Stop treating symptoms
Perphection
✭✭✭✭
The problem is that the Zerg is unchecked.
There are no repercussions, consequences, or deterrents to storming the map in groups of 60+.
This style of play is what's been ruining Open World/RvR/AvA/WvW whatever you choose to call it, PvP in every game as of late.
Sure a majority of the problem is the player-base itself, and the mentality that if beaten by a smaller, skillful, and coordinated group that the solution is to bring a larger group next time opposed to improving on an individual level. But one of the more troubling problems is that game mechanics allow this to happen, and have failed to implement any deterrent to this style of play, in most cases you're rewarded for indulging.
ZOS Failed when they removed AOE caps, because they did it wrong, and they failed with the implementation of the "Zerg Busting" ability Proximity Detonation, because again they did it wrong.
In order for the removal of an AoE cap to be impactful, or in anyway significant, the damage cannot be mitigated based upon the number of players hit. If anything the damage needs to be Directly Proportional to the number of targets hit, not Inversely Proportional. Meaning that as one amount increases another increases at the same rate
Based on the current Aoe Rational - "Zerg Busting" Abilities should have been developed like this:
E.g. Proximity Detonation :
- First 6 will take 100% damage,
- Next 24 targets will take 150% damage,
- Last 30 targets will take 175% damage
*If anything Prox damage should be reduced on single targets, no skill designed to be an AoE should be capable of damage this high.
(The %dmg numbers are arbitrary obviously, and taken from their current model. Point is the damage should scale with the players when using abilities designed to combat zergs.)
That is IF YOUR GOAL IS TO FORCE PLAYERS TO SPREAD OUT.
All other AoE skills, not designed to "Zerg Bust", have done nothing but negatively impact the server since the AoE Cap Removal. The damage mitigation past the first 6 targets is too great warrant the server side calculations which inevitably lead to the infamous slideshow gameplay where greater numbers still prevail. Having 100% of AoE damage would not add additional server stress, but would alleviate it due to players dying/retreating.
If you're going to be testing new Campaign PvP mechanics, please make changes that could actually help treat the root cause and not just tend to the symptoms.
You need to realize that is is.. Player Vs Player.. There are so few who truly care about winning the campaign that re-distributing point accumulation is hardly an incentive.
We want to fight each other, and we don't need a reason to do it. We just need a stable platform, and a PvP team who's willing to make adjustments to their "vision", of what the game should be and what it actually is.
[Moderator Note: Removed names from the title.]
Edited by ZOS_ArtG on June 16, 2015 8:49PM There are no repercussions, consequences, or deterrents to storming the map in groups of 60+.
This style of play is what's been ruining Open World/RvR/AvA/WvW whatever you choose to call it, PvP in every game as of late.
Sure a majority of the problem is the player-base itself, and the mentality that if beaten by a smaller, skillful, and coordinated group that the solution is to bring a larger group next time opposed to improving on an individual level. But one of the more troubling problems is that game mechanics allow this to happen, and have failed to implement any deterrent to this style of play, in most cases you're rewarded for indulging.
ZOS Failed when they removed AOE caps, because they did it wrong, and they failed with the implementation of the "Zerg Busting" ability Proximity Detonation, because again they did it wrong.
AoE abilities can now hit up to 60 targets; the first 6 will take 100% damage, the next 24 targets will take 50% damage, and the last 30 targets will take 25% damage.
In order for the removal of an AoE cap to be impactful, or in anyway significant, the damage cannot be mitigated based upon the number of players hit. If anything the damage needs to be Directly Proportional to the number of targets hit, not Inversely Proportional. Meaning that as one amount increases another increases at the same rate
Based on the current Aoe Rational - "Zerg Busting" Abilities should have been developed like this:
E.g. Proximity Detonation :
- First 6 will take 100% damage,
- Next 24 targets will take 150% damage,
- Last 30 targets will take 175% damage
*If anything Prox damage should be reduced on single targets, no skill designed to be an AoE should be capable of damage this high.
(The %dmg numbers are arbitrary obviously, and taken from their current model. Point is the damage should scale with the players when using abilities designed to combat zergs.)
That is IF YOUR GOAL IS TO FORCE PLAYERS TO SPREAD OUT.
