Ideas to tone down offensive AoEs

[Swagger.1459]

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > @"Cuks.8241" said:

> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > > The same skills need to stop stacking with themselves on players.

> > > > A thousand lava fonts on a champion? Perfectly fine, let them all hit.

> > > > Two lava fonts under the feet of a player? Only the highest damage one gets to hit that player. The rest will have to hit someone else.

> > > >

> > > > This is just one of the things that need to happen, but one of the most important ones.

> > > >

> > > > That would not only reduce overturned damage on individual players, it would also discourage build stacking and encourage diversification, as a squad full of players with the same build would have less damage potential per individual enemy.

> > >

> > > I can understand that suggestion, however the devs can’t make a system that potentially nullifies a players skill. Players don’t want that either, and you may find yourself in the position where your entire set of weapon skills do not function because other players used those exact same skills. Honestly won’t work the way you might envision it to work.

> >

> > Actually that is quite common in games to prevent insane aoe spamming.

>

> It is. That's why I mentioned. But it's used mostly for AoEs, I just forgot to mention that bit.

>

> Also, it would not prevent two people with the same skill from doing damage to the same person with them, it would only prevent it when done at the same time. Meaning that players could take turns using different AoEs, making sure their rotations are not synchronized on the same skills. So with 3 elementalists, one could could pop lava font while the other does meteor shower, and then switch.

 

For both of you.

 

I understand your angles, but those types of things will not work here like you envision them to work here.

 

I have yet to cross an MMO that cancels 1 player's skill when another player is using that same skill on an opponent or npc. And what you are talking about would mean that in a, example, 50v50 battle there will be X number of players having entire skill sets voided if someone else beat them to the punch. And out of curiosity, what are these many games?

 

You cannot limit what X profession or X build or X skills are being brought to WvW. If this were structured pvp, where it would make most sense since it has the "structured" element to it, and the devs said 1 of each class, then that system would fail for this type of game. Killing build diversity, and comp creativity and freedom too, are also other negatives... We are allowed to play what we want, and the devs are not going down the rabbit hole of "sorry, you can't play X profession, build, weapon set, trait lines, slot skills... because the system counted too many of those X "things" in EBG".

 

 

There is also another "dark and dangerous" path if anyone brings up Diminishing Returns on certain scales. Stat DR can be ok to make players diversify stats. DR that does stuff like "Sorry xxcooldragondudexx used Meteor Shower, so your Meteor Shower is 25% less effective... and your buddies Meteor Shower is now 50% less effective... and your other pal's Meteor Shower is now 75% less effective... and everyone else who happened to use Meteor Shower is now 0% effective..." is disastrous. And I've personally experienced things like healing DR and CC DR... and it was bad. Overall, DR is a solution good for paper, not in practice. Games the rely heavily on DR mean those devs are not really addressing issues properly, or wiling to invest to do right for the players of a game. For my personal DR experience, it was added with good intent just like you two are thinking about, but it killed a mode and never recovered. Also, DR is something of last resort when there are no possible other fixes and something HAS to be done.

 

 

 

[Psycoprophet.8107]

What if aoe’s have a reduction of sorts when stacked?

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> What if aoe’s have a reduction of sorts when stacked?

 

This is what I think (from my previous post)...

 

"DR that does stuff like "Sorry xxcooldragondudexx used Meteor Shower, so your Meteor Shower is 25% less effective... and your buddies Meteor Shower is now 50% less effective... and your other pal's Meteor Shower is now 75% less effective... and everyone else who happened to use Meteor Shower is now 0% effective..." is disastrous.". Which also ties into this... "You cannot limit what X profession or X build or X skills are being brought to WvW. If this were structured pvp, where it would make most sense since it has the "structured" element to it, and the devs said 1 of each class, then that system would fail for this type of game. Killing build diversity, and comp creativity and freedom too, are also other negatives..."

 

From an earlier post, and I want you to think about these numbers and what happens...

 

Currently...

"2 blobs containing 10 hammer Revenants and 10 staff Scourges are producing 1,080 target ranged AoEs using 1 ranged AoE skill EACH in total."

 

After a 3 target AoE change...

"2 blobs containing 10 hammer Revenants and 10 staff Scourges are now producing 540 target ranged AoEs using 1 AoE skill EACH in total."

 

This is just calculating hammer Rev and staff Scourge (with removing ranged Shades as mentioned in the OP), but 540 targets being hit is a lot. Now Imagine if we calculated all other AoEs being used... Limiting targets doesn't exclude a profession, or build or weapon or skill... Limiting targets also means melee could play a stronger role, and we may end up finding more balance between ranged AoE and melee play going forward. This also reduces some of the stress on the system because it has to process less information. And the suggestion for the game to calculate DR on each AoE skill means MORE lag because the system has MORE second to second calculations needing to be made.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> Under your 10 target wishlist to address Ben's "too many AoEs being flung around"...

> You don't want to address any problems, you just want to make them worse... You are not even putting any thought into the repercussion of a 10 target change, nor its effects upon the game engine for mass player battles.

 

youre taking one small thing ben said and blowing it out of proportion.

