PvP Podcast (Episode 7 Uploaded)

Rust_in_Peace · December 2015

Just want to point out that there are MMOs out there with player collision where if you push against the other player they will move so you can't actually block anyone from doing anything. It's actually more dangerous to go AFK near a ledge and get pushed off and fall to your death.

Uberkull · December 2015

FENGRUSH wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

@Fengrush - AOE cap

Watched the stream. All of it. Good discussion, but man....you continue to beat a dead horse with the AOE cap.

Let me break it down...
1) In some form there has to be an AOE cap. Maybe 6 is to little, but it has to be there.
2) The DK video Sypher showed to try to give and example of how the AOE cap is a negative. I'm sorry, that DK should die everytime in that situation. First he leaped from the tower onto a capture flag, that should be some fall damage. Second, the group capturing the flag has to be in close proximity to capture the flag, so the AOE cap works exactly as intended here. Perfect reason why the AOE cap should exist.
3) If you run with a group of 4 and encounter a group of 24 with half a brain, your group of 4 should die EVERYTIME. It's straight out numbers and dps. If I'm in the group of 24 and we're all mic'ed and your group of 4 gets the jump, first thing I do is shout 'spread out' as much as possible given the area. Then I identify the healer in your group of 4, if none then I take out the biggest threat first, 'focus 24 dps on Fengrush and burn him down'. If your attack somehow took out 10 of us to start, never happen on a org grp, but fine 'focus 14 dps on Fengrush'. Your out of the picture, on to the next one. Eventually your group will lose to any half way decent organized, large group.

What you get pissed about is that you run into large pugs and still get beat, or get unexpected results, and throw out AOE cap as the reason for your demise. Bottomline, the game would be designed wrong if you are able to take out 5x the amount of players with a substantially smaller group.

4) Moving on to the AOE cap. Let's throw out a real world example. Gernade fragmentation. You throw a grenade into a group of soldiers, the fragmentation is going to effect the immediate area of where the grenade landed. The outwards fragmentation of the grenade, the shrapnel, is going to spray out and effect other soldiers but to a lesser degree because the bodies around the gernades impact area took a majority of the damage. The soldiers on the outer perimeter of the grenade blast may not get hit at all depending on distance.

Now, maybe you say 'it's a video game, we're fukin magical, we can shoot lighting out of our hands....real world shouldn't apply'. Then let's look at a popular gaming engine and see how it works. This developer goes through a lot of tech speak and coding practices, so not to bore you(I don't know your line of work)...you can fast forward to 6:45 and listen how he explains the AOE impact that the grenade has based on the code methods and variables provided by the Unity engine. The Unity engine itself has methods(functions) that support AOE impact and how much it damages players not directly at the area of impact.

http://youtu.be/PVfXDvfn8hs

Again, if it's boring bs, it is what it is, I've been coding for over 20 years and I get the reasoning behind what ZOS wants to do with AOE caps.

So you say, 'well ball groups are all at the point of impact, they should all take the damage from my aoe'. They should take MORE damage, but not all. If we go back to the real world example, bodies will shield other bodies therefore limiting the damage to other people in the area of effect. So a simplistic AOE cap simulates this, 6 get all the damage, the others get 50% less damage, etc. THIS is where the problem lies with how ZOS is approaching the AOE issue.

How to fix it?
Ball groups would NEVER exist if there was player collision detection, more specifically players should not be able to walk through each other. You implement that, you eliminate ball groups. Period, the end. If they still want to tightly pack...good luck moving. The players in the center of the mass would be trapped like their in a mosh pit. No ones going anywhere.

Of course the reason ZOS and other developers don't have collision implemented for players is griefing. Want to get into the bank? ...not happening cause some fools are afk parked in front of the bank door. Wanna visit the guild traders?...nope, a circle of afk players surround the traders. In PVP...Want storm a keep? Forget it cause now ball groups just turned into old fashion civil war tactics. Frontline, next line, next line, next line...100 players stacked in lines of 10. Better get the sieges out and prepare for a 3 hour war on a single keep.

ZOS can't add collision detection on players where they would be solid objects, so they need to have a AOE cap to spread damage out. Is 6 the right number? Not sure....is 6 the magic number for the long term planned arena? 6v6? Maybe that's why it's set at this number at this time.

Long read, but I'd be surprised if Eric said anything different...if he actually ever speaks on the topic.

-Uber

I kinda started skipping the second half of the post becuase youre saying people shouldnt win 1:5 just because.

Your solution is they should put in player collison - theres a reason it was never put in the game: 1) performance 2) they dont want players to block others and *troll*. I like collision, but its not happening.

Cool, thanks for glossing over it. *** it then. I pointed out a actual gaming engine that incorporates AOE cap for a reason. I pointed out why collision detection won't work. But you go ahead and keep whining about ball groups, makes for great podcasts.

Absolutely right, there shouldn't be a game design in where evenly skilled people could win a battle 1v5. Those 5 skilled pvp players should be able to, within the design of the game, be able to roll the 1vx. No god damn AOE should be a nuke, leveling an entire group. That's just a one-button win mechanic. Pointless.

You wanna continue to run sewers and gank noobs, go for it, but the AOE cap is there and you'll have to figure out how to work around it. I'll be interested to see what the new complaint is once arena rolls around in 2017.

Thats not the issue - its AOE caps protecting people who would otherwise win.

I'm sure that's a typo. '...who would otherwise NOT win'?

Based on the other posts between mine and yours...last page...people either can't read, can't comprehend what's being said, or don't see the AOE cap issue the same way.

Uberkull · December 2015

Ishammael wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

@uberkull Who's talking about 1vX'ing evenly skilled players? You're missing the point

AOE cap is there with the intention to mitigate the damage a AOE spell does over an area, regardless of the pvp players skill. Because the noob player is bunching up because of it, doesn't mean 'just remove it' because that leads to one-button nukes and supports gankers, which most of the 1vX *** is anyways.

If 'pvpers' want to stream running after a huge Zerg, trying to pull out a random to gank him and the entire group turns around and rolls you, don't whine like a little ***. You rolled up in there and got face stomped. Don't blame the game.

This post illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Cool...explain it then. Because if you watch the podcast, that's exactly why the PVP PLAYERS on a PVP PODCAST want it removed. So that the ball group noobs can't survive the mighty attack of the ganker.

