No stacking for WVW?

[Chaba.5410]

Does he work for Anet?

[Svarty.8019]

This old chestnut eh?

 

* Character collision. I needn't say more.

* 50 player target cap on siege: that's why teams with >50 on tag are extradeluxe-Impossible++ to stop.

 

Arenanet should remove that target cap or raise it to the map cap. That might help disperse the giant zerg and thus lower the lag - okay this is stretching credibility *slightly* - but there's a chance! And if it's a million-to-one chance, it's a certainty, as Douglas Adams taught us, or was it Pratchett? It might have been [Pratchett](https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Million-to-one_chance)...

 

 

 

[Hannelore.8153]

I think RTS-style collision detection where people can walk through each other but naturally separate if idle is okay, This still allows most stacking tactics (as long as you're moving), and prevents doorway blocking/griefing, while still providing some degree of realism. But it requires checking the edges like on cliffs so that people don't get pushed off when the separation code kicks in, and I'm not sure GW2 even implements a 2.5D pathing engine like those games do, so I'm not sure if its possible to keep that from happening.

 

But I think it would be the most effective compromise for both parties. You would need gameplay and tactics (and favor melee) to stay stacked instead of all just stand in one point and pirate ship the enemies down as a ball of angry triangles.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> prevents doorway blocking/griefing

 

You shall not leave the nodes!

[LetoII.3782]

Yeah, we're really talking about a different game.

This is a well trodden path

[Sovereign.1093]

Mmmm body block. Pirate ship time. Bring out the billions of rangers

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

>

> > Nothing about how silly, unrealistic, or performance inhibiting it is.

>

> Don't tell me how to speak for him!

>

> > @"Dayra.7405" said:

> > Collision dection in an MMO is simply unrealistic.

> > It will just complement the skill-laag with a movement laag (you cannot move, till the server verified and confirmed that you do not collide with anyone.).

>

> Worked out just fine in WAR.

> Helped provide an AoE cap all on it's own just from people not being able to pack in.

>

 

Very much this. ^^^^^

 

WAAAGH!!!! -GrimJester, Choppa

 

I think a number of perceived issues would have been resolved with collision detection and we have seen it work in large numbers. It also made for more important positioning and gotta love a tank wall, even when you are on the wrong side of it. Now I understand the other side saying the potential for lag increases but we will never really know if the distancing that would be caused by collision detection would offset the lag created from the calculations of so many objects in the same space. Might have been a wash.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> Mmmm body block. Pirate ship time. Bring out the billions of rangers

 

That's also why you need some paper scissors rock logic. Longer range should do less damage than melee range and more armor should also mean less DPS since they can soak damage. At least when you are talking collision detection games.

[nthmetal.9652]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> That's also why you need some paper scissors rock logic. Longer range should do less damage than melee range and more armor should also mean less DPS since they can soak damage. At least when you are talking collision detection games.

 

To a certain point we already have such in the game. You can take sustainy armor, but that automatically means you will have less damage, since you have to sacrifice some damage-dealing stats to toughness / vitality.

 

However where we clearly don't have this in any form that really helps is in terms of ranged and AoE compared to melee. Some of the hardest-hitting powers are ranged AND not even single target. Yes, they are telegraphed hard, however in group content this does hardly matter, as you're not looking at individual animation phases. Also AoEs, often pulsing AoEs can hit quite hard, most (if not all) melee cannot compare. Even if the damage on a single target is a bit lower, it is not lower by an amount that accounts for the limited range and targets of most melee attacks / melee focused characters.

 

[LetoII.3782]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

 

>gotta love a tank wall, even when you are on the wrong side of it.

 

Actual battle lines... Like the one in the load-in screen.

Perish the thought, right?

Not a good fit for WvW.

[Sovereign.1093]

Mmm I may be one of the few who dont want to add realism in a fantasy game. Don't over change the formula guys. It may end up with a desert border x 2

[Faenar.8036]

Collision detection in GW2? Haha, imagine the instant sh1t-storm tears flood in PvE forum section. Any boss fight where even a tiny fraction would require even a slight movement to avoid high-damage boss AoE would became totaly imposible.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Faenar.8036" said:

> Collision detection in GW2? Haha, imagine the instant kitten-storm tears flood in PvE forum section. Any boss fight where even a tiny fraction would require even a slight movement to avoid high-damage boss AoE would became totaly imposible.

