The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/656454/
An interesting change to AoE caps
Solariken
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
I've got a dead horse for you all, ripe for a beating.
So as well all know, AoE caps currently function as a tiered diminishing return on damage output after the first 6 targets. I understand the intent of this mechanic and think that it has some value, but the implementation is very poor and one of the many things in ESO that empowers the zerg and harms small group and solo PvP.
Now I want to make it clear that my reason for the argument below differs from that of @FENGRUSH and others who dislike the system because it makes it difficult for them to wipe large groups. I do agree that this outcome of the current system is overly punitive to those attacking large groups, but I actually dislike the current system for what it entirely neglects to address, which is AoE output of large groups themselves versus smaller groups.
What if we made AoE caps a function of the TOTAL number of players within the radius of any player's AoE? I propose an X% diminishing return on the tooltip damage for EACH player within the radius (both friend and enemy). This percentage should be small, but a value that has a huge impact when a group of players stacks tightly to AoE bomb another player or group.
For example, let's say the diminishing return is 4% for each player in the radius. Let's also say we have a group of 12, each with an Eye of the Storm tooltip of 10k, who all pop EotS at the same time and jump into an enemy group of 4. Instead of completely obliterating that group of 4 with full damage ticks, we now see this:
16 total players in the radius at 4% damage reduction per player = 10,000 - (10,000 * (16*.04)) = new tooltip damage of 3,600 per tick.
Yes, 4% is an arbitrary value. However, I think it clearly shows how switching to this mechanic would change the way the game is played for the better. It certainly makes logical sense! If you are summoning a swirl of dangerous winds, it will become less effective per each obstructive thing inside it. This is why you have less wind in the forest, amirite? This mechanic would give the benefits "friendly fire" and "collision detection" but without the danger of exploit and possible treasonous griefers that those mechanics make possible.
Can anyone think of a downside to a function like this? Remember it would entirely replace the current AoE cap mechanic.
@Wrobel @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_GinaBruno - I want to come back to this game. Let's make ESO great.
So as well all know, AoE caps currently function as a tiered diminishing return on damage output after the first 6 targets. I understand the intent of this mechanic and think that it has some value, but the implementation is very poor and one of the many things in ESO that empowers the zerg and harms small group and solo PvP.
Now I want to make it clear that my reason for the argument below differs from that of @FENGRUSH and others who dislike the system because it makes it difficult for them to wipe large groups. I do agree that this outcome of the current system is overly punitive to those attacking large groups, but I actually dislike the current system for what it entirely neglects to address, which is AoE output of large groups themselves versus smaller groups.
What if we made AoE caps a function of the TOTAL number of players within the radius of any player's AoE? I propose an X% diminishing return on the tooltip damage for EACH player within the radius (both friend and enemy). This percentage should be small, but a value that has a huge impact when a group of players stacks tightly to AoE bomb another player or group.
For example, let's say the diminishing return is 4% for each player in the radius. Let's also say we have a group of 12, each with an Eye of the Storm tooltip of 10k, who all pop EotS at the same time and jump into an enemy group of 4. Instead of completely obliterating that group of 4 with full damage ticks, we now see this:
16 total players in the radius at 4% damage reduction per player = 10,000 - (10,000 * (16*.04)) = new tooltip damage of 3,600 per tick.
Yes, 4% is an arbitrary value. However, I think it clearly shows how switching to this mechanic would change the way the game is played for the better. It certainly makes logical sense! If you are summoning a swirl of dangerous winds, it will become less effective per each obstructive thing inside it. This is why you have less wind in the forest, amirite? This mechanic would give the benefits "friendly fire" and "collision detection" but without the danger of exploit and possible treasonous griefers that those mechanics make possible.
Can anyone think of a downside to a function like this? Remember it would entirely replace the current AoE cap mechanic.
@Wrobel @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_GinaBruno - I want to come back to this game. Let's make ESO great.
1
-
Solariken✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭I forgot to mention that this could be applied to siege weapons - it would make it a little less effective to throw siege into groups of skirmishing players because your damage would be reduced by allies present in the splash. That's a gameplay win.0 -
leepalmer95✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Or just remove them like 80% of people said when they made a poll on it.
They'll ignore you idea
PS4 EU DC
Current CP : 756+
I have every character level 50, both a magicka and stamina version.
