% efficient, healing springs for Group B is at best half as efficient. Group A has a full assortment of healing sources, and a certain application of them. Group B does not have that. The same is true for defenses.

It is quantitatively true that Group B is hitting, pound for pound, more of Group A than Group A is hitting of group B. But that is not qualitatively an advantage, because more of Group As heals and defenses are hitting Group A than Group B. It is far more probable that Group A can sustain the attack of Group B than Group B can sustain the attack of Group A, even though Group B has the quantitative advantage.

Put mathematically lets say group A has 20 people, and Right Flank has 10 people.

Group A is hit.
20Players are hit by 10 people from Right flank. Each member of right flank hit impulse hitting 20 players each. So right flank made 200 total hits but each person in group A only suffered 10 hits.

Group B is hit
10 players are hit by 20 people. Each member of Group A hit impulse hitting 10 players each. So right flank received 200 hits but each member of right flank was hit 20 times each.

Quantitatively - Group B is able to make the same number of hits as Group A with half the people.
Qualitatively - But who is more likely to come out alive, the group with persons receiving 20hits an instance or the group with person receiving 10hits an instance, while under greater healing resources, certain healing, and a greater resource for defense?

Right Flank is able to make the same number of hits as a group twice it's size, but they also suffer twice the pressure in return along with a disproportionate resource for survival.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/130101/gvg-wars-you-think-you-can-handle-it

Watch from 7:30 mark to 11:00 mark that is why AOE caps need to go that is just stupid with the epic music blaring spells going off, standing in the breach wow thats really great PvP right, well one small problem he takes NO damage, not he takes damage and gets healed, he takes NO damage. Nothing they do can be worse than this mindless 'we are Borg" hive mind crap.

To those that say the blob will get worse how? If your a small group or solo all the aoe hits you now. The advantage a large group has it the fact that, well its a large group numbers matter but aoe cap also gives them invulnerabilty as well.
It may very well be that people still blob up but shouldnt there atleast be some disadvantages to it a few checks and balances as it is now there are only advantages no disadvantages. With AOE caps gone at least the blob has to be aware.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

If B is trying to use impulse, it will be noticed and avoided.
While avoiding, the dps of A would be lower by a bit, but B's dps would be mostly negated

If B is using ranged focus fire, or if A doesn't evade group B's impulse at all:
Depending on the location, group A could be spread out up to a 20m radius area and still benefit from heals.

heh. Group A is the blob or stacked group, Group B is the one spread out. I think you may have switched back and forth on that last post.

Do you agree with the statement that Group A (stack group) Has maximal use of it's healing, while Group B (spread out group) has a less than maximal use of it's healing. Even if it's this "." small.

Also If Player A can hit Player B with Impulse. Player B can hit player A with impulse. If impulse won't reach then single target hits will... 20 focused single target hits. While Group A pushes into Right Flank, while Right Flank tries to avoid the impulse, they will be focus fired with single target dps by the chasing Group A. Right flank has their back turned trying to flee leaving only left flank to fire unfocused single target dps. The advantage still goes to Group A.

As long as stacking will result in a higher probability of success it will be preferred and so it is more likely to occur than not. If the change is to break up stacking it needs to lower the probability of success when stacking.

Just put a hard cap on ult gain for any one cast/ability.