Dance around it, in the end....thats what all the whining is about from a pvp perspective. The gankers want their AOE attacks to hit everything within the radius of the spell, at full damage. Period. The end.

We are not talking about PVE trash mobs on this thread. So don't bring it up.

Uberkull · December 2015

@FENGRUSH
This all boils down to what can ZOS give us now. What can they fix now. Because waiting for Arena to get organized, small scale pvp isn't going to hold players in ESO.

It's great and all to hear the Arena announcement, but I can pretty much assure you that you and I both will be playing a different game by the time Arena comes out. It's not even in the design phase, its on some whiteboard in the break room next to the Potluck sign up list.

There are going to be major class changes and balances to accommodate Arena, but then they need to not break PVE while doing it. They might have no idea what theyre getting into.

In all honesty, I'd rather they throw some half-baked arena into the game Q1 2016 and leave it on PTS. Get feedback from you, podcast pvpers, me....players....and design the Arena system that way. Design it while players are playing and testing it. Hear instant feedback and see what works and what doesn't. Don't go in some vacuum for a year and come out the other end with some complete garbage. They have the basics there, even if it was held together by staples or whatever they said in the last ESO live.

But hey, not my gig. My consulting fee is too high.

Poxheart · December 2015

Rust_in_Peace wrote: »

Just want to point out that there are MMOs out there with player collision where if you push against the other player they will move so you can't actually block anyone from doing anything. It's actually more dangerous to go AFK near a ledge and get pushed off and fall to your death.

I like the way Warhammer implemented collision: there was none until the enemy got close. Still have fond memories of the rooftop keep defenses we used to do, which would have been impossible without collision.

Satiar · December 2015

That video at the resource kinda seemed silly to me. You all remember WHY we lost Dynamic ulti? Why every uncapped skill was hunted down and capped? Because of people or duos and trios taking on entire raids and winning. Single DKs wiping raids with permanent DKS, vampires that never came out batswarm, etc. This exact scenario did as much to butcher the game's population as lag ever did. Lag has gone a long way to killing much of the competitive PvP in this game, but the initial bad reputation this game got in the gaming community was in large part due to mechanics that allowed 1-2 people to annihilate hoards. No one wants to play a game where some *** is running around slaughtering dozens of people and you can't even touch him, outnumbered or not it's simply not an enjoyable playstyle for anyone but that one guy.

So, I don't see those days coming back. Best case that I can see is a form of dynamic ulti that scales decently with a built-in cap versus the number of players you're fighting but not to the insane levels we used to see. If you're going 12 vs 24 you should ideally have 2x as many ults coming up as the 24, but you can't scale that all the way down to where you're fighting 1v12 and your ulti never runs dry. At a certain point you've just put yourself in a bad situation and you should die, and we shouldn't be looking to game mechanics to help us get out of jail free.

Sypher · December 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slt4CZOk67g

Manoekin · December 2015

uberkull wrote: »

Ishammael wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

@uberkull Who's talking about 1vX'ing evenly skilled players? You're missing the point

AOE cap is there with the intention to mitigate the damage a AOE spell does over an area, regardless of the pvp players skill. Because the noob player is bunching up because of it, doesn't mean 'just remove it' because that leads to one-button nukes and supports gankers, which most of the 1vX *** is anyways.

If 'pvpers' want to stream running after a huge Zerg, trying to pull out a random to gank him and the entire group turns around and rolls you, don't whine like a little ***. You rolled up in there and got face stomped. Don't blame the game.

This post illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Cool...explain it then. Because if you watch the podcast, that's exactly why the PVP PLAYERS on a PVP PODCAST want it removed. So that the ball group noobs can't survive the mighty attack of the ganker.

Dance around it, in the end....thats what all the whining is about from a pvp perspective. The gankers want their AOE attacks to hit everything within the radius of the spell, at full damage. Period. The end.

We are not talking about PVE trash mobs on this thread. So don't bring it up.

Half the players on the Podcast last night were not "gankers", and I don't consider the others that either. I play in groups size 12+ and am a healer, so AOE cap removal would impact me in the worst possible way. Yet I still want it to be removed. How long was the discussion last night in any case? If you want more detailed discussion, go to the AOE cap thread: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/232730/aoe-caps-discussion/p1 . Most all people I've talked to that run in these "ball groups", myself included, want this change. We don't think it's fair.

Maybe next time you can do some research on the subject. I pity anyone that hires you as a consultant.

Uberkull · December 2015

Manoekin wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Ishammael wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

@uberkull Who's talking about 1vX'ing evenly skilled players? You're missing the point

AOE cap is there with the intention to mitigate the damage a AOE spell does over an area, regardless of the pvp players skill. Because the noob player is bunching up because of it, doesn't mean 'just remove it' because that leads to one-button nukes and supports gankers, which most of the 1vX *** is anyways.

If 'pvpers' want to stream running after a huge Zerg, trying to pull out a random to gank him and the entire group turns around and rolls you, don't whine like a little ***. You rolled up in there and got face stomped. Don't blame the game.

This post illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Cool...explain it then. Because if you watch the podcast, that's exactly why the PVP PLAYERS on a PVP PODCAST want it removed. So that the ball group noobs can't survive the mighty attack of the ganker.

Dance around it, in the end....thats what all the whining is about from a pvp perspective. The gankers want their AOE attacks to hit everything within the radius of the spell, at full damage. Period. The end.

We are not talking about PVE trash mobs on this thread. So don't bring it up.

Half the players on the Podcast last night were not "gankers", and I don't consider the others that either. I play in groups size 12+ and am a healer, so AOE cap removal would impact me in the worst possible way. Yet I still want it to be removed. How long was the discussion last night in any case? If you want more detailed discussion, go to the AOE cap thread: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/232730/aoe-caps-discussion/p1 . Most all people I've talked to that run in these "ball groups", myself included, want this change. We don't think it's fair.

Maybe next time you can do some research on the subject. I pity anyone that hires you as a consultant.

You still completely failed to explain your version of what a AOE cap is and why it's bad. I gave you the facts and they are spot on. I read the thread AOE Caps thread, and Eric isn't budging. Maybe stop assuming what I read or think.

So seriously, how about you come here with some facts and instead of admitting you play like a noob in a baller group? You basically are the problem if you play in a baller group. Why the hell would you even play in such a scrub style?

Oh, 'we don't think it's fair', but sure as ***, you log on and look forward to rolling with your baller group.