RIP my effort to get 5x v16 characters...5 -
Joy_Division✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Even if they were interested in reforming AoE Caps (which is quite clear they are not), even if they had the manpower/resources to do so (which is quite clear they do not),you are asking them to put more server-side calculations, which is something they very much do not want to do.
We are stuck we AoE caps. And *gasp*, whenever EOTS is flying around, I'd almost argue are a necessary mitigating factor.1 -
Solariken✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Joy_Division wrote: »Even if they were interested in reforming AoE Caps (which is quite clear they are not), even if they had the manpower/resources to do so (which is quite clear they do not),you are asking them to put more server-side calculations, which is something they very much do not want to do.
We are stuck we AoE caps. And *gasp*, whenever EOTS is flying around, I'd almost argue are a necessary mitigating factor.
Actually @Joy_Division it should be less server load than the current mechanic because it removes multiple functions -
I think it removes an extra filtering layer that the server has to do now to decide whether player objects in the radius are friend or foe.
Additionally, this is a simple function whereas the current uses multiple tiers of damage reduction calculations based on how many targets are hit.
My proposal is significantly less complex and should actually improve server performance.
You are probably right though that ZOS doesn't have the resources or the will to improve this... However, I thought they were totally going to abandon PvP but @ZOS_BrianWheeler did roll out town and district capture pretty recently. While it wasn't hugely successful, it was time spent on developing Cyrodiil. I'm on hiatus until at least next patch, but I do have a shred of hope left that ZOS will do something good for the game.1 -
Dagoth_Rac✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭It is an interesting idea, but ultimately AoE caps are there for a very good reason: to let casual players be even remotely competitive. Casual players zerg because there is safety in numbers. It is human nature. Are there "pro zergs" who abuse this? Yes. But anything that weakens zergs also weakens casual players. And if casual players die nonstop running solo, die nonstop in small groups, and die nonstop in zergs, too, what place is there for casual players in PvP? The idea that the entire population of Cyrodiil will overnight "git gud" if grouping up stops providing safety to casual players is a myth. Casual players will just quit playing and go to a different game. The vast majority of the playerbase has neither the time nor inclination to treat ESO PvP like getting a masters degree in physics. They mostly want to log in occasionally, get in a big huge battle, take a keep or two, and not die every 1.2 seconds. AoE caps are a huge part of allowing that to be possible.
This is not the National Football League or English Premier League, where all but the very best have been weeded out and you can have rules revolving around only the highest quality players participating. It is not even like MOBAs where they make efforts at matchmaking similar player skill levels. You have players in ESO PvP running the whole gamut of skill levels, with total access to the entire battlefield, and who can show up anywhere at any time. You need to find ways to make PvP enjoyable for as many of those people as possible and as miserable for as few of those people as possible. Which is not an easy thing to do! It is not only about balancing in a way that makes the most skilled players the most dominant. You also have to balance in a way that makes PvP fun for the vast, vast majority of players who are not top tier PvP talents.2 -
nordsavage✭✭✭✭✭If twenty enemies can hit you at full force should be able to hit twenty enemies back at full force.I didn't choose tank life, tank life chose me.3 -
Solariken✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭leepalmer95 wrote: »Or just remove them like 80% of people said when they made a poll on it.
They'll ignore you idea
I still think removing them entirely is a bad idea. A single player should not be able to easily wipe an entire 24-man ball group with one timed burst. That creates a really dumb gameplay situation.0 -
Hurika✭✭✭✭
Actually @Joy_Division it should be less server load than the current mechanic because it removes multiple functions -
I think it removes an extra filtering layer that the server has to do now to decide whether player objects in the radius are friend or foe.
Additionally, this is a simple function whereas the current uses multiple tiers of damage reduction calculations based on how many targets are hit.
My proposal is significantly less complex and should actually improve server performance.
You can't say that with certainty since you don't know how the list of players in PVP is managed. If the game internally tracks the list of players for each faction separate then with your method it would have to do a distance calculation for players in all 3 factions. Instead of 2 of the 3 factions if they are already separately managed lists. Each faction can lock population separately so makes sense they are tracked separately.