All other AoE skills, not designed to "Zerg Bust", have done nothing but negatively impact the server since the AoE Cap Removal. The damage mitigation past the first 6 targets is too great warrant the server side calculations which inevitably lead to the infamous slideshow gameplay where greater numbers still prevail. Having 100% of AoE damage would not add additional server stress, but would alleviate it due to players dying/retreating.
If you're going to be testing new Campaign PvP mechanics, please make changes that could actually help treat the root cause and not just tend to the symptoms.
You need to realize that is is.. Player Vs Player.. There are so few who truly care about winning the campaign that re-distributing point accumulation is hardly an incentive.
We want to fight each other, and we don't need a reason to do it. We just need a stable platform, and a PvP team who's willing to make adjustments to their "vision", of what the game should be and what it actually is.
[Moderator Note: Removed names from the title.]
35
-
FENGRUSH✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Very well said. FENGRUSH agrees 100% after reading @ZOS_BrianWheeler new sticky post.Edited by FENGRUSH on June 16, 2015 7:31PM6 -
Valnas✭✭✭✭this would make zerg vs zerg like a heavyweight fight. TKO. i say yea.Fluph Head EP sorc dank magus
valnäs EP nb
opHotterslol AD dk2 -
Cogo✭✭✭✭✭
✭You can not be serious. In case you are. Nothing in this thread makes sense.You need to realize that is is.. Player Vs Player..
You are wrong.
Cyrodiil is War. AvAvA.
I fight to win the campaign for the pact, every 30 days. The same one no matter how we do.Edited by Cogo on June 16, 2015 8:35PMOghur Hatemachine, Guild leader of The Nephilim - EU Megaserver
Orc Weapon Specialist and Warchief of the Ebonheart Pact - Trueflame Cyrodiil War Campaign
Guildsite: The Nephilim
"I don't agree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"
-Voltaire
"My build? Improvise, overcome and adapt!"2 -
RinaldoGandolphi✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:
1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.
Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.
Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.Rinaldo Gandolphi-Breton Sorcerer Daggerfall Covenant
Juste Gandolphi Dark Elf Templar Daggerfall Covenant
Richter Gandolphi - Dark Elf Dragonknight Daggerfall Covenant
Mathias Gandolphi - Breton Nightblade Daggerfall Covenant
RinaldoGandolphi - High Elf Sorcerer Aldmeri Dominion
Officer Fire and Ice
Co-GM - MVP
Sorcerer's - The ONLY class in the game that is punished for using its class defining skill (Bolt Escape)
"Here in his shrine, that they have forgotten. Here do we toil, that we might remember. By night we reclaim, what by day was stolen. Far from ourselves, he grows ever near to us. Our eyes once were blinded, now through him do we see. Our hands once were idle, now through them does he speak. And when the world shall listen, and when the world shall see, and when the world remembers, that world will cease to be. - Miraak3 -
RedTalon✭✭✭✭✭
✭The zerging problem has yet to happen on conlses wait for more people to get the everyday skills we take for granted on pc and start suffering lag problems, and it may get addressedEdited by RedTalon on June 16, 2015 9:21PM1 -
Perphection✭✭✭✭RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:
1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.
Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.
Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.
Siege is not the answer.
The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.Edited by Perphection on June 16, 2015 9:02PM0 -
BossTuggles✭✭✭You can not be serious. In case you are. Nothing in this thread makes sense.You need to realize that is is.. Player Vs Player..
You are wrong.
Cyrodiil is War. AvAvA.
I fight to win the campaign for the pact, every 30 days. The same one no matter how we do.
This guy needs his speaking privileges taken away. Everything this guy said was thought out and is correct. I feel sorry for you.
Edited by BossTuggles on June 16, 2015 9:19PMLike a Boss!7 -
Teargrants✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Forums have an ignore function for a reason.POST EQVITEM SEDET ATRA CVRA
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
EP ※ Teargrants ※
EP ※ Kissgrants ※
DC ※ Kirsi ※
※ Vehemence Council ※
※ #JustOutOfRenderRange ※
~Teargrants YouTube~
┬┴┬┴┤(･_├┬┴┬┴0 -
Winnamine✭✭✭✭✭Perphection wrote: »RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:
1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.
Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.
Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.
Siege is not the answer.
The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.
People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...Winni
~
VE
Decibel2 -
Perphection✭✭✭✭Perphection wrote: »RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:
1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.
Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.
Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.
Siege is not the answer.