That makes complete sense.

Haha....don't feel sorry for those who hire me as a consultant. There are many clients who need experienced pros that solve technology problems. Looks like I solved another by identifying your problem, you play in a baller group. That ones free, next ones $250 an hour.

Jura23 · December 2015

lol, love the Lucy's opinion on sieges. Just dont step in the red circles if you dont like unpurgable

Manoekin · December 2015

uberkull wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Ishammael wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

@uberkull Who's talking about 1vX'ing evenly skilled players? You're missing the point

AOE cap is there with the intention to mitigate the damage a AOE spell does over an area, regardless of the pvp players skill. Because the noob player is bunching up because of it, doesn't mean 'just remove it' because that leads to one-button nukes and supports gankers, which most of the 1vX *** is anyways.

If 'pvpers' want to stream running after a huge Zerg, trying to pull out a random to gank him and the entire group turns around and rolls you, don't whine like a little ***. You rolled up in there and got face stomped. Don't blame the game.

This post illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Cool...explain it then. Because if you watch the podcast, that's exactly why the PVP PLAYERS on a PVP PODCAST want it removed. So that the ball group noobs can't survive the mighty attack of the ganker.

Dance around it, in the end....thats what all the whining is about from a pvp perspective. The gankers want their AOE attacks to hit everything within the radius of the spell, at full damage. Period. The end.

We are not talking about PVE trash mobs on this thread. So don't bring it up.

Half the players on the Podcast last night were not "gankers", and I don't consider the others that either. I play in groups size 12+ and am a healer, so AOE cap removal would impact me in the worst possible way. Yet I still want it to be removed. How long was the discussion last night in any case? If you want more detailed discussion, go to the AOE cap thread: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/232730/aoe-caps-discussion/p1 . Most all people I've talked to that run in these "ball groups", myself included, want this change. We don't think it's fair.

Maybe next time you can do some research on the subject. I pity anyone that hires you as a consultant.

You still completely failed to explain your version of what a AOE cap is and why it's bad. I gave you the facts and they are spot on. I read the thread AOE Caps thread, and Eric isn't budging. Maybe stop assuming what I read or think.

So seriously, how about you come here with some facts and instead of admitting you play like a noob in a baller group? You basically are the problem if you play in a baller group. Why the hell would you even play in such a scrub style?

Oh, 'we don't think it's fair', but sure as ***, you log on and look forward to rolling with your baller group.

That makes complete sense.

I explained my thoughts on this issue in numerous posts in that very thread, if you had bothered to read it like you claim you did. I'm not assuming anything. You're just not paying attention or didn't read it. Own up to one of them at least. Also, Eric is simply avoiding the issue, nothing else.

As for the bolded part... you're just a complete moron.

I log on and look forward to playing with my friends. That's all. Whether we have 4 people in group or 20 it's whatever. I play in any size group. Again, just not knowing what you are talking about. Like I said, go do some research before you want to come rushing into a topic you know nothing about.

Tankqull · December 2015

uberkull wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Ishammael wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

@uberkull Who's talking about 1vX'ing evenly skilled players? You're missing the point

AOE cap is there with the intention to mitigate the damage a AOE spell does over an area, regardless of the pvp players skill. Because the noob player is bunching up because of it, doesn't mean 'just remove it' because that leads to one-button nukes and supports gankers, which most of the 1vX *** is anyways.

If 'pvpers' want to stream running after a huge Zerg, trying to pull out a random to gank him and the entire group turns around and rolls you, don't whine like a little ***. You rolled up in there and got face stomped. Don't blame the game.

This post illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Cool...explain it then. Because if you watch the podcast, that's exactly why the PVP PLAYERS on a PVP PODCAST want it removed. So that the ball group noobs can't survive the mighty attack of the ganker.

Dance around it, in the end....thats what all the whining is about from a pvp perspective. The gankers want their AOE attacks to hit everything within the radius of the spell, at full damage. Period. The end.

We are not talking about PVE trash mobs on this thread. So don't bring it up.

Half the players on the Podcast last night were not "gankers", and I don't consider the others that either. I play in groups size 12+ and am a healer, so AOE cap removal would impact me in the worst possible way. Yet I still want it to be removed. How long was the discussion last night in any case? If you want more detailed discussion, go to the AOE cap thread: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/232730/aoe-caps-discussion/p1 . Most all people I've talked to that run in these "ball groups", myself included, want this change. We don't think it's fair.

Maybe next time you can do some research on the subject. I pity anyone that hires you as a consultant.

You still completely failed to explain your version of what a AOE cap is and why it's bad. I gave you the facts and they are spot on. I read the thread AOE Caps thread, and Eric isn't budging. Maybe stop assuming what I read or think.

So seriously, how about you come here with some facts and instead of admitting you play like a noob in a baller group? You basically are the problem if you play in a baller group. Why the hell would you even play in such a scrub style?

Oh, 'we don't think it's fair', but sure as ***, you log on and look forward to rolling with your baller group.

That makes complete sense.

Haha....don't feel sorry for those who hire me as a consultant. There are many clients who need experienced pros that solve technology problems. Looks like I solved another by identifying your problem, you play in a baller group. That ones free, next ones $250 an hour.

you have a significant dmg reduction once more than 6 targets are affected by your attack to the point where you are doing on avarage 50% of the possible dmg of an aoe when you face a 24man raid and gets worse and worse if more player are involved. wich means you are double handicaped if you face larger numbers as you are outnumbered by them and ontop do less dmg on average then them wich is plain stupid.
as it simply means stack more people and become dmg immune and on top of that due to this "stalemate" and people not dieing the server has to compute more and more and more and more aoes leading to the situation where absolutly nothing hapens anymore.
so simply get rid of this cap means - people have to spread while fighting as they are otherwise vaporized by mulktiple aoes - when spreaded aoes become less and less usefull as they do allot less dmg than a singel attack (excluding steeltornado wich def. needs some rebalancing) so singel attacks become more vital leading to even less server stress ontop.

Satiar · December 2015

Only part that is wrong is the "stalemate". There is no stalemate. 24 v 24 someone gets melted FAST. No one just sustains anf survives anymore, damage is high enough that raids still just explode.

