Zarec wrote: »

Varivox9 wrote: »

Thete wrote: »

Anyone who played WAR will understand the importance of having an AoE cap for the purposes of large scale pvp. There was a nasty situation that occurred in that game where the Bright Wizards would just line up at the head of an army and be able to steamroll through anything. They had an ability that was very powerful in that there was no cap and it meant there was nothing you could do against it.

I never played it, but what you just described sounds a lot like what we have going on here. Currently, the vamp ulti is very easily abused and able to destroy an unlimited number of enemies, while players are able to keep it up for 100% of the time. It is a specific skill that is being abused but that shouldn't, imo, lead to a mass blanket nerf. It should lead to a rebalancing of that skill.

There have been several instances that it wasn't just the vamp synch issue. DK have a issue as well.

There's a vamp synch issue? I thought it was all done because people stacked a ton of ultimate reduction required to make the vamp ulti make them invisible, move fast, and require almost no ulti to use.

Oh, bless.

Look at all the armchair statisticians who think that a 90% response from a cohort of 2300 is invalidated because it's not everyone who has ever played the game.

What do you think a "sample group" is?
How do you think empirical evidence is gathered?
Do you have any understanding of the basis of scientific hypothesis and theorem?

Obviously not.

90% of 2300 people is a significant result. I'm sorry you don't understand mathematics, but unfortunately in this case you are, quite simply, wrong.

Thete wrote: »

They had an ability that was very powerful in that there was no cap and it meant there was nothing you could do against it.

It's clearly an issue of not balancing the ability well enough if it was that impactful. It would be fallacious to assume that a single unbalanced skill in a game represents AoE caps being necessary.

They can easily balance skills in this game without changing all AoE. Additionally, they can make it so that AoE takes more skill to place properly for maximum damage. Have the damage be greater in the center and lower on the outside. This way, perfect AoEs do great damage to anyone in the middle and, if you miss, it does less damage. The other major problem is the benefits that casters get from abilities and not the damage itself. I.e. Bat Swarm heals for too much in the middle of a zerg. The damage isn't so insane as the sustain it provides. Limiting the heal to a max of 6 targets, for example, could really tone down the ability while still punishing a player for standing in it. So no, you shouldn't just hand amazing benefits to the caster for laying an AoE ability, but you also can't make it easier on their opponents where they now just flat out can stand in AoE and be just fine. Balance in moderation is the solution, not a sweeping cap.

Varivox9 wrote: »

Zarec wrote: »

Varivox9 wrote: »

Thete wrote: »

Anyone who played WAR will understand the importance of having an AoE cap for the purposes of large scale pvp. There was a nasty situation that occurred in that game where the Bright Wizards would just line up at the head of an army and be able to steamroll through anything. They had an ability that was very powerful in that there was no cap and it meant there was nothing you could do against it.

I never played it, but what you just described sounds a lot like what we have going on here. Currently, the vamp ulti is very easily abused and able to destroy an unlimited number of enemies, while players are able to keep it up for 100% of the time. It is a specific skill that is being abused but that shouldn't, imo, lead to a mass blanket nerf. It should lead to a rebalancing of that skill.

There have been several instances that it wasn't just the vamp synch issue. DK have a issue as well.

There's a vamp synch issue? I thought it was all done because people stacked a ton of ultimate reduction required to make the vamp ulti make them invisible, move fast, and require almost no ulti to use.

Ugh...I really should read before I hit post cause I didn't even finish that thought.

I meant there have been other things that have popped up besides the vamp skill synchronicity issue. DK have started being an issue and been hear some things about sorcs ults becoming an issue. Now what is at issue is opinion and therefore subjective from person to person. I've just been hearing more people saying the same things when I actually pay attention to what people yammer about.


I'm honestly curious on how they can get their vamp ult so low considering that part of the vamp tree line is currently bugged. (ie stage increase aren't lowering vamp ult numbers, so am trying to figure out how people are claiming they get their ult down to 4)

Tbh if they do these game changing changes, lie about them, it will be the last straw for me and I'll be more than done, it was worth the 35€ spent during this month... probably not as much as I wanted, but still good enough.

Totally not worth paying more to see this game get closer and closer to "just another MMORPG with soft targeting and freedom in items".