The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.
People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...
That's exactly it.
In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be.."Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."
This is why siege is not the solution.
Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.Edited by Perphection on June 16, 2015 9:43PM0 -
k2blader✭✭✭✭✭Perphection wrote: »
I'd rather see world PvP, such as the Justice System expanding to include PvP (outlaw vs. regulator) in towns. Right now I don't envision the Imperial City Pvp concept going that well unless there's a relatively easy and close respawn point to enter the fray again.
Disabling the grass may improve performance.0 -
Perphection✭✭✭✭Perphection wrote: »
I'd rather see world PvP, such as the Justice System expanding to include PvP (outlaw vs. regulator) in towns. Right now I don't envision the Imperial City Pvp concept going that well unless there's a relatively easy and close respawn point to enter the fray again.
Yeah, just more "ideas in the works", that ZOS has been dangling over our heads for the better part of a year. There is so much potential, and so many solutions, but their inaction is only making things worse.Edited by Perphection on June 16, 2015 9:45PM1 -
Xsorus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Scaling the AOE damage so people take more they are stacked is interesting...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXpX7JMwRXtczc5GTrIYRIw
ESO and GW2 PvP videos1 -
Ezareth✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭You are wrong.
Cyrodiil is War. AvAvA.
I fight to win the campaign for the pact Swarm, every 30 days. The same one no matter how we do.
Fixed.
Permanently banned from the forums for displaying dissent: ESO - The Year Behind
Too Much Bolt Escape - banned for "hacking the game to create movement not otherwise permitted by in game mechanics."
Ezareth VR16 AD Sorc - Rank 36 - Axe NA
Ezareth-Ali VR16 DC NB - Rank 20 - Chillrend NA
Ezareth PvP on Youtube4 -
Gabriel_Froste✭✭✭How to Counter the Zerg Rush: Wall off.
How to Counter the Zerg Bust: Siege tanks.
How to counter the Zerg Mutas: Marines and Missile Turrets... some medivacs... but w/e.Please Refer to my Blacksmith Manual
Rambling Anti-Manual Manual0 -
Etaniel✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I completely agree with the OP. Magicka detonation shouldn't do such high damage in single targets, it's ridiculous that it's actually used in duel builds, when the original aim of the skill was to kill zergs. Nerf its damage against single opponents, and increase the damage the more targets are around the explosion. Also remove the aoe mitigation after 6 targets4 -
kendellking_chaosb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭Perphection wrote: »The problem is that the Zerg is unchecked.
There are no repercussions, consequences, or deterrents to storming the map in groups of 60+.
This style of play is what's been ruining Open World/RvR/AvA/WvW whatever you choose to call it, PvP in every game as of late.
Sure a majority of the problem is the player-base itself, and the mentality that if beaten by a smaller, skillful, and coordinated group that the solution is to bring a larger group next time opposed to improving on an individual level. But one of the more troubling problems is that game mechanics allow this to happen, and have failed to implement any deterrent to this style of play, in most cases you're rewarded for indulging.
ZOS Failed when they removed AOE caps, because they did it wrong, and they failed with the implementation of the "Zerg Busting" ability Proximity Detonation, because again they did it wrong.AoE abilities can now hit up to 60 targets; the first 6 will take 100% damage, the next 24 targets will take 50% damage, and the last 30 targets will take 25% damage.
In order for the removal of an AoE cap to be impactful, or in anyway significant, the damage cannot be mitigated based upon the number of players hit. If anything the damage needs to be Directly Proportional to the number of targets hit, not Inversely Proportional. Meaning that as one amount increases another increases at the same rate
Based on the current Aoe Rational - "Zerg Busting" Abilities should have been developed like this:
E.g. Proximity Detonation :
- First 6 will take 100% damage,
- Next 24 targets will take 150% damage,
- Last 30 targets will take 175% damage
*If anything Prox damage should be reduced on single targets, no skill designed to be an AoE should be capable of damage this high.
(The %dmg numbers are arbitrary obviously, and taken from their current model. Point is the damage should scale with the players when using abilities designed to combat zergs.)
That is IF YOUR GOAL IS TO FORCE PLAYERS TO SPREAD OUT.