What DAoC did which worked pretty well was no aoe cap but damage fall off based on distance from caster. People at the fringe took less, people at the center more. A distance calculation is already performed to determine if you are in the radius so then it is a simple matter of applying that as a direct scale factor to the damage value (1-dist/radius).
As others have said though, they'll do what they want regardless of what we think is best. And honestly the less they change it, the less chance they break it.0 -
Solariken✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
Actually @Joy_Division it should be less server load than the current mechanic because it removes multiple functions -
I think it removes an extra filtering layer that the server has to do now to decide whether player objects in the radius are friend or foe.
Additionally, this is a simple function whereas the current uses multiple tiers of damage reduction calculations based on how many targets are hit.
My proposal is significantly less complex and should actually improve server performance.
You can't say that with certainty since you don't know how the list of players in PVP is managed. If the game internally tracks the list of players for each faction separate then with your method it would have to do a distance calculation for players in all 3 factions. Instead of 2 of the 3 factions if they are already separately managed lists. Each faction can lock population separately so makes sense they are tracked separately.
What DAoC did which worked pretty well was no aoe cap but damage fall off based on distance from caster. People at the fringe took less, people at the center more. A distance calculation is already performed to determine if you are in the radius so then it is a simple matter of applying that as a direct scale factor to the damage value (1-dist/radius).
As others have said though, they'll do what they want regardless of what we think is best. And honestly the less they change it, the less chance they break it.
@Hurika I don't know the specifics of how ZOS' server lists are handled, but basing a calculation on all player objects in a radius is less complex than using List A but excluding List B and List C.
I am also pretty confident in my assertion that my single-tiered calculation is much simpler than the current multi-tiered diminishing return.0 -
Rune_Relic✭✭✭✭✭
✭nordsavage wrote: »If twenty enemies can hit you at full force should be able to hit twenty enemies back at full force.
And if you can hit 20 players at full force...then they must also be able to hit 20x20 players at full force.
How many combat calculations do you think you just induced ?
And ZOS probably dont want you to one shot them.....so how many times are you going to do that before they actually die ?
And will those defending not also get 20x20 heals to balance that 20x20 damage ?
Unless you have a stupid low TTK to go with that massive increase in calcs....the server just imploded.
Do we really want a stupid low TTK so a few players get their 1v10 godmode fantasy rocks off ?
Now reduce aoe to 1 player.
Wheres the lag coming from ?Edited by Rune_Relic on November 30, 2016 8:56PMAnything that can be exploited will be exploited0 -
SwaminoNowlino✭✭✭✭✭OP I see no mention of placing flags in random locations anywhere in your suggestion, so I wouldn't hold my breath on it being considered.Xbox NA : CP 160 StamPlar, MagNB, MagSorc, StamSorc, StamDK, StamNB, Level 10 MagDK & MagPlar, StamWarden, MagWarden
"We want firing off Dark Exchange in the middle of combat to feel awesome." - The Balance Lord Wrobel
- And now it sure does, better learn how to bash folks!
I get by with a little help from logic.1 -
Hurika✭✭✭✭
Actually @Joy_Division it should be less server load than the current mechanic because it removes multiple functions -
I think it removes an extra filtering layer that the server has to do now to decide whether player objects in the radius are friend or foe.
Additionally, this is a simple function whereas the current uses multiple tiers of damage reduction calculations based on how many targets are hit.
My proposal is significantly less complex and should actually improve server performance.
You can't say that with certainty since you don't know how the list of players in PVP is managed. If the game internally tracks the list of players for each faction separate then with your method it would have to do a distance calculation for players in all 3 factions. Instead of 2 of the 3 factions if they are already separately managed lists. Each faction can lock population separately so makes sense they are tracked separately.
What DAoC did which worked pretty well was no aoe cap but damage fall off based on distance from caster. People at the fringe took less, people at the center more. A distance calculation is already performed to determine if you are in the radius so then it is a simple matter of applying that as a direct scale factor to the damage value (1-dist/radius).
As others have said though, they'll do what they want regardless of what we think is best. And honestly the less they change it, the less chance they break it.
@Hurika I don't know the specifics of how ZOS' server lists are handled, but basing a calculation on all player objects in a radius is less complex than using List A but excluding List B and List C.
I am also pretty confident in my assertion that my single-tiered calculation is much simpler than the current multi-tiered diminishing return.