Varivox9 wrote: »

Zarec wrote: »

Varivox9 wrote: »

Zarec wrote: »

Varivox9 wrote: »

Thete wrote: »

Anyone who played WAR will understand the importance of having an AoE cap for the purposes of large scale pvp. There was a nasty situation that occurred in that game where the Bright Wizards would just line up at the head of an army and be able to steamroll through anything. They had an ability that was very powerful in that there was no cap and it meant there was nothing you could do against it.

I never played it, but what you just described sounds a lot like what we have going on here. Currently, the vamp ulti is very easily abused and able to destroy an unlimited number of enemies, while players are able to keep it up for 100% of the time. It is a specific skill that is being abused but that shouldn't, imo, lead to a mass blanket nerf. It should lead to a rebalancing of that skill.

There have been several instances that it wasn't just the vamp synch issue. DK have a issue as well.

There's a vamp synch issue? I thought it was all done because people stacked a ton of ultimate reduction required to make the vamp ulti make them invisible, move fast, and require almost no ulti to use.

Ugh...I really should read before I hit post cause I didn't even finish that thought.

I meant there have been other things that have popped up besides the vamp skill synchronicity issue. DK have started being an issue and been hear some things about sorcs ults becoming an issue. Now what is at issue is opinion and therefore subjective from person to person. I've just been hearing more people saying the same things when I actually pay attention to what people yammer about.


I'm honestly curious on how they can get their vamp ult so low considering that part of the vamp tree line is currently bugged.

It has to do with stacking specific sets of armour (not sure which ones tbh) and other passives (sorc gets about 10% reduction with their passives I believe).

10% of 175 (think that was the cost of bat swarm) is 157.5 for rank 1. Where are they coming up with the rest to be able to spam it back to back....something is hinky

Zarec wrote: »

10% of 175 (think that was the cost of bat swarm) is 157.5 for rank 1. Where are they coming up with the rest to be able to spam it back to back....something is hinky

I think you get more cooldown reduction as you get higher levels in vampire? There is also an armor set that reduces ultimate cost, a Sorceror Passive in Daedric Summoning that makes ultimates cost 15% less. It adds up.

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

Oh, bless.

Look at all the armchair statisticians who think that a 90% response from a cohort of 2300 is invalidated because it's not everyone who has ever played the game.

What do you think a "sample group" is?
How do you think empirical evidence is gathered?
Do you have any understanding of the basis of scientific hypothesis and theorem?

Obviously not.

90% of 2300 people is a significant result. I'm sorry you don't understand mathematics, but unfortunately in this case you are, quite simply, wrong.

90+% of viewers chose not to vote, I think that's more significant.

And this statement demonstrates conclusively why you're a muppet.

1) you don't know what proportion of the player base even reads the forum. It isn't 100%.
2) you don't know what proportion of the player base that does read the forum read that section of the forum. It isn't 100% of the players that have ever read the forum.
3) you don't know what proportion of people who read that part of the forum read that particular thread. It isn't 100% of the people who read that part of the forum.
4) you don't even know if all who read it voted. If they didn't vote, it doesn't necessarily follow that they don't have an opinion. (To assume that would be a logical fallacy.)
5) what you DO know is that OF THOSE WHO DID VOTE, 90% voted the same way.

That's what we call a "conclusive result".

So what your telling me is it's actually a lot closer to 100% rather than 90+% of people in the game that Do Not Care about aoe's affecting a smaller portion since that population has never bothered to check the forums about it and/or chose not to vote.

No, I'm telling you that not agreeing with something doesn't necessarily make it wrong. And I'm also telling you that you don't understand statistics, which you have again demonstrated by the above response. Just drop it, seriously, before your high school maths teacher commits homicide with justifiable cause.

Altissimus wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

Oh, bless.

Look at all the armchair statisticians who think that a 90% response from a cohort of 2300 is invalidated because it's not everyone who has ever played the game.

What do you think a "sample group" is?
How do you think empirical evidence is gathered?
Do you have any understanding of the basis of scientific hypothesis and theorem?

Obviously not.

90% of 2300 people is a significant result. I'm sorry you don't understand mathematics, but unfortunately in this case you are, quite simply, wrong.

90+% of viewers chose not to vote, I think that's more significant.

And this statement demonstrates conclusively why you're a muppet.