 

you beat me to the punch lol. cuz 3 target cap would make things so much better, sustainball meta > pirateship meta blah blah blah. you and anet both seem to forget about why a lot of people play this mode, its to take down groups much bigger then your own. even though that tactic is dead atm, this sort of target cap change would push things even further in favor of bigger numbers. for the record you have no idea what im putting thought into lol.

 

compare the amount of ppl playing before aoe cap nerf to now and tell me which is more popular.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > Under your 10 target wishlist to address Ben's "too many AoEs being flung around"...

> > You don't want to address any problems, you just want to make them worse... You are not even putting any thought into the repercussion of a 10 target change, nor its effects upon the game engine for mass player battles.

>

> youre taking one small thing ben said and blowing it out of proportion.

>

> you beat me to the punch lol. cuz 3 target cap would make things so much better, sustainball meta > pirateship meta blah blah blah. you and anet both seem to forget about why a lot of people play this mode, its to take down groups much bigger then your own. even though that tactic is dead atm, this sort of target cap change would push things even further in favor of bigger numbers. for the record you have no idea what im putting thought into lol.

>

> compare the amount of ppl playing before aoe cap nerf to now and tell me which is more popular.

 

No, Anet, and many players, don’t “forget” what wvw was designed for...

 

 

YOU are trying to impose changes based off of “I want small groups to beat up big groups”, when the mode was designed PRIMARILY for big group play.

 

And my WvW guild is made up of roamers, who fought bigger groups, so don’t try to tell me I don’t understand the hardships of smaller groups vs bigger groups.

 

Also, I’ve put way more thought into small scale improvements for this game than you have..

 

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/62658/alliance-design-that-stops-the-qq#latest

 

 

[UmbraNoctis.1907]

That video is specifically mentioning small grp play, so what was your point again? If all players were supposed to stack everyone in one huge blob, there would be no point in having that many objectives, that - on paper - are an incentive for players to spread out.

[Swagger.1459]

@"Stand The Wall.6987"

 

And I'm going to highlight your request of making AoEs 10 target so your small group of buddies are more capable of fighting bigger groups...

 

Example...

 

You and your 19 buddies, with new and improved 10 person AoEs, come across a 50 person group of players able to toss those exact same 10 person target AoEs… And since you wanted AoEs to be even more potent by hitting more targets, that 50 person group will be packed full of those AoEs and rip any smaller group to shreads…

 

You didn't think about any of that at all. When the devs make a change it's to a mode or game wide. Not "we are coding in special rules for small groups only, so they can fight bigger groups".

 

[Swagger.1459]

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> That video is specifically mentioning small grp play, so what was your point again? If all players were supposed to stack everyone in one huge blob, there would be no point in having that many objectives, that - on paper - are an incentive for players to spread out.

 

There are many ways to play wvw, however, the main design was for massive player battles to occur.

[Aeolus.3615]

People afraid to get its "carrying" from aoe spam n stacking stoped, should not fear, gamewide less aoe would mean some classesgaining stronger aoe skills with 10-15 cap... people could stack but big aoe's hurting could be the counter...

 

 

Winning could come from timing the big aoe's a smalerl group could hit a larger group as well.

 

[Swagger.1459]

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> That video is specifically mentioning small grp play, so what was your point again? If all players were supposed to stack everyone in one huge blob, there would be no point in having that many objectives, that - on paper - are an incentive for players to spread out.

 

Additionally...

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World

 

"The inspiration for World versus World came from Dark Age of Camelot's realm vs. realm battles."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Age_of_Camelot

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_versus_Realm

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelot_Unchained

 

https://massivelyop.com/2019/02/04/camelot-unchained-surpasses-last-weeks-test-putting-nearly-3500-bots-and-humans-on-a-battlefield/

 

"Were you impressed by Camelot Unchained’s news last week that it had managed to successfully put nearly 3000 humans and human-like bots (ARCs, autonomous remote clients that consume the same number of resources as a real person) on the same battlefield? Be more impressed now, as beta one has expanded that range further.

 

“Believe it or not, among all the other ongoing work this week, we managed to push that number upwards of 3000! (Actually, even further to 3500 before things began to degrade.),” City State Entertainment’s Tyler Rockwell wrote in the latest dev missive."

 

RvR is designed for LARGE SCALE PLAY first. It doesn't matter if you can roam, small scale or stand inside a structure firing ACs all day. The MAIN purpose to WvW is to offer a mode for huge battles to take place.

 

[Justine.6351]

> @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> What if aoe’s have a reduction of sorts when stacked?

 

Sifted through this thread and this was about the only thing useful said.

 

Take meteor shower's reduced damage per strike and apply that universally across WvW per each unique enemy attacker. So my lava fonts would do full damage but would be reduced if other player lava fonts we're cast on same target.

 

>! Oh and lol another nerf hammer rev thread. This time it's reduced targets though which wouldn't offend me compared to other ideas I've seen. Can people imagine hammer rev falling out of Meta? It would be fb/scourge ball vs fb/scourge ball.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Justine.6351" said:

> > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > What if aoe’s have a reduction of sorts when stacked?

>

> Sifted through this thread and this was about the only thing useful said.

>

> Take meteor shower's reduced damage per strike and apply that universally across WvW per each unique enemy attacker. So my lava fonts would do full damage but would be reduced if other player lava fonts we're cast on same target.