No it's not. If they store players by faction (assume 200 in each faction online).....- List A + List B + List C = check if 600 other people are the radius
- List A + List B + (not list C since that's your faction) = check if 400 other people are in the radius.
You suggest doing a radius calculation on everyone is somehow quicker than doing a radius calculation on less than everyone.
Even if they were not stored by faction list, checking by faction is probably a simple true/false comparison (if yourFaction != theirFaction) which is quicker than calculating distance in 3d space.
Dump a bag of M&M's on a table and tell me which is faster... measuring the weight of every red and green individually omitting other colors or measuring the weight of every single M&M. You can sort through data quickly and eliminate more costly calculations.0 -
Solariken✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
Actually @Joy_Division it should be less server load than the current mechanic because it removes multiple functions -
I think it removes an extra filtering layer that the server has to do now to decide whether player objects in the radius are friend or foe.
Additionally, this is a simple function whereas the current uses multiple tiers of damage reduction calculations based on how many targets are hit.
My proposal is significantly less complex and should actually improve server performance.
You can't say that with certainty since you don't know how the list of players in PVP is managed. If the game internally tracks the list of players for each faction separate then with your method it would have to do a distance calculation for players in all 3 factions. Instead of 2 of the 3 factions if they are already separately managed lists. Each faction can lock population separately so makes sense they are tracked separately.
What DAoC did which worked pretty well was no aoe cap but damage fall off based on distance from caster. People at the fringe took less, people at the center more. A distance calculation is already performed to determine if you are in the radius so then it is a simple matter of applying that as a direct scale factor to the damage value (1-dist/radius).
As others have said though, they'll do what they want regardless of what we think is best. And honestly the less they change it, the less chance they break it.
@Hurika I don't know the specifics of how ZOS' server lists are handled, but basing a calculation on all player objects in a radius is less complex than using List A but excluding List B and List C.
I am also pretty confident in my assertion that my single-tiered calculation is much simpler than the current multi-tiered diminishing return.
No it's not. If they store players by faction (assume 200 in each faction online).....- List A + List B + List C = check if 600 other people are the radius
- List A + List B + (not list C since that's your faction) = check if 400 other people are in the radius.
You suggest doing a radius calculation on everyone is somehow quicker than doing a radius calculation on less than everyone.
Even if they were not stored by faction list, checking by faction is probably a simple true/false comparison (if yourFaction != theirFaction) which is quicker than calculating distance in 3d space.
Dump a bag of M&M's on a table and tell me which is faster... measuring the weight of every red and green individually omitting other colors or measuring the weight of every single M&M. You can sort through data quickly and eliminate more costly calculations.
You make it sound like when you cast a radius ability the server checks everyone in a faction list to see if they are within. I really hope that isn't how it operates.
I would bet the server looks at your radius every time and compiles a list of all objects within and filters into sublists based on true/false checks as you said. Dawnbreaker is a good example - the server likely looks at everyone and then filters by player/NPC, friend/enemy, and then normal/vampire/werewolf.
It's pure speculation, but I would be incredibly surprised if my suggestion didn't result in a net reduction in server load.Edited by Solariken on November 30, 2016 10:40PM0 -
leepalmer95✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭leepalmer95 wrote: »Or just remove them like 80% of people said when they made a poll on it.
They'll ignore you idea
I still think removing them entirely is a bad idea. A single player should not be able to easily wipe an entire 24-man ball group with one timed burst. That creates a really dumb gameplay situation.
People will learn to spread out.PS4 EU DC
Current CP : 756+
I have every character level 50, both a magicka and stamina version.
RIP my effort to get 5x v16 characters...0 -
Solariken✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭leepalmer95 wrote: »leepalmer95 wrote: »Or just remove them like 80% of people said when they made a poll on it.
They'll ignore you idea
I still think removing them entirely is a bad idea. A single player should not be able to easily wipe an entire 24-man ball group with one timed burst. That creates a really dumb gameplay situation.
People will learn to spread out.
Or more likely they will decide that PvP isn't worth the headache of getting constantly bombed from stealth at choke points. Removing the caps would be bad for population health.0 -
ku5h✭✭✭✭✭
✭leepalmer95 wrote: »Or just remove them like 80% of people said when they made a poll on it.