1) you don't know what proportion of the player base even reads the forum. It isn't 100%.
2) you don't know what proportion of the player base that does read the forum read that section of the forum. It isn't 100% of the players that have ever read the forum.
3) you don't know what proportion of people who read that part of the forum read that particular thread. It isn't 100% of the people who read that part of the forum.
4) you don't even know if all who read it voted. If they didn't vote, it doesn't necessarily follow that they don't have an opinion. (To assume that would be a logical fallacy.)
5) what you DO know is that OF THOSE WHO DID VOTE, 90% voted the same way.

That's what we call a "conclusive result".

So what your telling me is it's actually a lot closer to 100% rather than 90+% of people in the game that Do Not Care about aoe's affecting a smaller portion since that population has never bothered to check the forums about it and/or chose not to vote.

No, I'm telling you that not agreeing with something doesn't necessarily make it wrong. And I'm also telling you that you don't understand statistics, which you have again demonstrated by the above response. Just drop it, seriously, before your high school maths teacher commits homicide with justifiable cause.

So your saying I'm right?

WitchAngel wrote: »

Zarec wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Zarec wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Zarec wrote: »

First off never assume...no scientist social or otherwise ever assumes.

@Zarec
Show me facts or that's an assumption.

Scientists by nature work with the scientific method to prove their work and all published work must be replicatable and receive the same results for it to be considered (crap forget the term,dang lack of sleep).

If it cannot be proven, you are just assuming it is true aka blind faith, which faith and science have never played well together (I blame their parents, they didn't let them play in the sandbox together)

Seems like more assumption about Science to me...

Out of curiosity....did you happen to fail freshman chemistry? The scientific method was was the first chapter in my old chem class and that was 14 years ago and I still remember it. Crap...reunion this year....who wants to be help me spike the punch

1) A scientific theory starts with an assumption, which you then try to put into test, and see if it fails or holds water. Without assumptions, science would be static.
2) We are going to space, building computers and much more using scientific theories not scientific facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

i'm feeling lazy and don't have the patience to type it all out...

Just a hint: The word you are looking for is prediction. Not assumption. Consult a dictionary as you are getting those two words switched around. While close in definition they are not synonymous.

RivenVII wrote: »

Zarec wrote: »

10% of 175 (think that was the cost of bat swarm) is 157.5 for rank 1. Where are they coming up with the rest to be able to spam it back to back....something is hinky

I think you get more cooldown reduction as you get higher levels in vampire? There is also an armor set that reduces ultimate cost, a Sorceror Passive in Daedric Summoning that makes ultimates cost 15% less. It adds up.

I'm extremely tired so math withouth having the numbers in front of me may be a bit of a stretch but it still seems off....I'll have to crunch the numbers and find out which set traits affect the ultimate skills....to be honest, you should only ever have a max of 35% reduction in ultimate costs in my opinion otherwise it opens to many things up for abuse but thats just my opinion on the matter.

Altissimus wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

Oh, bless.

Look at all the armchair statisticians who think that a 90% response from a cohort of 2300 is invalidated because it's not everyone who has ever played the game.

What do you think a "sample group" is?
How do you think empirical evidence is gathered?
Do you have any understanding of the basis of scientific hypothesis and theorem?

Obviously not.

90% of 2300 people is a significant result. I'm sorry you don't understand mathematics, but unfortunately in this case you are, quite simply, wrong.

90+% of viewers chose not to vote, I think that's more significant.

And this statement demonstrates conclusively why you're a muppet.

1) you don't know what proportion of the player base even reads the forum. It isn't 100%.
2) you don't know what proportion of the player base that does read the forum read that section of the forum. It isn't 100% of the players that have ever read the forum.
3) you don't know what proportion of people who read that part of the forum read that particular thread. It isn't 100% of the people who read that part of the forum.
4) you don't even know if all who read it voted. If they didn't vote, it doesn't necessarily follow that they don't have an opinion. (To assume that would be a logical fallacy.)
5) what you DO know is that OF THOSE WHO DID VOTE, 90% voted the same way.

That's what we call a "conclusive result".

So what your telling me is it's actually a lot closer to 100% rather than 90+% of people in the game that Do Not Care about aoe's affecting a smaller portion since that population has never bothered to check the forums about it and/or chose not to vote.