All other AoE skills, not designed to "Zerg Bust", have done nothing but negatively impact the server since the AoE Cap Removal. The damage mitigation past the first 6 targets is too great warrant the server side calculations which inevitably lead to the infamous slideshow gameplay where greater numbers still prevail. Having 100% of AoE damage would not add additional server stress, but would alleviate it due to players dying/retreating.
If you're going to be testing new Campaign PvP mechanics, please make changes that could actually help treat the root cause and not just tend to the symptoms.
You need to realize that is is.. Player Vs Player.. There are so few who truly care about winning the campaign that re-distributing point accumulation is hardly an incentive.
We want to fight each other, and we don't need a reason to do it. We just need a stable platform, and a PvP team who's willing to make adjustments to their "vision", of what the game should be and what it actually is.
[Moderator Note: Removed names from the title.]
I like your idea, but I have pushed my weapon damage to just below 4k what If one or two players with that level of power Ambush (to gap close on the group), Soul Tether, And and spam Steel Tornado that Tether was hella Strong with 3800~ weapon damage spamming an AoE execute with two hammers (20% armor Pen) is a killer combo. The Zerg thing is a problem but trying to hold a flag and a few glass canons jump down and wipe you in two seconds is no the way to fix itChaos Shadow-Scale: Shadow Archer
Chaos Death-Scale: Shadow Knight
Tanks-With-Sap-Essence: Dark Mage
Dark Brotherhood Listener: Blade of Argonia
Chaos Dragon-Scale: Draconic Shield Master
Chaos Light-Scale: Marsh Paladin
Chaos Lightning-Scale: Daedric Master
Hurricane Chaos: Storm Archer
Bask-In-My-Light: Warrior of The Light
Forged-In-Dragon-Fire: Pyro Mage
Guardian of The Hist: Light Mender
Chaos of Black Marsh: Master of The Burning Sword
Star of Chaos: Frost Blade Champion
Chaos-Lightning-Tower: Lightning Shield Master
For the King of Argonia
May Sithis hold back his Void0 -
AhPook_Is_Here✭✭✭✭✭
✭Just going to point out your prox det idea is going to be awful, you will just get 2 or 3 sorcs streaking into stacked raids armed and taking out 40 people in 1 streak. Same with NBs dark cloaking in armed and getting sneak attack damage bonuses on top of that. It will be entirely ***, even more special than it is now... somehow.“Whatever.”
-Unknown American0 -
kevlarto_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭Shields should not be able to absorb the full force of siege weapons, some damage should get through, does nothing to the zerg when I shoot in the middle of them and see nothing but all my siege damage absorbed, gota think that is part of the problem as well.1 -
Snit✭✭✭✭✭
✭Something should scale better when used against large groups than when it is used by them.
The proposal to make Magicka Detonation scale upwards with the number of targets affected is a good candidate. Even then, it will be used by large groups against other large groups, but it would at least give small groups a chance against blobs.
It might be easier to change the rulesets, though, to encourage folks to spread out. At least one of the new campaigns will focus on holding resources. That's an interesting experiment. So are some of the others. Laboratories of Muderocracy
Snit AD Sorc
Ratbag AD Warden Tank
Goblins AD Stamblade1 -
eliisra✭✭✭✭✭
✭AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »Just going to point out your prox det idea is going to be awful, you will just get 2 or 3 sorcs streaking into stacked raids armed and taking out 40 people in 1 streak. Same with NBs dark cloaking in armed and getting sneak attack damage bonuses on top of that. It will be entirely ***, even more special than it is now... somehow.
Yeah, would be insane. I would naturally do it on my NB all day long. Minor + Major Berserk + Major Sorcery. Cloak, Ambush on the raid standing on the flag and bam Proxi Explosion. So much AP for so little work
Would be fun for sorcs and NB's, but I still dont think insta-win buttons or unbalanced class builds, is the way to fix zerg-blobbing.
0 -
Domander✭✭✭✭✭
✭There should be MAJOR bonuses for going solo, and really good bonuses for going with a small group (4 or less) into pvp.
Safety in numbers should = least reward.Edited by Domander on June 17, 2015 12:14AM4 -
Hypertionb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭the problem is that even if you remove the diminishing returns, 60 targets effected is still greater than 6, and that does require a bit more resources and data returns.I play every class in every situation. I love them all.0 -
Perphection✭✭✭✭
I'll respond to both of you here because the answer is ultimately the same.