They'll ignore you idea
I still think removing them entirely is a bad idea. A single player should not be able to easily wipe an entire 24-man ball group with one timed burst. That creates a really dumb gameplay situation.
If a 24 man group squeezes themselves in a 6m radius, they deserve to be wiped.2 -
Solariken✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭leepalmer95 wrote: »Or just remove them like 80% of people said when they made a poll on it.
They'll ignore you idea
I still think removing them entirely is a bad idea. A single player should not be able to easily wipe an entire 24-man ball group with one timed burst. That creates a really dumb gameplay situation.
If a 24 man group squeezes themselves in a 6m radius, they deserve to be wiped.
You guys, the map is designed with choke points to force battles. Every breach, bridge, and gate. Also, Molag Bal etc requires at least some stacking for melee characters.
Current AoE caps are bad, but removing them entirely is worse. If stealth weren't so powerful, I would agree to remove them, but as the game stands I don't want to see @Sypher and fanboys get a buff to bombing. Just stahp.1 -
Wreuntzylla✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Change Soul Shatter to work like Magicka Detonation starting at 4 people in range and with much greater scaling. Problem solved.
0 -
Bandit1215✭✭✭leepalmer95 wrote: »Or just remove them like 80% of people said when they made a poll on it.
They'll ignore you idea
I still think removing them entirely is a bad idea. A single player should not be able to easily wipe an entire 24-man ball group with one timed burst. That creates a really dumb gameplay situation.
If said ball group is mindless enough to stack on each other so they ALL get hit with the bombers AOE, they all deserve to die. Removing AOE caps would encourage players to spread out on the battlefield, which makes more interesting and unique game play as opposed to 23 zombie players following a crown and running around like lemmings.CP 561- vSO HM - Completed
- vAA - Completed
- vHRC - Completed
0 -
nordsavage✭✭✭✭✭Rune_Relic wrote: »nordsavage wrote: »If twenty enemies can hit you at full force should be able to hit twenty enemies back at full force.
And if you can hit 20 players at full force...then they must also be able to hit 20x20 players at full force.
How many combat calculations do you think you just induced ?
And ZOS probably dont want you to one shot them.....so how many times are you going to do that before they actually die ?
And will those defending not also get 20x20 heals to balance that 20x20 damage ?
Unless you have a stupid low TTK to go with that massive increase in calcs....the server just imploded.
Do we really want a stupid low TTK so a few players get their 1v10 godmode fantasy rocks off ?
Now reduce aoe to 1 player.
Wheres the lag coming from ?
How many calculations are needed to figure out the diminishing damage over various enemy counts? That was a pointless argument. The game started without AOE caps and was in a better state. it was after all the combat effectiveness reduction updates that the lag started.I didn't choose tank life, tank life chose me.0 -
Jaronking✭✭✭✭✭
✭
You would never be able to you know why even with AOE caps removed that group would still have more healing then you do.They would have multiple dedicated healers keeping the groups alive.Removing AOEs won't allow a single player to beat a large group it gives smaller groups a chance.A larger group still have access to more heals,more damage,more damage mitigation.Removing AOE caps will not affect large groups in a negative way just give smallers group a chance.Same casual players would be fine.People defending AOe caps don't know what their talking about and just don't want to be killed by better players than you.leepalmer95 wrote: »Or just remove them like 80% of people said when they made a poll on it.
They'll ignore you idea
I still think removing them entirely is a bad idea. A single player should not be able to easily wipe an entire 24-man ball group with one timed burst. That creates a really dumb gameplay situation.
We all know the real reason @Zos won't removed AOE caps @Wrobel told us if they removed it End game trial's groups won't be able to complete trial's because they won't be able to stack to reduce damage.0 -
Solariken✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
You would never be able to you know why even with AOE caps removed that group would still have more healing then you do.They would have multiple dedicated healers keeping the groups alive.Removing AOEs won't allow a single player to beat a large group it gives smaller groups a chance.A larger group still have access to more heals,more damage,more damage mitigation.Removing AOE caps will not affect large groups in a negative way just give smallers group a chance.Same casual players would be fine.People defending AOe caps don't know what their talking about and just don't want to be killed by better players than you.leepalmer95 wrote: »Or just remove them like 80% of people said when they made a poll on it.