>

> >! Oh and lol another nerf hammer rev thread. This time it's reduced targets though which wouldn't offend me compared to other ideas I've seen. Can people imagine hammer rev falling out of Meta? It would be fb/scourge ball vs fb/scourge ball.

 

 

 

@"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > What if aoe’s have a reduction of sorts when stacked?

>

> This is what I think (from my previous post)...

>

> "DR that does stuff like "Sorry xxcooldragondudexx used Meteor Shower, so your Meteor Shower is 25% less effective... and your buddies Meteor Shower is now 50% less effective... and your other pal's Meteor Shower is now 75% less effective... and everyone else who happened to use Meteor Shower is now 0% effective..." is disastrous.". Which also ties into this... "You cannot limit what X profession or X build or X skills are being brought to WvW. If this were structured pvp, where it would make most sense since it has the "structured" element to it, and the devs said 1 of each class, then that system would fail for this type of game. Killing build diversity, and comp creativity and freedom too, are also other negatives..."

>

> From an earlier post, and I want you to think about these numbers and what happens...

>

> Currently...

> "2 blobs containing 10 hammer Revenants and 10 staff Scourges are producing 1,080 target ranged AoEs using 1 ranged AoE skill EACH in total."

>

> After a 3 target AoE change...

> "2 blobs containing 10 hammer Revenants and 10 staff Scourges are now producing 540 target ranged AoEs using 1 AoE skill EACH in total."

>

> This is just calculating hammer Rev and staff Scourge (with removing ranged Shades as mentioned in the OP), but 540 targets being hit is a lot. Now Imagine if we calculated all other AoEs being used... Limiting targets doesn't exclude a profession, or build or weapon or skill... Limiting targets also means melee could play a stronger role, and we may end up finding more balance between ranged AoE and melee play going forward. This also reduces some of the stress on the system because it has to process less information. And the suggestion for the game to calculate DR on each AoE skill means MORE lag because the system has MORE second to second calculations needing to be made.

 

Don't worry, you'll still be able to make hammer Rev roaming and dueling vids...

 

"In wvw only, reduce all ranged AoE and PBAoE attacks, from player skills (not siege), to 3 targets max. Increase damage some to compensate."

 

"Increase damage some to compensate."

 

"Increase damage."

 

 

[UmbraNoctis.1907]

It is designed for large scale play yes, but this doesn't equal "designed for large scale battles exclusively". Small scale can be part of that large scale too. Just like sPvP isn't designed for 1vs1, yet 1vs1 or 2vs2 often play an important role in actual matches. WvW objectives are kinda like capture points in sPvP. If players would actually fight for objectives like they are supposed to do according to the video you linked, they would have to spread and create multiple small fights. It would still be large scale, just like conquest remains a 5vs5 game mode. The thing is, WvW isn't competitive and more like a sandbox than anything else, which means everyone can and should play like he wants to and no playstyle should be deemed the "right" or superior one. Large zerg battles absolutely have their place in WvW. But so do other playstyles and there is no reason why those other playstyles need to get limitd more and more.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

> @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> What if aoe’s have a reduction of sorts when stacked?

 

You mean like a Diminishing Return? Like I mentioned earlier in this thread? LOL. That would be the best way to go. You can still use as many AoE's as you want, just after a certain number of stacks those numbers of damage, buffs, or conditions start doing less and less. So it would force a zerg to have to optimize the amount of AoE's they want to use. Thereby making the zerg squad more diverse and more classes useful in a zerg. Who would've thought of something like that?!

[Swagger.1459]

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> It is designed for large scale play yes, but this doesn't equal "designed for large scale battles exclusively". Small scale can be part of that large scale too. Just like sPvP isn't designed for 1vs1, yet 1vs1 or 2vs2 often play an important role in actual matches. WvW objectives are kinda like capture points in sPvP. If players would actually fight for objectives like they are supposed to do according to the video you linked, they would have to spread and create multiple small fights. It would still be large scale, just like conquest remains a 5vs5 game mode. The thing is, WvW isn't competitive and more like a sandbox than anything else, which means everyone can and should play like he wants to and no playstyle should be deemed the "right" or superior one. Large zerg battles absolutely have their place in WvW. But so do other playstyles and there is no reason why those other playstyles need to get limitd more and more.

 

I wrote the word “primarily”, not exclusively.

[Justine.6351]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> "In wvw only, reduce all ranged AoE and PBAoE attacks, from player skills (not siege), to 3 targets max. Increase damage some to compensate."

>

> "Increase damage some to compensate."

>

> "Increase damage."

>

>

 

Do you even WvW? Increase Hammer Rev damage? The pitchfork mob is already calling for it to be nerfed and you think it's possible to get it increased?

[MithranArkanere.8957]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > @"Cuks.8241" said:

> > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > > > The same skills need to stop stacking with themselves on players.

> > > > > A thousand lava fonts on a champion? Perfectly fine, let them all hit.

> > > > > Two lava fonts under the feet of a player? Only the highest damage one gets to hit that player. The rest will have to hit someone else.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is just one of the things that need to happen, but one of the most important ones.