 

You mean the world bosses where most players just facetank everything, res each other faster than the boss can kill them and everything always turns out fine because it's only meant to seem difficult?

[Hoover.6394]

> @"Faenar.8036" said:

> Collision detection in GW2? Haha, imagine the instant kitten-storm tears flood in PvE forum section. Any boss fight where even a tiny fraction would require even a slight movement to avoid high-damage boss AoE would became totaly imposible.

 

Only in WvW though

[enkidu.5937]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> This isn’t exactly right. Yes it’s russian roulette, but It does tend to spread homogeneously, because you are less likely to be the target of another enemy spell, because you’ve got 50 other players in close proximity to you.

>

> Targets are based on proximity priority, and mathematically (statistically) speaking, as the number of players converges to a single point, the chance that 2 spells in a row will target you are proportional to the inverse square of that distance between you and the distances of the other 50 players (and the location at which the spell was cast)

Yup thats the theory. In reality you usually dont have a perfect stacking. And the ppl that are closest to the enemy will usually suffer from spikes, whereas others may not even be within range.

 

> This also isn’t correct, damage and healing both follow the same rules in terms of scaling and target cap...which is proximity priority. The reason is seems that damage and healing don’t seem the same, is because people tend to form subgroups for their supports, which actually alters the statistical nature of spreading your healing to other allies via proximity (always forcing your heal on your proximity of your subgroup rather than your entire squad) . This is one reason why subgroups can actually be detrimental for certain healers, like tempests, who benefit more from healing allies via squad proximity rather than party proximity.

Isnt that what Ive wrote? Most skills are "5 targets", ppl are put in subgroups, so support doesnt scale when comparing a 15 vs. 15 with a 50 vs. 50. If some of your subgroup are already dead, you get even less. If some ppl are at 100% health, you might get some healing from other groups. You have more combo fields, but its harder to coordinately put and blast them. A coordinated group theoretically could make use of those things, not sure if we want to put zergs into that category :3

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"enkidu.5937" said:

 

Ya I think you were trying to say the right thing, it just wasn’t factually correct so I was just making clear what is exactly going on.

 

For the most part, all damaging skills affect only 5 targets with the exception of a few abilities, so when comparing support to damage they are still the same. It’s just that damage spells will always go by proximity priority due to the fact that your damage isn’t prioritized by subgroups.

 

But in general for support, proximity priority is statistically better at making sure players who need healing will receive it. It’s just that subgroups will tend to sacrifice that for consistency, providing heals and boons for only your subgroup. If your subgroup doesn’t need healing or boons than it’s basically a waste. Not to say subgroups don’t have their own advantages, they do have some advantages, mainly just consistency and spreading your healing out to maximum range even when Zerg collapses on commander position.

 

Hard to fully explain without images because it’s more or less a geometrical reason.

 

 

[Dayra.7405]

> @"Hoover.6394" said:

> > @"Faenar.8036" said:

> > Collision detection in GW2? Haha, imagine the instant kitten-storm tears flood in PvE forum section. Any boss fight where even a tiny fraction would require even a slight movement to avoid high-damage boss AoE would became totaly imposible.

>

> Only in WvW though

 

Haha which of the many wvw developer should do it? The part-time one that doesn’t get time to work on alliances or the one that implements all the nice improvement we see in the WvW-Section of all the release notes or one of the many other that don’t exist?

 

More serious, ANet will never do such a massive change in the engine just for WvW. I am quite convinced that we stil wouldn't see enemy zergs (culling-problem https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Culling ), if the PvE Lionarch Karka event would been such a desaster due to culling.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Faenar.8036" said:

> Collision detection in GW2? Haha, imagine the instant kitten-storm tears flood in PvE forum section. Any boss fight where even a tiny fraction would require even a slight movement to avoid high-damage boss AoE would became totaly imposible.