No, I'm telling you that not agreeing with something doesn't necessarily make it wrong. And I'm also telling you that you don't understand statistics, which you have again demonstrated by the above response. Just drop it, seriously, before your high school maths teacher commits homicide with justifiable cause.

So your saying I'm right?

No you muppet. Just because I didn't specifically state in that post that you are wrong doesn't mean I am saying you are right. You clearly don't understand logic either. Go and Wikipedia "logical fallacy". Then get someone to explain to you what that page means. By the way, you are wrong.

IF x% of people haven't voted, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that x% of people haven't read it or don't care or haven't searched for it.

If you can't follow that then you have reached the end of what I can teach you.

Incidentally, I have no interest in PvP, I didn't read that part of the forum, I didn't
go search out the thread, I only read it because of this thread, but I do agree with the points made and I did vote with the 90% for that reason, because even though I am not a PvP fan I still have an opinion on an AOE nerf in PvP. Using me as a single case example pretty much dispels all your objections. Ironic, eh?

(Irony is not a type of metal.)

You misused irony at least how you have it written...switch some things around and it would be used correctly.

Thete wrote: »

Of course if there's a 4th option I'm interested to know what it is.

One of my personal favorite solutions is to make AoEs do their highest damage at the center and then do lower damage towards the outside of the radius. This means that the center of an AoE should have a damage multiplier to reward perfect placement. The outskirts of an AoE should do less damage and punish players for not putting the center right on their target.

Another solution is to have relative diminishing returns with AoE. You have 6 players take full damage, the next 6 take 25% less, and then all players hit after that take 50% of the base AoE damage.

I like my first suggestion far more as it makes AoEs more of a skillshot while still keeping them as functional AoEs.

The other thing that needs to happen is buffs provided by AoEs such as heals from Bat Swarm, etc. Need to be toned down one way or another. I feel the diminishing returns option, similar to what my second suggestion was, would be the optimum solution here. This way, you still do get a benefit for using something that buffs you against many players, but you also get less of a benefit the more players that are being hit by it.

I say to use the diminishing returns on buffs (Night Blade weapon damage bonuses, bat swarm, inhale, etc.) because I feel like AoE damage itself isn't so out of whack and it is also crucial to being able to fight a larger force. The buffs from AoEs, however, are what are broken the most in the game. If a larger force positions badly, they should be able to be killed by fewer numbers. This isn't to say that a DK should be able to facetank 40 people because that is absurd, but it is to say that 10 people should reasonably have a chance at killing 40 if they are skilled.

If the AoE doesn't do enough damage to the players because of a cap, though, it doesn't matter how well it was placed because it won't even scratch them. This is why I believe in maintaining the integrity of the damage, but finding ways to balance the buffs and utilities these abilities provide as well as providing a way to make AoE abilities more skill based and reward better, more accurate usage.

Altissimus wrote: »

Zarec wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

Oh, bless.

Look at all the armchair statisticians who think that a 90% response from a cohort of 2300 is invalidated because it's not everyone who has ever played the game.

What do you think a "sample group" is?
How do you think empirical evidence is gathered?
Do you have any understanding of the basis of scientific hypothesis and theorem?

Obviously not.

90% of 2300 people is a significant result. I'm sorry you don't understand mathematics, but unfortunately in this case you are, quite simply, wrong.

90+% of viewers chose not to vote, I think that's more significant.

And this statement demonstrates conclusively why you're a muppet.

1) you don't know what proportion of the player base even reads the forum. It isn't 100%.
2) you don't know what proportion of the player base that does read the forum read that section of the forum. It isn't 100% of the players that have ever read the forum.
3) you don't know what proportion of people who read that part of the forum read that particular thread. It isn't 100% of the people who read that part of the forum.
4) you don't even know if all who read it voted. If they didn't vote, it doesn't necessarily follow that they don't have an opinion. (To assume that would be a logical fallacy.)
5) what you DO know is that OF THOSE WHO DID VOTE, 90% voted the same way.

That's what we call a "conclusive result".

So what your telling me is it's actually a lot closer to 100% rather than 90+% of people in the game that Do Not Care about aoe's affecting a smaller portion since that population has never bothered to check the forums about it and/or chose not to vote.

No, I'm telling you that not agreeing with something doesn't necessarily make it wrong. And I'm also telling you that you don't understand statistics, which you have again demonstrated by the above response. Just drop it, seriously, before your high school maths teacher commits homicide with justifiable cause.