> > > > >

> > > > > That would not only reduce overturned damage on individual players, it would also discourage build stacking and encourage diversification, as a squad full of players with the same build would have less damage potential per individual enemy.

> > > >

> > > > I can understand that suggestion, however the devs can’t make a system that potentially nullifies a players skill. Players don’t want that either, and you may find yourself in the position where your entire set of weapon skills do not function because other players used those exact same skills. Honestly won’t work the way you might envision it to work.

> > >

> > > Actually that is quite common in games to prevent insane aoe spamming.

> >

> > It is. That's why I mentioned. But it's used mostly for AoEs, I just forgot to mention that bit.

> >

> > Also, it would not prevent two people with the same skill from doing damage to the same person with them, it would only prevent it when done at the same time. Meaning that players could take turns using different AoEs, making sure their rotations are not synchronized on the same skills. So with 3 elementalists, one could could pop lava font while the other does meteor shower, and then switch.

>

> For both of you.

>

> I understand your angles, but those types of things will not work here like you envision them to work here.

>

> I have yet to cross an MMO that cancels 1 player's skill when another player is using that same skill on an opponent or npc. And what you are talking about would mean that in a, example, 50v50 battle there will be X number of players having entire skill sets voided if someone else beat them to the punch. And out of curiosity, what are these many games?

>

> You cannot limit what X profession or X build or X skills are being brought to WvW. If this were structured pvp, where it would make most sense since it has the "structured" element to it, and the devs said 1 of each class, then that system would fail for this type of game. Killing build diversity, and comp creativity and freedom too, are also other negatives... We are allowed to play what we want, and the devs are not going down the rabbit hole of "sorry, you can't play X profession, build, weapon set, trait lines, slot skills... because the system counted too many of those X "things" in EBG".

>

>

> There is also another "dark and dangerous" path if anyone brings up Diminishing Returns on certain scales. Stat DR can be ok to make players diversify stats. DR that does stuff like "Sorry xxcooldragondudexx used Meteor Shower, so your Meteor Shower is 25% less effective... and your buddies Meteor Shower is now 50% less effective... and your other pal's Meteor Shower is now 75% less effective... and everyone else who happened to use Meteor Shower is now 0% effective..." is disastrous. And I've personally experienced things like healing DR and CC DR... and it was bad. Overall, DR is a solution good for paper, not in practice. Games the rely heavily on DR mean those devs are not really addressing issues properly, or wiling to invest to do right for the players of a game. For my personal DR experience, it was added with good intent just like you two are thinking about, but it killed a mode and never recovered. Also, DR is something of last resort when there are no possible other fixes and something HAS to be done.

>

You are missing the point. They would not be cancelled, it'll be used in a different way.

 

It can't be done like in other games, it would have to be done in a way fitting to GW2. So my suggestion is just a start.

 

For example, it could be like this:

 

* If there's other possible targets, the damage would be sent to those, so it would not be negated, but spread.

* If they are all stacked in one enemy, then the server would check whether the enemy is NPC or player. If it's NPC, all the damage is done mormally, it it's a player, the damage would behave like regeneration: the highest one hits until it ends, then the next highest one hits. So they would still not be negated, but merged using an already existing method in GW2.

 

That minimizes the amount of damage lost, addressing only "gang up on single player" situations, which benefits mostly those who are outnumbered.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Justine.6351" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > "In wvw only, reduce all ranged AoE and PBAoE attacks, from player skills (not siege), to 3 targets max. Increase damage some to compensate."

> >

> > "Increase damage some to compensate."

> >

> > "Increase damage."

> >

> >

>

> Do you even WvW? Increase Hammer Rev damage? The pitchfork mob is already calling for it to be nerfed and you think it's possible to get it increased?

 

Nope, I never WvW. Ever... I just stare at the WvW portal icon sometimes and my brain collects real-time data as I concentrate. This data collection super power stare gives me all the knowledge I need, then I form my ideas and post them...

 

...Yes, I'm fully aware of damage output capabilities of professions. When I come up with an ideas it's more in the general realm. We always have to assume other factors are in play and other potential changes would need to be made, but readers can get a basic idea of the topic and direction of the idea. Individual cases can be worked on if problems arise.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > > @"Cuks.8241" said:

> > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > > > > The same skills need to stop stacking with themselves on players.

> > > > > > A thousand lava fonts on a champion? Perfectly fine, let them all hit.

> > > > > > Two lava fonts under the feet of a player? Only the highest damage one gets to hit that player. The rest will have to hit someone else.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is just one of the things that need to happen, but one of the most important ones.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That would not only reduce overturned damage on individual players, it would also discourage build stacking and encourage diversification, as a squad full of players with the same build would have less damage potential per individual enemy.

> > > > >

> > > > > I can understand that suggestion, however the devs can’t make a system that potentially nullifies a players skill. Players don’t want that either, and you may find yourself in the position where your entire set of weapon skills do not function because other players used those exact same skills. Honestly won’t work the way you might envision it to work.

> > > >

> > > > Actually that is quite common in games to prevent insane aoe spamming.

> > >

> > > It is. That's why I mentioned. But it's used mostly for AoEs, I just forgot to mention that bit.