Jhunn · December 2015

I wouldn't bother @Manoekin

Uberkull · December 2015

Manoekin wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Ishammael wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

@uberkull Who's talking about 1vX'ing evenly skilled players? You're missing the point

AOE cap is there with the intention to mitigate the damage a AOE spell does over an area, regardless of the pvp players skill. Because the noob player is bunching up because of it, doesn't mean 'just remove it' because that leads to one-button nukes and supports gankers, which most of the 1vX *** is anyways.

If 'pvpers' want to stream running after a huge Zerg, trying to pull out a random to gank him and the entire group turns around and rolls you, don't whine like a little ***. You rolled up in there and got face stomped. Don't blame the game.

This post illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Cool...explain it then. Because if you watch the podcast, that's exactly why the PVP PLAYERS on a PVP PODCAST want it removed. So that the ball group noobs can't survive the mighty attack of the ganker.

Dance around it, in the end....thats what all the whining is about from a pvp perspective. The gankers want their AOE attacks to hit everything within the radius of the spell, at full damage. Period. The end.

We are not talking about PVE trash mobs on this thread. So don't bring it up.

Half the players on the Podcast last night were not "gankers", and I don't consider the others that either. I play in groups size 12+ and am a healer, so AOE cap removal would impact me in the worst possible way. Yet I still want it to be removed. How long was the discussion last night in any case? If you want more detailed discussion, go to the AOE cap thread: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/232730/aoe-caps-discussion/p1 . Most all people I've talked to that run in these "ball groups", myself included, want this change. We don't think it's fair.

Maybe next time you can do some research on the subject. I pity anyone that hires you as a consultant.

You still completely failed to explain your version of what a AOE cap is and why it's bad. I gave you the facts and they are spot on. I read the thread AOE Caps thread, and Eric isn't budging. Maybe stop assuming what I read or think.

So seriously, how about you come here with some facts and instead of admitting you play like a noob in a baller group? You basically are the problem if you play in a baller group. Why the hell would you even play in such a scrub style?

Oh, 'we don't think it's fair', but sure as ***, you log on and look forward to rolling with your baller group.

That makes complete sense.

I explained my thoughts on this issue in numerous posts in that very thread, if you had bothered to read it like you claim you did. I'm not assuming anything. You're just not paying attention or didn't read it. Own up to one of them at least. Also, Eric is simply avoiding the issue, nothing else.

As for the bolded part... you're just a complete moron.

I log on and look forward to playing with my friends. That's all. Whether we have 4 people in group or 20 it's whatever. I play in any size group. Again, just not knowing what you are talking about. Like I said, go do some research before you want to come rushing into a topic you know nothing about.

Most all people I've talked to that run in these "ball groups", myself included, want this change. We don't think it's fair.

Lol. You run in a baller group, you said it, you are part of the problem. You add to the lag, you benefit from the AOE cap, and yet you 'say' you want to get rid of the AOE cap.

So why not help fix the core issue now? Try saying, 'Hey guys, spread out and let's flank or break up into groups of 4". Nope...you just roll with it and pile on top of each other and continue to be the root cause. Brilliant.

Takllin · December 2015

The tinfoil hat and ignorance is strong in this one.

Manoekin · December 2015

uberkull wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Ishammael wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

@uberkull Who's talking about 1vX'ing evenly skilled players? You're missing the point

AOE cap is there with the intention to mitigate the damage a AOE spell does over an area, regardless of the pvp players skill. Because the noob player is bunching up because of it, doesn't mean 'just remove it' because that leads to one-button nukes and supports gankers, which most of the 1vX *** is anyways.

If 'pvpers' want to stream running after a huge Zerg, trying to pull out a random to gank him and the entire group turns around and rolls you, don't whine like a little ***. You rolled up in there and got face stomped. Don't blame the game.

This post illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Cool...explain it then. Because if you watch the podcast, that's exactly why the PVP PLAYERS on a PVP PODCAST want it removed. So that the ball group noobs can't survive the mighty attack of the ganker.

Dance around it, in the end....thats what all the whining is about from a pvp perspective. The gankers want their AOE attacks to hit everything within the radius of the spell, at full damage. Period. The end.

We are not talking about PVE trash mobs on this thread. So don't bring it up.

Half the players on the Podcast last night were not "gankers", and I don't consider the others that either. I play in groups size 12+ and am a healer, so AOE cap removal would impact me in the worst possible way. Yet I still want it to be removed. How long was the discussion last night in any case? If you want more detailed discussion, go to the AOE cap thread: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/232730/aoe-caps-discussion/p1 . Most all people I've talked to that run in these "ball groups", myself included, want this change. We don't think it's fair.

Maybe next time you can do some research on the subject. I pity anyone that hires you as a consultant.

You still completely failed to explain your version of what a AOE cap is and why it's bad. I gave you the facts and they are spot on. I read the thread AOE Caps thread, and Eric isn't budging. Maybe stop assuming what I read or think.

So seriously, how about you come here with some facts and instead of admitting you play like a noob in a baller group? You basically are the problem if you play in a baller group. Why the hell would you even play in such a scrub style?

Oh, 'we don't think it's fair', but sure as ***, you log on and look forward to rolling with your baller group.

That makes complete sense.

I explained my thoughts on this issue in numerous posts in that very thread, if you had bothered to read it like you claim you did. I'm not assuming anything. You're just not paying attention or didn't read it. Own up to one of them at least. Also, Eric is simply avoiding the issue, nothing else.

As for the bolded part... you're just a complete moron.

I log on and look forward to playing with my friends. That's all. Whether we have 4 people in group or 20 it's whatever. I play in any size group. Again, just not knowing what you are talking about. Like I said, go do some research before you want to come rushing into a topic you know nothing about.

Most all people I've talked to that run in these "ball groups", myself included, want this change. We don't think it's fair.

Lol. You run in a baller group, you said it, you are part of the problem. You add to the lag, you benefit from the AOE cap, and yet you 'say' you want to get rid of the AOE cap.

So why not help fix the core issue now? Try saying, 'Hey guys, spread out and let's flank or break up into groups of 4". Nope...you just roll with it and pile on top of each other and continue to be the root cause. Brilliant.

Your suggestion only works if all parties agree to it. That's not happening.

Also,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wxqqe_ooMU

https://youtu.be/GvQ-nVrZ1Jk?t=20

For argument's sake: a fight with 14 people in my group at the fight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTBoIp50s3c

Are we adding to the lag? I guess by being on the server naturally we do. Why do the blues in that outpost not split into 4 different groups our size and 3 of them go elsewhere? Why did the lag not subside when we split into two 6-7 player groups to defend both stairs up top? Isn't that the magical AOE cap range, so lag shouldn't happen?