 

Actually I think I would go to PvE events if there was collision since it would be a more interesting fight and I think the NPC would fair better. As it is now they should reduce the player counts per instance to allow for the boss mechanics and reduce the screen noise that makes them not interesting in the least since you can see what's going on anyway.

[MotherKitten.6795]

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > @"Hoover.6394" said:

> > Started playing WvW tho year so far having fun with it, thing I don’t like is the team stacks super tight and run into the other team, as a player u don’t get a sense of what u fighting and what killed you, feel like for WVW, the game should try not let characters stacking on each other, kinda like the Social distancing mechanics in high level fractals, so during team fight, there can be better spread out team strategies, instead of pray and spray style.

>

> If you dislike stacking you can also choose to play a class that is less prone to stacking. For example, I would assume that staff Elementalists are still pretty useful and let into squads but there are quite alot of situations where you do better playing one off the tag.

 

Yes, inside towers I usually avoid following tag onto ramps and try to meteor enemy from ground.

[Talindra.4958]

at the moment this is a game of how good a team works together to maintain buff and protect players from dying. while offence side, strip enemy buff and stop them from being offensive make them weaker and so to defeat them. if you don't like this way of playing then, its more like smaller group of game play 5 to 10 people. as the number grows, stacking make the team stronger. various other ways to fight but it is how wvw works in a large scale battle. I don't see any other way unfortunately. roaming party probably suitable for you. I personally don't like full squad run too.. I get dizzy after a while.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Talindra.4958" said:

> **at the moment this is a game of how good a team works together to maintain buff and protect players from dying**. while offence side, strip enemy buff and stop them from being offensive make them weaker and so to defeat them. if you don't like this way of playing then, its more like smaller group of game play 5 to 10 people. as the number grows, stacking make the team stronger. various other ways to fight but it is how wvw works in a large scale battle. I don't see any other way unfortunately. roaming party probably suitable for you. I personally don't like full squad run too.. I get dizzy after a while.

 

It works just to a certain number of figthing numbers, but at the end just resumes who has more aoe and have more then players the other side, thats always how one side fix the problem :bleep_bloop:

 

 

WvW is stack the nore u can a search for smaller groups that what most servers do, same or similiar numbers are a miracle when they happen lol.

[Sovereign.1093]

If you have two sets, one for taking keeps and one for open field fights , it's easier to manage. If you face a cloud, pulls are your friend, if you face a blob, know that a good one moves tight and slow, you can focus their backline to chop them up.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> Mmmm body block. Pirate ship time. Bring out the billions of rangers

Yeah I can imagine it.

 

Frontline: **"FORM A LINE!"**

Backline: **"UNLEASH THE ARROWS!"**

Frontline: *Slowly turns around to look at the backline* **"Are you fucking kidding me with this shit"** *Falls over dead from a billion arrows in the back*

 

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > Mmmm body block. Pirate ship time. Bring out the billions of rangers

> Yeah I can imagine it.

>

> Frontline: **"FORM A LINE!"**

> Backline: **"UNLEASH THE ARROWS!"**

> Frontline: *Slowly turns around to look at the backline* **"Are you kitten kidding me with this kitten"** *Falls over dead from a billion arrows in the back*

>

 

Well, in Total War games good 'ol Roman triplex aices work that way, set up small gaps between your melee units for ranged to fire between. Shouldn't be that hard for a commander to arrange...

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > Mmmm body block. Pirate ship time. Bring out the billions of rangers

> > Yeah I can imagine it.

> >

> > Frontline: **"FORM A LINE!"**

> > Backline: **"UNLEASH THE ARROWS!"**

> > Frontline: *Slowly turns around to look at the backline* **"Are you kitten kidding me with this kitten"** *Falls over dead from a billion arrows in the back*

> >

>

> Well, in Total War games good 'ol Roman triplex aices work that way, set up small gaps between your melee units for ranged to fire between. Shouldn't be that hard for a commander to arrange...

Hey! I have seen the historical documentaries on that and the Roman zerg formations cant even handle a single druid and his fat Norn/even uglier than normal Asura squadmates when they go on drug induced rampages.