> > >

> > > Also, it would not prevent two people with the same skill from doing damage to the same person with them, it would only prevent it when done at the same time. Meaning that players could take turns using different AoEs, making sure their rotations are not synchronized on the same skills. So with 3 elementalists, one could could pop lava font while the other does meteor shower, and then switch.

> >

> > For both of you.

> >

> > I understand your angles, but those types of things will not work here like you envision them to work here.

> >

> > I have yet to cross an MMO that cancels 1 player's skill when another player is using that same skill on an opponent or npc. And what you are talking about would mean that in a, example, 50v50 battle there will be X number of players having entire skill sets voided if someone else beat them to the punch. And out of curiosity, what are these many games?

> >

> > You cannot limit what X profession or X build or X skills are being brought to WvW. If this were structured pvp, where it would make most sense since it has the "structured" element to it, and the devs said 1 of each class, then that system would fail for this type of game. Killing build diversity, and comp creativity and freedom too, are also other negatives... We are allowed to play what we want, and the devs are not going down the rabbit hole of "sorry, you can't play X profession, build, weapon set, trait lines, slot skills... because the system counted too many of those X "things" in EBG".

> >

> >

> > There is also another "dark and dangerous" path if anyone brings up Diminishing Returns on certain scales. Stat DR can be ok to make players diversify stats. DR that does stuff like "Sorry xxcooldragondudexx used Meteor Shower, so your Meteor Shower is 25% less effective... and your buddies Meteor Shower is now 50% less effective... and your other pal's Meteor Shower is now 75% less effective... and everyone else who happened to use Meteor Shower is now 0% effective..." is disastrous. And I've personally experienced things like healing DR and CC DR... and it was bad. Overall, DR is a solution good for paper, not in practice. Games the rely heavily on DR mean those devs are not really addressing issues properly, or wiling to invest to do right for the players of a game. For my personal DR experience, it was added with good intent just like you two are thinking about, but it killed a mode and never recovered. Also, DR is something of last resort when there are no possible other fixes and something HAS to be done.

> >

> You are missing the point. They would not be cancelled, it'll be used in a different way.

>

> It can't be done like in other games, it would have to be done in a way fitting to GW2. So my suggestion is just a start.

>

> For example, it could be like this:

>

> * If there's other possible targets, the damage would be sent to those, so it would not be negated, but spread.

> * If they are all stacked in one enemy, then the server would check whether the enemy is NPC or player. If it's NPC, all the damage is done mormally, it it's a player, the damage would behave like regeneration: the highest one hits until it ends, then the next highest one hits. So they would still not be negated, but merged using an already existing method in GW2.

>

> That minimizes the amount of damage lost, addressing only "gang up on single player" situations, which benefits mostly those who are outnumbered.

 

Like what other games? What are their specific mechanics? Details are helpful, not just "like in other games".

 

AoEs by design already spread to X targets. But now you want to put skill caps on what 1 player can absorb, then potentially spread the excess damage, or effect, to other potential targets as well? So essentially you want a secondary back-up AoE design that calculates skills and spreads the damage more under certain scenarios...

 

I'm going to say it like this... That will not work out the way you think it would work out period. You are also proposing a DR design rule set that will kill build diversity AND increase the lag on an already strained game engine, because it adds yet ANOTHER layer of information that the game needs to process in real-time... What you are asking for is a "bad for the game" mechanic to be coded in that wouldn't resolve issues. It would make playing wvw 10x more annoying from a character combat standpoint and make combat more laggy… And I'm not some tech-head, or dev, but pretty sure that creating such a design of "individual skill absorb caps and splash damage" rules would be no easy development feat. Especially when you have 80v80, and sometimes 80v80v80, combat scenarios to consider...

 

Edit- So you want to create an even MORE complex ruleset using these types mechanics.. but a massive scale...

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Water_Blast

"Spray a jet of water at your foe that splashes to heal nearby allies."

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Epidemic

Apply vulnerability on yourself. Spread conditions on a target foe to all nearby foes at a reduced duration.

 

...Being inside of wvw with this stuff would even lag out my coffee maker :)

 

[Hitman.5829]

This game has got it all wrong. Range attacks deal huge damage while melee attacks deal pitiful damage. just look at warrior dagger auto attack, it targets 2 enemies only and on average it targets 1.

 

The game should be like this:

* melee attacks target 5 enemies

* Range attacks target 1 enemy.

 

 

 

[oOStaticOo.9467]

> @"Hitman.5829" said:

> This game has got it all wrong. Range attacks deal huge damage while melee attacks deal pitiful damage. just look at warrior dagger auto attack, it targets 2 enemies only and on average it targets 1.

>

> The game should be like this:

> * melee attacks target 5 enemies

> * Range attacks target 1 enemy.

>

>

>

 

WHAT!?! That makes NO sense at all!! LOL. If I am standing right in front of 1 person I should be able to hit 4 others? How is that even possible?? This comment makes no sense whatsoever. Just common sense alone makes that statement untrue.

[MithranArkanere.8957]

> @"Hitman.5829" said:

> This game has got it all wrong. Range attacks deal huge damage while melee attacks deal pitiful damage. just look at warrior dagger auto attack, it targets 2 enemies only and on average it targets 1.