Jhunn wrote: »

I wouldn't bother @Manoekin

Yeah

Xsorus · December 2015

Rust_in_Peace wrote: »

Just want to point out that there are MMOs out there with player collision where if you push against the other player they will move so you can't actually block anyone from doing anything. It's actually more dangerous to go AFK near a ledge and get pushed off and fall to your death.

Clearly you never got to play Warhammer Online hehe

Don't know how many times I got killed cause some fat ass orc ran into me while I was kiting a tank on my Squig Herder.

Xsorus · December 2015

uberkull wrote: »

@Fengrush - AOE cap

Watched the stream. All of it. Good discussion, but man....you continue to beat a dead horse with the AOE cap.

Let me break it down...
1) In some form there has to be an AOE cap. Maybe 6 is to little, but it has to be there.
2) The DK video Sypher showed to try to give and example of how the AOE cap is a negative. I'm sorry, that DK should die everytime in that situation. First he leaped from the tower onto a capture flag, that should be some fall damage. Second, the group capturing the flag has to be in close proximity to capture the flag, so the AOE cap works exactly as intended here. Perfect reason why the AOE cap should exist.
3) If you run with a group of 4 and encounter a group of 24 with half a brain, your group of 4 should die EVERYTIME. It's straight out numbers and dps. If I'm in the group of 24 and we're all mic'ed and your group of 4 gets the jump, first thing I do is shout 'spread out' as much as possible given the area. Then I identify the healer in your group of 4, if none then I take out the biggest threat first, 'focus 24 dps on Fengrush and burn him down'. If your attack somehow took out 10 of us to start, never happen on a org grp, but fine 'focus 14 dps on Fengrush'. Your out of the picture, on to the next one. Eventually your group will lose to any half way decent organized, large group.

What you get pissed about is that you run into large pugs and still get beat, or get unexpected results, and throw out AOE cap as the reason for your demise. Bottomline, the game would be designed wrong if you are able to take out 5x the amount of players with a substantially smaller group.

4) Moving on to the AOE cap. Let's throw out a real world example. Gernade fragmentation. You throw a grenade into a group of soldiers, the fragmentation is going to effect the immediate area of where the grenade landed. The outwards fragmentation of the grenade, the shrapnel, is going to spray out and effect other soldiers but to a lesser degree because the bodies around the gernades impact area took a majority of the damage. The soldiers on the outer perimeter of the grenade blast may not get hit at all depending on distance.

Now, maybe you say 'it's a video game, we're fukin magical, we can shoot lighting out of our hands....real world shouldn't apply'. Then let's look at a popular gaming engine and see how it works. This developer goes through a lot of tech speak and coding practices, so not to bore you(I don't know your line of work)...you can fast forward to 6:45 and listen how he explains the AOE impact that the grenade has based on the code methods and variables provided by the Unity engine. The Unity engine itself has methods(functions) that support AOE impact and how much it damages players not directly at the area of impact.

http://youtu.be/PVfXDvfn8hs

Again, if it's boring bs, it is what it is, I've been coding for over 20 years and I get the reasoning behind what ZOS wants to do with AOE caps.

So you say, 'well ball groups are all at the point of impact, they should all take the damage from my aoe'. They should take MORE damage, but not all. If we go back to the real world example, bodies will shield other bodies therefore limiting the damage to other people in the area of effect. So a simplistic AOE cap simulates this, 6 get all the damage, the others get 50% less damage, etc. THIS is where the problem lies with how ZOS is approaching the AOE issue.

How to fix it?
Ball groups would NEVER exist if there was player collision detection, more specifically players should not be able to walk through each other. You implement that, you eliminate ball groups. Period, the end. If they still want to tightly pack...good luck moving. The players in the center of the mass would be trapped like their in a mosh pit. No ones going anywhere.

Of course the reason ZOS and other developers don't have collision implemented for players is griefing. Want to get into the bank? ...not happening cause some fools are afk parked in front of the bank door. Wanna visit the guild traders?...nope, a circle of afk players surround the traders. In PVP...Want storm a keep? Forget it cause now ball groups just turned into old fashion civil war tactics. Frontline, next line, next line, next line...100 players stacked in lines of 10. Better get the sieges out and prepare for a 3 hour war on a single keep.

ZOS can't add collision detection on players where they would be solid objects, so they need to have a AOE cap to spread damage out. Is 6 the right number? Not sure....is 6 the magic number for the long term planned arena? 6v6? Maybe that's why it's set at this number at this time.

Long read, but I'd be surprised if Eric said anything different...if he actually ever speaks on the topic.

-Uber

Umm what? DAOC worked like this just fine

Uberkull · December 2015

Manoekin wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Ishammael wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

@uberkull Who's talking about 1vX'ing evenly skilled players? You're missing the point

AOE cap is there with the intention to mitigate the damage a AOE spell does over an area, regardless of the pvp players skill. Because the noob player is bunching up because of it, doesn't mean 'just remove it' because that leads to one-button nukes and supports gankers, which most of the 1vX *** is anyways.

If 'pvpers' want to stream running after a huge Zerg, trying to pull out a random to gank him and the entire group turns around and rolls you, don't whine like a little ***. You rolled up in there and got face stomped. Don't blame the game.

This post illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Cool...explain it then. Because if you watch the podcast, that's exactly why the PVP PLAYERS on a PVP PODCAST want it removed. So that the ball group noobs can't survive the mighty attack of the ganker.

Dance around it, in the end....thats what all the whining is about from a pvp perspective. The gankers want their AOE attacks to hit everything within the radius of the spell, at full damage. Period. The end.

We are not talking about PVE trash mobs on this thread. So don't bring it up.

Half the players on the Podcast last night were not "gankers", and I don't consider the others that either. I play in groups size 12+ and am a healer, so AOE cap removal would impact me in the worst possible way. Yet I still want it to be removed. How long was the discussion last night in any case? If you want more detailed discussion, go to the AOE cap thread: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/232730/aoe-caps-discussion/p1 . Most all people I've talked to that run in these "ball groups", myself included, want this change. We don't think it's fair.

Maybe next time you can do some research on the subject. I pity anyone that hires you as a consultant.