They'll ignore you idea
I still think removing them entirely is a bad idea. A single player should not be able to easily wipe an entire 24-man ball group with one timed burst. That creates a really dumb gameplay situation.
We all know the real reason @Zos won't removed AOE caps @Wrobel told us if they removed it End game trial's groups won't be able to complete trial's because they won't be able to stack to reduce damage.
Sorry man, you are misinformed, AoE caps do not apply to PvE.
Also, you are dead wrong about one person being able to wipe an entire raid. Check out bomblade builds on YouTube. Other classes can do it too, just not quite as easily. And all of what you find on YouTube is happening WITH AoE caps - now imagine how much easier it would be without the caps.0 -
Jaronking✭✭✭✭✭
✭
No @Wrobel said it himself on ESO live dude.So your the one Misinformed buddy,@FENGRUSH even had a ESO react about it.
You would never be able to you know why even with AOE caps removed that group would still have more healing then you do.They would have multiple dedicated healers keeping the groups alive.Removing AOEs won't allow a single player to beat a large group it gives smaller groups a chance.A larger group still have access to more heals,more damage,more damage mitigation.Removing AOE caps will not affect large groups in a negative way just give smallers group a chance.Same casual players would be fine.People defending AOe caps don't know what their talking about and just don't want to be killed by better players than you.leepalmer95 wrote: »Or just remove them like 80% of people said when they made a poll on it.
They'll ignore you idea
I still think removing them entirely is a bad idea. A single player should not be able to easily wipe an entire 24-man ball group with one timed burst. That creates a really dumb gameplay situation.
We all know the real reason @Zos won't removed AOE caps @Wrobel told us if they removed it End game trial's groups won't be able to complete trial's because they won't be able to stack to reduce damage.
Sorry man, you are misinformed, AoE caps do not apply to PvE.
Also, you are dead wrong about one person being able to wipe an entire raid. Check out bomblade builds on YouTube. Other classes can do it too, just not quite as easily. And all of what you find on YouTube is happening WITH AoE caps - now imagine how much easier it would be without the caps.
Yes but you know how many times those bombblades fail?Way more than they win.They don't wipe competent groups because they competent and know how to survive bombers.Removing them doesn't hurt competent groups and players who use their heads it just hurt the average potato who stack to survive everything and know they will have to learn how to play.AOE caps protects bad players it shouldn't every change they have made to make it easy for potato's have made 1 performance worst ,2.Less players actually playing PVP, 3.Give larger groups when more advantages.AOE caps has done nothing good for the game.Removing them would make the game way better0 -
AzuraKin✭✭✭✭✭well considering a group of 24 vs a group of 24 = 48 players at even a 2% value that would mean you could only do 4% of your actual tooltip damage. at 4% 25 players would negate all damage. basically your proposed system would only perform 2 functions. encourage zerging. 2. just see 2 full raid zergs camping any place under seige.v160 spellsword (nightblade)
v160 restoration archmage (Templar)
v160 battlemage (sorcerer)
v160 restoration archmage (Templar)
v160 warrior (DragonKnight)
v160 assassin (nightblade)
v160 swordsman (sorcerer)
v160 spellsword (nightblade)0 -
Solariken✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
No @Wrobel said it himself on ESO live dude.So your the one Misinformed buddy,@FENGRUSH even had a ESO react about it.
You would never be able to you know why even with AOE caps removed that group would still have more healing then you do.They would have multiple dedicated healers keeping the groups alive.Removing AOEs won't allow a single player to beat a large group it gives smaller groups a chance.A larger group still have access to more heals,more damage,more damage mitigation.Removing AOE caps will not affect large groups in a negative way just give smallers group a chance.Same casual players would be fine.People defending AOe caps don't know what their talking about and just don't want to be killed by better players than you.leepalmer95 wrote: »Or just remove them like 80% of people said when they made a poll on it.
They'll ignore you idea
I still think removing them entirely is a bad idea. A single player should not be able to easily wipe an entire 24-man ball group with one timed burst. That creates a really dumb gameplay situation.
We all know the real reason @Zos won't removed AOE caps @Wrobel told us if they removed it End game trial's groups won't be able to complete trial's because they won't be able to stack to reduce damage.
Sorry man, you are misinformed, AoE caps do not apply to PvE.
