DDuke wrote: »

I'd like to keep my hopes up for Camelot Unchained, given that it's one of the few subscription games coming out.

However, the fact that they gathered only $2,232,933 in funding is worrying (that is low even for a single-player game).

I'll still probably check it out once it releases.

Check out The Repopulation. I invested a lot of money in that game's kickstart fund and have been alpha testing it for months. If you are an old school SWG player, it will be right up your alley. It's the offspring of UO and SWG.

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

What is illogical? The utility portion already has a different cap from the damage portion. Inhale draws essence from 3 people, but damages 6 with the explosion. What is so difficult to comprehend about that?

And it's already illogical! A mage hits some targets - he damages them and does something else to them. There's no way you can explain why he draws essence from 3 people only and which 3 people out of 6 are affected.
It does not make any sense in Nirn. It is illogical for the Universe we fight in that the same ability hits different number of targets with its effects. Then again, saying that something is logical because it is set like that artificially is not logic. Please, read some books. Don't argue about it if you don't even know terms

No it won't, small groups already receive full AoE damage from larger groups. The only poeple who are affected are large groups, noone else. If 20 people run at me with Impulse I get hit by all 20 yet my utility only draws essence from 3.

Not even. Your math is poor. Say, my skill deals 100 damage. If there's no cap - it goes up to Nx100, where N is the number of targets. There will be NO reason NOT to use it. Or removing aoe cap from aoe abilities won't make aoe abilities stronger? Do you read yourself? It will make utilities stronger for sure, but it will make aoe damage more efficient as well.

For somebody who brands comments as illogical, you really struggle with logic.

You definitely need to read a few books, as looks like you have no idea what logic means. You might use some different definition of logic, not the one that scientists use. You can't tell me that something is logical because "that's how it already works". There should be reasoning behind everything. In our case -- "lore"-based reasoning(imagine, that magic is real), since we are fighting in Nirn and its magic has its laws.

Because smaller groups would be able to hit all players of a big group, so with good synergies and better cooperation they will potentially able to kill them. At the moment they can't, because if a group of 4 stand in the middle of 15 players and fire AoEs, 9 of those players get no damage, while the small group get damage from the full 15 players.

No no no. You missed the main point. I will rephrase it. How is spamming a few button makes one group more "skilled" than another one? Also, the small group will keep getting damage from the full large group. They will deal a bit more damage themselves. If a fight is 2 groups spamming aoes and see whose aoe is stronger:
1. A small group will lose anyway if utilities will still have aoe caps(like healing from bat swarm).
2. It's nowhere near skill vs skill fight.

Talcyndl wrote: »

Artemis wrote: »

Illogical. Why would one portion of a spell have a cap, whereas another one wouldn't? It's still an aoe cap, but now utilities are capped.

Because the drain type skill components can make people effectively unkillable. The suggestions (which seem well thought out), seek to balance (limit) that while still allowing smaller groups to impact zergs in a meaningful way.

I'm pretty sure, that ZOS thought that their suggestions were well thought out. And they did spend some time on this, probably running some simulations, computing damage outputs for different numbers of targets. Has anyone done it here? I only see things of "I think" type. Meanwhile, you can simply estimate how much damage will a small group take from a larger group of a certain size and how much damage you would want them to deal.

ALso, if we talk logic here. Isn't it logical that a much larger group will take on a smaller one? What else would you expect? A group with less than 6 people IS supposed to be defeated by 24 people. A group of 20 people (for example) can defeat 24 people. And let me remind you, that 20<24. Once both groups have more members than the aoe cap, it's all good, isn't it?

p.s. Of course, there's no explanation for aoe cap at all whatsoever. It is artificial and feels very wrong. But well, if that lets us fight in CYro with less lags - then how can we demand them to remove this cap? Consider it as a technical limit.

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

For somebody who brands comments as illogical, you really struggle with logic.

Because smaller groups would be able to hit all players of a big group, so with good synergies and better cooperation they will potentially able to kill them. At the moment they can't, because if a group of 4 stand in the middle of 15 players and fire AoEs, 9 of those players get no damage, while the small group get damage from the full 15 players.

Oh no, you mistook me for yourself, I'm afraid. Logic implies that you need to EXPLAIN facts, which means REASONS have to be there. You, again, say that it's logical that aoe caps are different because they are already different. In no Universe this is called logic. You need to explain why it is so.
For example, a sword can deal melee damage and can't deal ranged damage. It is logical, because it's short and you can't reach people who are 20m away from you. Where is the logic for different aoe caps?

Smaller groups ARE SUPPOSED to lose to larger groups. This is pretty logical by itself. Even though, now they CAN defeat larger groups. BUt not 4 vs 15. You can't balance a game around 4vs15. Than you leave even less chances to randoms and PUGS to deal with skilled and organized raids/large groups. Don't you get this? The game is for everyone, not for a few elitists.

In your example, take different numbers. 4vs15 is not supposed to be an even fights. Take 4v5 - will 5 people 100% win? No. Take 11v15. Will 15 win in all cases? Of course not.
Smaller groups can defeat larger groups! Very small groups can't defeat much larger groups and it makes perfect sense and it should be this way.

If you make it possible for 4 "skilled" people to defeat 15, then what will be the chances for randoms to deal with 24-48 (1-2 guild raids) organized people? How much people will it take to do that? Will it be possible at all? If not, why would ZOS make it so that less people will have fun in Cyrodiil? Again, let me remind you, that to have good pvp you want many players there, which implies that people should have fun and feel that they can do something. Not everyone likes to play in large raids with TS and those raids are not supposed to kill everyone. Still, they can handle groups that are larger. What else do you want?

Observant wrote: »

xDOVAHKIINx wrote: »

Brian Wheeler is about to get some camera time to address possibly the most disappointed, angry, critical most hardcore fans to date. The Obama Ministration has yet to feel this kind of pressure.

No pressure!

I hope he addresses real PVP concerns and not just fluff.

Whats the over/under on that bet