You still completely failed to explain your version of what a AOE cap is and why it's bad. I gave you the facts and they are spot on. I read the thread AOE Caps thread, and Eric isn't budging. Maybe stop assuming what I read or think.

So seriously, how about you come here with some facts and instead of admitting you play like a noob in a baller group? You basically are the problem if you play in a baller group. Why the hell would you even play in such a scrub style?

Oh, 'we don't think it's fair', but sure as ***, you log on and look forward to rolling with your baller group.

That makes complete sense.

I explained my thoughts on this issue in numerous posts in that very thread, if you had bothered to read it like you claim you did. I'm not assuming anything. You're just not paying attention or didn't read it. Own up to one of them at least. Also, Eric is simply avoiding the issue, nothing else.

As for the bolded part... you're just a complete moron.

I log on and look forward to playing with my friends. That's all. Whether we have 4 people in group or 20 it's whatever. I play in any size group. Again, just not knowing what you are talking about. Like I said, go do some research before you want to come rushing into a topic you know nothing about.

Most all people I've talked to that run in these "ball groups", myself included, want this change. We don't think it's fair.

Lol. You run in a baller group, you said it, you are part of the problem. You add to the lag, you benefit from the AOE cap, and yet you 'say' you want to get rid of the AOE cap.

So why not help fix the core issue now? Try saying, 'Hey guys, spread out and let's flank or break up into groups of 4". Nope...you just roll with it and pile on top of each other and continue to be the root cause. Brilliant.

Your suggestion only works if all parties agree to it. That's not happening.

Are we adding to the lag? I guess by being on the server naturally we do. Why do the blues in that outpost not split into 4 different groups our size and 3 of them go elsewhere? Why did the lag not subside when we split into two 6-7 player groups to defend both stairs up top? Isn't that the magical AOE cap range, so lag shouldn't happen?

Jhunn wrote: »

I wouldn't bother @Manoekin

Yeah

Oh, videos....goodie!
Did you watch ESO live and see Wheeler explain on the little whiteboard on how the server is trying to handle the network 'chatter' between client and server? Updating the client each time a AOE skill is cast literally crushes the server depending on the density of the players in a area and the sheer size of an area like Cyrodiil. In his example, I believe he used NB AOE as a example of the amount of chatter that the server has to update the client with to correctly execute the skill based on the number of targets hit and provide the proper results to the client. This chatter can include new postiioning, skill effects, lighting based on effect, results of dmg, etc etc....all important updates you need to make your next move.

When the grid is so large, like Cyrodiil, the sheer draw distance of the area, what you can see has to be updated. Long range siege warfare has to be accounted for also in this area. The number of chatter updates is insane.

So....they can either request ball groups that are stacked on each other to refrain from doing so to help spread out the chatter updates, not customer friendly. Or they can nerf the abilities down to stick figures and Atari blocks for skills to get optimal performance.

If you wanna test the servers capabilities some time, organize a guild event with all your signature's gloat power, and bring 10 ball groups of 24 ea into one keep in Cyrodiil. Proceed to have at it and see how long the server lasts. That is what Wheeler is trying to solve.

I still think a AOE cap has to be there, but it needs to be tweaked. It needs to match the healing cap as it does now, but the system has to look at proximity of the targets. If you have 20 soldiers and you all sit as close as possible to each other in a tight circle, that grenade(in my example) is (and should) gonna do massive damage to all 20. If one soldier says 'f that, we should spread out', that same grenade is going to do less damage because of the soldiers proximity.

That's really where the AOE cap should be. Penalize for bunching up, reward for spreading out. Make sense?

Really man, you don't wanna get into a technical war with me on 1s and 0s. Again, no charge for this one....but soon, I'm gonna have to bill you.

Tankqull · December 2015

uberkull wrote: »

...

I still think a AOE cap has to be there,...

for what reason? your granade example is a perfect no cap scenario...

as aocaps don´t reduce the amount of computations done. wich would be the only positive benefit i can see.
all it does is favoring the bigger amount of players and nothing else.

Takllin · December 2015

AoE caps add to the calculations done, all of these people are still getting hit with abilities whether or not there is a cap in place.

Removing AoE caps removes those unnecessary calculations.

Uberkull · December 2015

Takllin wrote: »

AoE caps add to the calculations done, all of these people are still getting hit with abilities whether or not there is a cap in place.

Removing AoE caps removes those unnecessary calculations.

AOE cap isn't adding to the lag. A calculation has little effect on the server load in this scenario. It's about the amount of players in one, dense, area. Calculations in these gaming engines today are executed so fast that you could even have a broken 'for loop' that executes 100 extra times and not notice the difference.

The calculations under the covers are quick, but updating the graphics, textures, player postiioning, effects all take resources from the processing speed.

If you play console, notice how good the performance is in Cyrodiil. If you haven't played it on console, try it. Totally a different experience than PC Cyrodiil. Why? If you look at what they did to console graphics and draw distance, you will understand why it works so well.

Console textures are toned way down, I'd say medium settings on PC, but that's not the big difference. On console the draw distance is so short, you only see the bare minimum required to play. An example, I can see a tree 10 yards away, if I back up to 11 yards....that tree will disappear. In the IC sewers, I can be standing right next to a rock and move 1 foot back and it disappears. They also render players only when you get close to them, otherwise we are all black silhouettes. Even if I first login to a town, all the players are black silhouettes to start while the textures fill in. In Cyrodiil, if you have 60 speed on your mount (don't we all?), you could be riding to a keep and run into a Zerg and not see it until it's too late. That's because the render hasn't caught up yet.

Optimizing server network throughput and performance with its clients is the task on Wheelers hands. But at some point, they are going to have to downgrade the particle effects and textures on PC to make it all work.

Edit: I'm talking from my own professional experience. In no way do I know how ZOS code is written or how the talented teams work together. Regardless, it's not an easy task and I hope they are able to find a good balance between playability and 'fun'.

Takllin · December 2015

Yeah your describing FPS issues...not anything regarding latency/lag...

There is lag on consoles, sometimes significant amounts. I've talked to people who played and continue to play it over there. I've seen it on streams as well.

Stikato · December 2015

uberkull wrote: »

@FENGRUSH
This all boils down to what can ZOS give us now. What can they fix now. Because waiting for Arena to get organized, small scale pvp isn't going to hold players in ESO.