Also, you are dead wrong about one person being able to wipe an entire raid. Check out bomblade builds on YouTube. Other classes can do it too, just not quite as easily. And all of what you find on YouTube is happening WITH AoE caps - now imagine how much easier it would be without the caps.
Yes but you know how many times those bombblades fail?Way more than they win.They don't wipe competent groups because they competent and know how to survive bombers.Removing them doesn't hurt competent groups and players who use their heads it just hurt the average potato who stack to survive everything and know they will have to learn how to play.AOE caps protects bad players it shouldn't every change they have made to make it easy for potato's have made 1 performance worst ,2.Less players actually playing PVP, 3.Give larger groups when more advantages.AOE caps has done nothing good for the game.Removing them would make the game way better
No man, NPC AoE was never ever subject to the cap mechanic.
At this point it's quite safe to say that AoE caps in PvP are never going to be removed. And that's ok with me if they are willing to make the system better and more intelligent. My proposal is one way to do that because while it still somewhat protects the potatoes who stack, it also greatly reduces the AoE output of those stacking in the potato group. Don't you think that's an improvement over what we have??0 -
Solariken✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭well considering a group of 24 vs a group of 24 = 48 players at even a 2% value that would mean you could only do 4% of your actual tooltip damage. at 4% 25 players would negate all damage. basically your proposed system would only perform 2 functions. encourage zerging. 2. just see 2 full raid zergs camping any place under seige.
4% was an arbitrary number for the purpose of illustration as I clearly said.
Still, one huge group clashing with another huge group shouldn't be about how many people you have spamming Steel Tornado. That is really uninspired and stupid gameplay. At least my proposed system would make that a less feasible strategy than it is now.0 -
Jaronking✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Alright man its clearly shows you don't know what your talking about.Its the reason trial's group stack up to reduce damage taken.Like I said @Wrobel himself stated they won't remove aoe caps because of PVE.Its a fact you can't argue against it.
No @Wrobel said it himself on ESO live dude.So your the one Misinformed buddy,@FENGRUSH even had a ESO react about it.
You would never be able to you know why even with AOE caps removed that group would still have more healing then you do.They would have multiple dedicated healers keeping the groups alive.Removing AOEs won't allow a single player to beat a large group it gives smaller groups a chance.A larger group still have access to more heals,more damage,more damage mitigation.Removing AOE caps will not affect large groups in a negative way just give smallers group a chance.Same casual players would be fine.People defending AOe caps don't know what their talking about and just don't want to be killed by better players than you.leepalmer95 wrote: »Or just remove them like 80% of people said when they made a poll on it.
They'll ignore you idea
I still think removing them entirely is a bad idea. A single player should not be able to easily wipe an entire 24-man ball group with one timed burst. That creates a really dumb gameplay situation.
We all know the real reason @Zos won't removed AOE caps @Wrobel told us if they removed it End game trial's groups won't be able to complete trial's because they won't be able to stack to reduce damage.
Sorry man, you are misinformed, AoE caps do not apply to PvE.
Also, you are dead wrong about one person being able to wipe an entire raid. Check out bomblade builds on YouTube. Other classes can do it too, just not quite as easily. And all of what you find on YouTube is happening WITH AoE caps - now imagine how much easier it would be without the caps.
Yes but you know how many times those bombblades fail?Way more than they win.They don't wipe competent groups because they competent and know how to survive bombers.Removing them doesn't hurt competent groups and players who use their heads it just hurt the average potato who stack to survive everything and know they will have to learn how to play.AOE caps protects bad players it shouldn't every change they have made to make it easy for potato's have made 1 performance worst ,2.Less players actually playing PVP, 3.Give larger groups when more advantages.AOE caps has done nothing good for the game.Removing them would make the game way better
No man, NPC AoE was never ever subject to the cap mechanic.
At this point it's quite safe to say that AoE caps in PvP are never going to be removed. And that's ok with me if they are willing to make the system better and more intelligent. My proposal is one way to do that because while it still somewhat protects the potatoes who stack, it also greatly reduces the AoE output of those stacking in the potato group. Don't you think that's an improvement over what we have??
No they need to completely remove it now middle ground straight remove it No its and or buts about it remove it and fix the game.Only change I would be willing to accept is for them.to do a inverse of the current system where a group of 6 and less takes the less amount of damage and the more people you hit takes more damage.
0