I provided a generalization, and even stated that in my post.If anything Prox damage should be reduced on single targets, no skill designed to be an AoE should be capable of damage this high.
The %dmg numbers are arbitrary obviously, and taken from their current model. Point is the damage should scale with the players when using abilities designed to combat zergs.
That is IF YOUR GOAL IS TO FORCE PLAYERS TO SPREAD OUT.
With that being said this plays directly into the risk/reward scenario I mentioned a few posts back regarding siege.
The risk/reward scenario, in your example is:
-Risk: Attempting to combat much greater numbers with a high probability of success vs. an unorganized group.
Attempting to combat much greater numbers with a low probability of success vs. an organized group.
The reason for the decreased likelihood of succeeding against an organized group is that there are ways to appropriately react in this scenario.
It could be defended against using:
- Barrier
- Dropping a Storm Atronach to stun
- Negating your sorcs
- Molten Armor
- Players using individual shielding abilities
- Healing
-Reward: A bad ass PvP video, tons of AP, fame, fortune and women.
Thanks for bringing this up by the way, because it leads me into another point I would have liked to make. This style of gameplay would ensure that ultimate's are being used appropriately and responsively opposed to as a pre-emptive measure as you run through an oiled breach, or as you see an enemy force approaching.
While yes, it would be a complete *** show for awhile, but Zergs would eventually disperse and fights would become manageable, and as this happened your AoE bomb build sorcs would become less effective overtime as the "Zerg Meta" corrected itself.
Of course numbers would have to be reworked some, and heaven forbid tested... But it would become a utility skill opposed to it's current implementation of an all encompassing bomb.
Edited by Perphection on June 17, 2015 12:25AM1 -
Perphection✭✭✭✭Hypertionb14_ESO wrote: »the problem is that even if you remove the diminishing returns, 60 targets effected is still greater than 6, and that does require a bit more resources and data returns.
Let's say that you're correct here for arguments sake.
The overall server-load would still be drastically decreased because the AoE spam wouldn't last for 15-20 minutes as 100 players stood on top of one another.0 -
Perphection✭✭✭✭AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »Just going to point out your prox det idea is going to be awful, you will just get 2 or 3 sorcs streaking into stacked raids armed and taking out 40 people in 1 streak. Same with NBs dark cloaking in armed and getting sneak attack damage bonuses on top of that. It will be entirely ***, even more special than it is now... somehow.
Yeah, would be insane. I would naturally do it on my NB all day long. Minor + Major Berserk + Major Sorcery. Cloak, Ambush on the raid standing on the flag and bam Proxi Explosion. So much AP for so little work
Would be fun for sorcs and NB's, but I still dont think insta-win buttons or unbalanced class builds, is the way to fix zerg-blobbing.
Agreed, but if they're going to start testing for "solutions", to the inability for the servers to properly handle large scale PvP fights, they need to test ideas that address the root cause.
The root cause being there is no deterrent to Zerging. Re-working the scoring system won't change players mentality.
2 -
AhPook_Is_Here✭✭✭✭✭
✭Something should scale better when used against large groups than when it is used by them.
The proposal to make Magicka Detonation scale upwards with the number of targets affected is a good candidate. Even then, it will be used by large groups against other large groups, but it would at least give small groups a chance against blobs.
It might be easier to change the rulesets, though, to encourage folks to spread out. At least one of the new campaigns will focus on holding resources. That's an interesting experiment. So are some of the others. Laboratories of Muderocracy
Collision. then a blob can't move together quickly or orderly. Also make friendly players between you and your target block your outgoing damage to hostile targets. I don't think this game has the resources for that kind of messaging but that's the way to actually fix blobs. These 2 things would make blobbing useless and formations useful, and you don't need to hand out a button so 2 v 40 can win half the time.“Whatever.”
-Unknown American0 -
Erock25✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭BossTuggles wrote: »You can not be serious. In case you are. Nothing in this thread makes sense.You need to realize that is is.. Player Vs Player..
You are wrong.
Cyrodiil is War. AvAvA.
I fight to win the campaign for the pact, every 30 days. The same one no matter how we do.
This guy needs his speaking privileges taken away. Everything this guy said was thought out and is correct. I feel sorry for you.
This guy gets it. Or is it this guy?You earned the 500 LOLs badge.
You received 500 LOLs. It ain't no fluke, you post great stuff and we're lucky to have you here. +50 points0