It's great and all to hear the Arena announcement, but I can pretty much assure you that you and I both will be playing a different game by the time Arena comes out. It's not even in the design phase, its on some whiteboard in the break room next to the Potluck sign up list.

There are going to be major class changes and balances to accommodate Arena, but then they need to not break PVE while doing it. They might have no idea what theyre getting into.

In all honesty, I'd rather they throw some half-baked arena into the game Q1 2016 and leave it on PTS. Get feedback from you, podcast pvpers, me....players....and design the Arena system that way. Design it while players are playing and testing it. Hear instant feedback and see what works and what doesn't. Don't go in some vacuum for a year and come out the other end with some complete garbage. They have the basics there, even if it was held together by staples or whatever they said in the last ESO live.

But hey, not my gig. My consulting fee is too high.

Very, very well said.

frozywozy · December 2015

I just watched podcast #5. I'm kinda late on this one, have been going through health issues this past weekend but anyway.

Three points :

#1 : Regarding vendors selling random pieces : I disagree about podcasters saying that the cost should be expensive and their main reason being that people have a ton of alliance points banked up.

If you have alot of APs banked up, you're doing it wrong. You don't use sieges enough. I'm AR45 and I always have around 500k APs. This being said, if those pieces cost enormous amounts of APs, you are thereby encouraging people to save up and to NOT use sieges which is disastrous for people who like to play toward the campaign objectives.

#2 : Regarding the reintroduction of forward camps : I disagree about podcasters saying that forward camps are going to decrease server performances and favor zerging. I used to think like that too (with the old camp system), but with the new system which counter "blood-porting", I think it will incentive people to push deep in enemy territory more, thereby spreading people out.

#3: It was great to hear all the guests (who are part of 24men groups) talking against siege utility buffs. They all agreed to mention that larger groups have more people at their disposal to deploy sieges (reffering to openfield battles), but none of them talked about keep battles where the larger group has to push a breach and meanwhile, won't be able to setup a siege as they push inside the breach.

Sieges favor smaller people and the only reason why all large group people whine about it is because they don't wanna be force to spread out. They wanna stack in a ball and benefit from massive aoes, purges and smart healing without any penality. Won't happen anymore, get ready to spread out as you go inside a breach and I swear and would bet 1million gold to you right now, if you go inside that breach when i'm setup inside with proper sieges instead of taking down another wall, you can bring as many players as you want in your ball, you will die.

This being said, great job again to all of you. Was interesting to hear new guests.

Joy_Division · December 2015

uberkull wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Ishammael wrote: »

uberkull wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

@uberkull Who's talking about 1vX'ing evenly skilled players? You're missing the point

AOE cap is there with the intention to mitigate the damage a AOE spell does over an area, regardless of the pvp players skill. Because the noob player is bunching up because of it, doesn't mean 'just remove it' because that leads to one-button nukes and supports gankers, which most of the 1vX *** is anyways.

If 'pvpers' want to stream running after a huge Zerg, trying to pull out a random to gank him and the entire group turns around and rolls you, don't whine like a little ***. You rolled up in there and got face stomped. Don't blame the game.

This post illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Cool...explain it then. Because if you watch the podcast, that's exactly why the PVP PLAYERS on a PVP PODCAST want it removed. So that the ball group noobs can't survive the mighty attack of the ganker.

Dance around it, in the end....thats what all the whining is about from a pvp perspective. The gankers want their AOE attacks to hit everything within the radius of the spell, at full damage. Period. The end.

We are not talking about PVE trash mobs on this thread. So don't bring it up.

Half the players on the Podcast last night were not "gankers", and I don't consider the others that either. I play in groups size 12+ and am a healer, so AOE cap removal would impact me in the worst possible way. Yet I still want it to be removed. How long was the discussion last night in any case? If you want more detailed discussion, go to the AOE cap thread: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/232730/aoe-caps-discussion/p1 . Most all people I've talked to that run in these "ball groups", myself included, want this change. We don't think it's fair.

Maybe next time you can do some research on the subject. I pity anyone that hires you as a consultant.

You still completely failed to explain your version of what a AOE cap is and why it's bad. I gave you the facts and they are spot on. I read the thread AOE Caps thread, and Eric isn't budging. Maybe stop assuming what I read or think.

So seriously, how about you come here with some facts and instead of admitting you play like a noob in a baller group? You basically are the problem if you play in a baller group. Why the hell would you even play in such a scrub style?

Oh, 'we don't think it's fair', but sure as ***, you log on and look forward to rolling with your baller group.

That makes complete sense.

Haha....don't feel sorry for those who hire me as a consultant. There are many clients who need experienced pros that solve technology problems. Looks like I solved another by identifying your problem, you play in a baller group. That ones free, next ones $250 an hour.

How can someone so intellectually arrogant can miss the point by so much?

frozywozy · December 2015

blabafat wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Just finished watching the podcast. Great discussions and I'm looking forward into seeing Brian Wheeler at the next official ESO Live. So again, thanks for your time investments as streamers into this guys.

Only one point I disagree and no offense @sypher but I don't like Animation cancelling at all. Not because I cannot do it but because I don't think it is right. For me it's just a broken mechanic and if the game gets someday to the point where Animation cancelling is a must in any build to be competitive in PvP, I'll just stop playing it.

Animation cancelling adds another layer of skill to the game. ZoS has already removed so many of these layers *cough cough* heavy attack bashing

Further lowering the skill requirement by removing an aspect of the game that requires practice would just reinforce the fact that Zeni keeps catering to casuals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a very competitive and hardcore kinda person. I have always been. I like to play a game that allows me to distant myself from more casual players. I like to see progression the more I play a game, and to get an edge on people who don't take it as seriously.

My problem with animation cancelling is that it's a hidden concept that only a small minority of players are aware of. It is not an official concept that Zenimax created to begin with. It is a concept that players figured out by themselves and that Zenimax decided to let it there.

I wouldn't mind if this concept was put official and that everybody was aware and had the choice to learn it. Problem is that most people don't even know it even exists. It gives a cheap edge on newbies that is unnecessary in my opinion.

Teargrants · December 2015

frozywozy wrote: »

If you have alot of APs banked up, you're doing it wrong. You don't use sieges enough.