So your saying I'm right?

No you muppet. Just because I didn't specifically state in that post that you are wrong doesn't mean I am saying you are right. You clearly don't understand logic either. Go and Wikipedia "logical fallacy". Then get someone to explain to you what that page means. By the way, you are wrong.

IF x% of people haven't voted, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that x% of people haven't read it or don't care or haven't searched for it.

If you can't follow that then you have reached the end of what I can teach you.

Incidentally, I have no interest in PvP, I didn't read that part of the forum, I didn't
go search out the thread, I only read it because of this thread, but I do agree with the points made and I did vote with the 90% for that reason, because even though I am not a PvP fan I still have an opinion on an AOE nerf in PvP. Using me as a single case example pretty much dispels all your objections. Ironic, eh?

(Irony is not a type of metal.)

You misused irony at least how you have it written...switch some things around and it would be used correctly.

No, I used it correctly. It wasn't what I had written that was ironic, it was the premise that I, as a single case sample, was sufficient to contradict his premise. That's what was ironic.

Ahh ok thank you for the clarification, I read it incorrectly.

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Altissimus wrote: »

Oh, bless.

Look at all the armchair statisticians who think that a 90% response from a cohort of 2300 is invalidated because it's not everyone who has ever played the game.

What do you think a "sample group" is?
How do you think empirical evidence is gathered?
Do you have any understanding of the basis of scientific hypothesis and theorem?

Obviously not.

90% of 2300 people is a significant result. I'm sorry you don't understand mathematics, but unfortunately in this case you are, quite simply, wrong.

90+% of viewers chose not to vote, I think that's more significant.

And this statement demonstrates conclusively why you're a muppet.

1) you don't know what proportion of the player base even reads the forum. It isn't 100%.
2) you don't know what proportion of the player base that does read the forum read that section of the forum. It isn't 100% of the players that have ever read the forum.
3) you don't know what proportion of people who read that part of the forum read that particular thread. It isn't 100% of the people who read that part of the forum.
4) you don't even know if all who read it voted. If they didn't vote, it doesn't necessarily follow that they don't have an opinion. (To assume that would be a logical fallacy.)
5) what you DO know is that OF THOSE WHO DID VOTE, 90% voted the same way.

That's what we call a "conclusive result".

So what your telling me is it's actually a lot closer to 100% rather than 90+% of people in the game that Do Not Care about aoe's affecting a smaller portion since that population has never bothered to check the forums about it and/or chose not to vote.

No, I'm telling you that not agreeing with something doesn't necessarily make it wrong. And I'm also telling you that you don't understand statistics, which you have again demonstrated by the above response. Just drop it, seriously, before your high school maths teacher commits homicide with justifiable cause.

So your saying I'm right?

No you muppet. Just because I didn't specifically state in that post that you are wrong doesn't mean I am saying you are right. You clearly don't understand logic either. Go and Wikipedia "logical fallacy". Then get someone to explain to you what that page means. By the way, you are wrong.

IF x% of people haven't voted, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that x% of people haven't read it or don't care or haven't searched for it.

If you can't follow that then you have reached the end of what I can teach you.

Incidentally, I have no interest in PvP, I didn't read that part of the forum, I didn't
go search out the thread, I only read it because of this thread, but I do agree with the points made and I did vote with the 90% for that reason, because even though I am not a PvP fan I still have an opinion on an AOE nerf in PvP. Using me as a single case example pretty much dispels all your objections. Ironic, eh?

(Irony is not a type of metal.)

actually Irony (metal) is a term used to describe scrap aluminum that has other (Iron based) metallic bits attached to it.

See: http://www.scrapmetalforum.com/scrap-metal-questions-answers/2356-irony-aluminum-vs-aluminum.html

And your logic is flawed by thinking a person that abstains from voting because of indifference is not able to be included in a sample population. After all if your given the option of saving 1 of 2 peoples lives you always have the option of walking away.

But I didn't say this. I said that you don't know who abstained and who didn't. I agree that an active choice to abstain can permit inclusion in a sample pool, but only if you have a way of recording who did and who didn't. As we don't know in this situation, you can't state either way.

Apologies, my native language is English not American; irony is not a type of metal