>

> The game should be like this:

> * melee attacks target 5 enemies

> * Range attacks target 1 enemy.

>

There's more to that than just melee vs range.

 

The problem with ranged attacks isn't their damage, but the lack of terrain cover in most maps. This may be an MMORPG, but the combat has strong action and shooter elements, while also aiming for the player. So anyone who is in the open and doesn't bring spammable projectile blocks is easy pickings.

 

Adding more cover all over the place would solve that. More ruins, trees, rocks, etc.

But that would also increase the resources needed to run large maps.

 

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > > > @"Cuks.8241" said:

> > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > > > > > The same skills need to stop stacking with themselves on players.

> > > > > > > A thousand lava fonts on a champion? Perfectly fine, let them all hit.

> > > > > > > Two lava fonts under the feet of a player? Only the highest damage one gets to hit that player. The rest will have to hit someone else.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is just one of the things that need to happen, but one of the most important ones.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That would not only reduce overturned damage on individual players, it would also discourage build stacking and encourage diversification, as a squad full of players with the same build would have less damage potential per individual enemy.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I can understand that suggestion, however the devs can’t make a system that potentially nullifies a players skill. Players don’t want that either, and you may find yourself in the position where your entire set of weapon skills do not function because other players used those exact same skills. Honestly won’t work the way you might envision it to work.

> > > > >

> > > > > Actually that is quite common in games to prevent insane aoe spamming.

> > > >

> > > > It is. That's why I mentioned. But it's used mostly for AoEs, I just forgot to mention that bit.

> > > >

> > > > Also, it would not prevent two people with the same skill from doing damage to the same person with them, it would only prevent it when done at the same time. Meaning that players could take turns using different AoEs, making sure their rotations are not synchronized on the same skills. So with 3 elementalists, one could could pop lava font while the other does meteor shower, and then switch.

> > >

> > > For both of you.

> > >

> > > I understand your angles, but those types of things will not work here like you envision them to work here.

> > >

> > > I have yet to cross an MMO that cancels 1 player's skill when another player is using that same skill on an opponent or npc. And what you are talking about would mean that in a, example, 50v50 battle there will be X number of players having entire skill sets voided if someone else beat them to the punch. And out of curiosity, what are these many games?

> > >

> > > You cannot limit what X profession or X build or X skills are being brought to WvW. If this were structured pvp, where it would make most sense since it has the "structured" element to it, and the devs said 1 of each class, then that system would fail for this type of game. Killing build diversity, and comp creativity and freedom too, are also other negatives... We are allowed to play what we want, and the devs are not going down the rabbit hole of "sorry, you can't play X profession, build, weapon set, trait lines, slot skills... because the system counted too many of those X "things" in EBG".

> > >

> > >

> > > There is also another "dark and dangerous" path if anyone brings up Diminishing Returns on certain scales. Stat DR can be ok to make players diversify stats. DR that does stuff like "Sorry xxcooldragondudexx used Meteor Shower, so your Meteor Shower is 25% less effective... and your buddies Meteor Shower is now 50% less effective... and your other pal's Meteor Shower is now 75% less effective... and everyone else who happened to use Meteor Shower is now 0% effective..." is disastrous. And I've personally experienced things like healing DR and CC DR... and it was bad. Overall, DR is a solution good for paper, not in practice. Games the rely heavily on DR mean those devs are not really addressing issues properly, or wiling to invest to do right for the players of a game. For my personal DR experience, it was added with good intent just like you two are thinking about, but it killed a mode and never recovered. Also, DR is something of last resort when there are no possible other fixes and something HAS to be done.

> > >

> > You are missing the point. They would not be cancelled, it'll be used in a different way.

> >

> > It can't be done like in other games, it would have to be done in a way fitting to GW2. So my suggestion is just a start.

> >

> > For example, it could be like this:

> >

> > * If there's other possible targets, the damage would be sent to those, so it would not be negated, but spread.

> > * If they are all stacked in one enemy, then the server would check whether the enemy is NPC or player. If it's NPC, all the damage is done mormally, it it's a player, the damage would behave like regeneration: the highest one hits until it ends, then the next highest one hits. So they would still not be negated, but merged using an already existing method in GW2.

> >

> > That minimizes the amount of damage lost, addressing only "gang up on single player" situations, which benefits mostly those who are outnumbered.

>

> Like what other games? What are their specific mechanics? Details are helpful, not just "like in other games".

>

> AoEs by design already spread to X targets. But now you want to put skill caps on what 1 player can absorb, then potentially spread the excess damage, or effect, to other potential targets as well? So essentially you want a secondary back-up AoE design that calculates skills and spreads the damage more under certain scenarios...

>

> I'm going to say it like this... That will not work out the way you think it would work out period. You are also proposing a DR design rule set that will kill build diversity AND increase the lag on an already strained game engine, because it adds yet ANOTHER layer of information that the game needs to process in real-time... What you are asking for is a "bad for the game" mechanic to be coded in that wouldn't resolve issues. It would make playing wvw 10x more annoying from a character combat standpoint and make combat more laggy… And I'm not some tech-head, or dev, but pretty sure that creating such a design of "individual skill absorb caps and splash damage" rules would be no easy development feat. Especially when you have 80v80, and sometimes 80v80v80, combat scenarios to consider...