I use siege all the time, I even mail it to my Mag DK friends so they can stop being dead weight, but AP gains from playing normally for a night still far outweighs siege cost for me. Or are you suggesting that we should be using siege in every open field fight too? I remember that first week after the original siege buff where all the yellows were just setting fire ballistas everywhere in the fields between Sej & BRK, never engaging us. They'd just run away, and put down another siege line over and over - and I'm talking about fairly even number fights here and fights where we were outnumbered. It was pretty stupid. The strength of siege back then coupled w/ ppl not reacting properly created a siege meta that didn't push pugs to try and learn and hone their skills, it just drove them to drop as much siege as they possibly could and start left clicking.

frozywozy wrote: »

#3: It was great to hear all the guests (who are part of 24men groups) talking against siege utility buffs. They all agreed to mention that larger groups have more people at their disposal to deploy sieges (reffering to openfield battles), but none of them talked about keep battles where the larger group has to push a breach and meanwhile, won't be able to setup a siege as they push inside the breach.

What? I don't know if you worded that wrong, but how is a 'larger' group unable to set up siege as they push inside. The larger group can do exactly that because it has people to spare. That's the whole point that people have been trying to make about what keep fights may turn into depending on how siege is changed; if siege becomes too much of a force multiplier, it'll devolve into who brings the biggest zerg to storm/defend multiple breaches. And I don't know about you, but to me the thought of trying to defend the inner against a couple stacked guilds who would have the luxury of stacking multiple siege along the outer walls, firing onto the back flag, stairs, 2nd floor basically denying my group access to anything except the front flag room seems pretty stupid. People can use that tactic currently and be quite effective, but it's nowhere near as crippling as it would be w/ unpurgable oil cats, for instance.

frozywozy wrote: »

Sieges favor smaller people and the only reason why all large group people whine about it is because they don't wanna be force to spread out. They wanna stack in a ball and benefit from massive aoes, purges and smart healing without any penality.

Uh no, as I just listed above, there's valid concerns about how this plays out in siege heavy fights like keep inners. Unless you're going to add some kind of innate siege-shield-like buff to defenders in keep inners? <---(That's a concrete suggestion offered by some ball group zergger right there, btw.)

frozywozy wrote: »

Won't happen anymore, get ready to spread out as you go inside a breach and I swear and would bet 1million gold to you right now, if you go inside that breach when i'm setup inside with proper sieges instead of taking down another wall, you can bring as many players as you want in your ball, you will die.

Plz tell me how. It's not viable in practice, especially not w/ unpurgable oil cats, and just leads my back to my earlier point about contested sieges devolving into a multi breach numbers contest.

frozywozy · December 2015

Teargrants wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

If you have alot of APs banked up, you're doing it wrong. You don't use sieges enough.

I use siege all the time, I even mail it to my Mag DK friends so they can stop being dead weight, but AP gains from playing normally for a night still far outweighs siege cost for me. Or are you suggesting that we should be using siege in every open field fight too? I remember that first week after the original siege buff where all the yellows were just setting fire ballistas everywhere in the fields between Sej & BRK, never engaging us. They'd just run away, and put down another siege line over and over - and I'm talking about fairly even number fights here and fights where we were outnumbered. It was pretty stupid. The strength of siege back then coupled w/ ppl not reacting properly created a siege meta that didn't push pugs to try and learn and hone their skills, it just drove them to drop as much siege as they possibly could and start left clicking.

I'm not sure which part of "I have 500k AP and I'm alliance rank 45 didn't you understand? Do I also need to do the mats for you and tell you how much AP is that worth? Do I also need to specify that I never sold any AP but one item for 250k? Do I also need to answer your huge paragraph of none sense confirming that I didn't drop lines of fire balista in the openfield just for the heck of it?

I use sieges efficiently and consistently. Ask anybody part of Vokundein, Sotp, Bftp, Pact Militia, SL, Haxus, GoS and they will tell you how hardcore I am with sieges. I don't waste them. But I am still sitting at 500k APs and my main point, which you have not discussed at all during your huge paragraph, was that if the PvP vendors that Brian intend to add, sell too expensive items, it will incentive people to save their APs and it will be even harder to get people to siege keeps.

frozywozy wrote: »

#3: It was great to hear all the guests (who are part of 24men groups) talking against siege utility buffs. They all agreed to mention that larger groups have more people at their disposal to deploy sieges (reffering to openfield battles), but none of them talked about keep battles where the larger group has to push a breach and meanwhile, won't be able to setup a siege as they push inside the breach.

What? I don't know if you worded that wrong, but how is a 'larger' group unable to set up siege as they push inside. The larger group can do exactly that because it has people to spare. That's the whole point that people have been trying to make about what keep fights may turn into depending on how siege is changed; if siege becomes too much of a force multiplier, it'll devolve into who brings the biggest zerg to storm/defend multiple breaches. And I don't know about you, but to me the thought of trying to defend the inner against a couple stacked guilds who would have the luxury of stacking multiple siege along the outer walls, firing onto the back flag, stairs, 2nd floor basically denying my group access to anything except the front flag room seems pretty stupid. People can use that tactic currently and be quite effective, but it's nowhere near as crippling as it would be w/ unpurgable oil cats, for instance.

My point here, as several people talked about in the official Siege thread, was that when a large group attack a keep, usually they won't deploy on a keep with considerable amount of people defending it. They will go hit where enemy doesn't expect it, which makes sense. By the time the outter wall goes down, usually the defenders are pretty much outnumbered, and in most scenarios, disorganized (not their whole group is present.. people still riding back to reinforce, etc).

Now you have the ballgroup stacking up and getting ready to push inside the breach. Nowadays, it will result into the ballgroups successful pushing in and securing the courtyard and the issue of the battle will most likely occurs inside the inner, or by a ballgroup defending the keep bombing them in the courtyard.

The problem I see here is that I would like the smaller group who is already in place when the outter wall goes down to stand a chance at holding that breach. This is not what's happening. Getting inside an outter breach is like a walk in the park and when those siege changes pop in, it will be a whole difference story. Why? Wait for it... Because a ballgroup cannot deploy sieges at they are moving inside a breach. But the defenders, since they are the one defending, are the ones waiting with sieges aiming at the breach. As soon as that ballgroup will get inside the breach, if proper sieges are setted up, we should be able to pick and destroy alot of them. They won't even have time to setup sieges inside and they will already be falling appart because THEY REFUSED TO SPREAD OUT OR TO GET AN ADDITIONAL WALL DOWN.