>

> Edit- So you want to create an even MORE complex ruleset using these types mechanics.. but a massive scale...

>

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Water_Blast

> "Spray a jet of water at your foe that splashes to heal nearby allies."

>

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Epidemic

> Apply vulnerability on yourself. Spread conditions on a target foe to all nearby foes at a reduced duration.

>

> ...Being inside of wvw with this stuff would even lag out my coffee maker :)

>

Whatever you are imagining I'm that saying, what I'm reading in your posts to respond to that doesn't match with what I'm saying here.

* Water blast isn't whatever complex mechanic you seem think it is. The "splashing" is just narrative. It's basically 3 effects.

* A projectile that triggers other two effects on hit:

* A hit against a single enemy.

* A single pulse AoE that heals up to 5 nearby allies.

* Epidemic also has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

* 5 slow projectiles with a high arch that start on target and home in on 5 random enemies, that trigger an effect on hit:

* Copy all condition on the original target to the new target, with 50% duration.

 

Those behaviors have nothing to do whatsoever with what I was saying.

 

I'm saying that mindless stacking of pulsing AoE needs stop being as effective against single players, without affecting its use against NPCs at all, and while still working against larger groups of players.

 

Then, I gave an example on how that could be done:

* When two players stack the same pulsing AoE on the same group at the same time. The AoEs would behave as if they were merged instead stacking. So instead having 2 aoes with 5 pulses and up to 5 targets, you'll have 1 AoE with 5 pulses and up to 10 targets.

* The change would not affect attacks against NPCs, only players.

 

In this example, if 1 player stands on two stacked Lava Fonts, only one would hit. The one with its center closer to the enemy, most probably. This could be changed so the one that hits is the one that would deal the most damage by adding a comparison before the hit.

Then if 10 players were to stand on those two lava fonts, all 10 would be hit, and if 1 NPC where to stand in those lava fonts, both would hit as the change affects only players.

 

So stacked pulsing AoEs would try to hit as many players as possible, and won't hit the same player twice. But behave just as always against NPCs.

 

How could that be done specifically? For example, with invisible effects like the one that prevents people from being hit by Coalescense of Ruin from the same player twice. But this time instead checking whether player who activated the skill already hit, it'll only check if the skill itself hit, regardless of owner, so it's actually one check less that what Coalescence of Ruin already does.

 

As for build diversity, it'll mean that having many different builds with many different AoEs would allow focusing damage better than having lots of the same build.

The more different builds a squad has, the less this spreading would happen, since it'll only happen when two pulses of the same skill from 2 different players attempt to hit the the same player. How could that possible discourage build diversity? If anything, it would partially enforce it.

 

Unless you mean something like "freedom of choice" instead. Being able to bring whatever you want without that having negative consequences. A change like this one would indeed affect negatively any squad that brings many players with the same exact build, while greatly favoring diverse squad compositions in comparison.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > Under your 10 target wishlist to address Ben's "too many AoEs being flung around"...

> > > You don't want to address any problems, you just want to make them worse... You are not even putting any thought into the repercussion of a 10 target change, nor its effects upon the game engine for mass player battles.

> >

> > youre taking one small thing ben said and blowing it out of proportion.

> >

> > you beat me to the punch lol. cuz 3 target cap would make things so much better, sustainball meta > pirateship meta blah blah blah. you and anet both seem to forget about why a lot of people play this mode, its to take down groups much bigger then your own. even though that tactic is dead atm, this sort of target cap change would push things even further in favor of bigger numbers. for the record you have no idea what im putting thought into lol.

> >

> > compare the amount of ppl playing before aoe cap nerf to now and tell me which is more popular.

>

> No, Anet, and many players, don’t “forget” what wvw was designed for...

> YOU are trying to impose changes based off of “I want small groups to beat up big groups”, when the mode was designed PRIMARILY for big group play.

>

> And my WvW guild is made up of roamers, who fought bigger groups, so don’t try to tell me I don’t understand the hardships of smaller groups vs bigger groups.

>

> Also, I’ve put way more thought into small scale improvements for this game than you have..

>

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/62658/alliance-design-that-stops-the-qq#latest

>

>

hahahaha ok keep telling yourself that bud. you may have put more thought into it but all of your ideas would make the mode much worse since you have no concept of what said ideas would do in practice. also im not trying to "impose" anything bub, its just one point of view out of many don't get all bent out of shape. besides youre the one advocating for a huge aoe nerf not me so if anyones trying to impose changes its you.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > Under your 10 target wishlist to address Ben's "too many AoEs being flung around"...

> > > > You don't want to address any problems, you just want to make them worse... You are not even putting any thought into the repercussion of a 10 target change, nor its effects upon the game engine for mass player battles.

> > >

> > > youre taking one small thing ben said and blowing it out of proportion.

> > >

> > > you beat me to the punch lol. cuz 3 target cap would make things so much better, sustainball meta > pirateship meta blah blah blah. you and anet both seem to forget about why a lot of people play this mode, its to take down groups much bigger then your own. even though that tactic is dead atm, this sort of target cap change would push things even further in favor of bigger numbers. for the record you have no idea what im putting thought into lol.

> > >

> > > compare the amount of ppl playing before aoe cap nerf to now and tell me which is more popular.

> >

> > No, Anet, and many players, don’t “forget” what wvw was designed for...

> > YOU are trying to impose changes based off of “I want small groups to beat up big groups”, when the mode was designed PRIMARILY for big group play.

> >

> > And my WvW guild is made up of roamers, who fought bigger groups, so don’t try to tell me I don’t understand the hardships of smaller groups vs bigger groups.

> >

> > Also, I’ve put way more thought into small scale improvements for this game than you have..

> >

> > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/62658/alliance-design-that-stops-the-qq#latest

> >

> >

> hahahaha ok keep telling yourself that bud. you may have put more thought into it but all of your ideas would make the mode much worse since you have no concept of what said ideas would do in practice.

 

I think u guys are overthinking a bit and getting outside theme..

 

Imo the solution is simple, since in terms of damage the game isnt that bad, some tweaks m8 be needed but it is not the issue with the class design.

Anet just needs to increase target limit to skills similiar to Meteor shower (+) create some more like the traditional blizard for example that will also hit 10-15 players and reduce the autos to single deppending skill ofc, some aoe's to cleave and some cleaves to 2-1 targets.

 

Playes that really know when and how to spike, spread, call targets and gank with the abose skill desiign and have good team coordination could actually take larger groups.

It would reward more team work skill and single than the lameness we have now to carry every one by just stacking aoe spam in defense and offense.

 

Anet entered in a circle of redudancy that to make new ELITE classes more apealign to new players and PVE players, they were adding power creep in spambility and other forms , this is a huge design FLAW for the sanity of the gameplay itself.

 

More passives and stronger passives will be needed since melee combat is almost to impossible with the current low skill spambility, this design flaw needs to be corrected and it is not by adding more boon spam into the melee classes that will be adressed, that actualluy makes balance more worse, and this is the wrong path that Anet is taking to balance vs the aoe spambility vs individual skill vs group skill, etc, etc.

 

 

Anet ur game is overburden with AOE and cleaves, everythign feels the same by just stack and spam, a more in depth separation needs to be done, for the sake of sanity of the combat :}

 

[Acyk.9671]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > > Under your 10 target wishlist to address Ben's "too many AoEs being flung around"...

> > > > > You don't want to address any problems, you just want to make them worse... You are not even putting any thought into the repercussion of a 10 target change, nor its effects upon the game engine for mass player battles.

> > > >

> > > > youre taking one small thing ben said and blowing it out of proportion.

> > > >

> > > > you beat me to the punch lol. cuz 3 target cap would make things so much better, sustainball meta > pirateship meta blah blah blah. you and anet both seem to forget about why a lot of people play this mode, its to take down groups much bigger then your own. even though that tactic is dead atm, this sort of target cap change would push things even further in favor of bigger numbers. for the record you have no idea what im putting thought into lol.

> > > >

> > > > compare the amount of ppl playing before aoe cap nerf to now and tell me which is more popular.

> > >

> > > No, Anet, and many players, don’t “forget” what wvw was designed for...

> > > YOU are trying to impose changes based off of “I want small groups to beat up big groups”, when the mode was designed PRIMARILY for big group play.

> > >

> > > And my WvW guild is made up of roamers, who fought bigger groups, so don’t try to tell me I don’t understand the hardships of smaller groups vs bigger groups.

> > >

> > > Also, I’ve put way more thought into small scale improvements for this game than you have..

> > >

> > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/62658/alliance-design-that-stops-the-qq#latest

> > >

> > >

> > hahahaha ok keep telling yourself that bud. you may have put more thought into it but all of your ideas would make the mode much worse since you have no concept of what said ideas would do in practice.

>

> I think u guys are overthinking a bit and getting outside theme..

>

> Imo the solution is simple, since in terms of damage the game isnt that bad, some tweaks m8 be needed but it is not the issue with the class design.

> Anet just needs to increase target limit to skills similiar to Meteor shower (+) create some more like the traditional blizard for example that will also hit 10-15 players and reduce the autos to single deppending skill ofc, some aoe's to cleave and some cleaves to 2-1 targets.

>

> Playes that really know when and how to spike, spread, call targets and gank with the abose skill desiign and have good team coordination could actually take larger groups.

> It would reward more team work skill and single than the lameness we have now to carry every one by just stacking aoe spam in defense and offense.

>

> Anet entered in a circle of redudancy that to make new ELITE classes more apealign to new players and PVE players, they were adding power creep in spambility and other forms , this is a huge design FLAW for the sanity of the gameplay itself.

>

> More passives and stronger passives will be needed since melee combat is almost to impossible with the current low skill spambility, this design flaw needs to be corrected and it is not by adding more boon spam into the melee classes that will be adressed, that actualluy makes balance more worse, and this is the wrong path that Anet is taking to balance vs the aoe spambility vs individual skill vs group skill, etc, etc.

>

>

> Anet ur game is overburden with AOE and cleaves, everythign feels the same by just stack and spam, a more in depth separation needs to be done, for the sake of sanity of the combat :}

>

 

Or Anet should keep aoe target as it is? There are way more pressing matters imo