10 Target Boon Distribution Priority Suggestion

[Dediggefedde.4961]

There are quite a few skills with 10 Targets. This was probably primarily intended for PvE-Raids.

However, in WvW squads there are often more than 10 players.

In guild-setups and some publics, people try to optimize boon coverage by composing groups with different classes.

Sometimes guild-challanges and some open world bosses in PvE, too, to some extend.

The group size is usually 5 people per group.

 

The problem with 10 targets there is, that the only priority taken into account for the 5 targets outside your group is squad-membership and distance to the caster.

In worst case they can choose players who already have superspeed/alacrity/fury/invisibility/stability.

In setups with more than 10 people, the 5 additional targets are completely unreliable in composing a zerg setup.

On the other hand, making groups of 10 players puts the problem at the 5-target casters, whose boons also become unreliable.

 

How about adding a conditional priority above squad-membership?

In principle this should be doable, since floating cleanses and heals also pick targets conditional if prefered targets have full health/no conditions.

This way, both setups (1. groups of 5 & some groups with 10-target-casters; 2. groups of 10 with 2 5-target-casters in each) will work and become predictable.

 

Priority:

* Party/Subgroup

* **Squad players without the boon**

* Squad

* Allied players

* Your kennel

* Allied players’ kennels

* All other allies

[rng.1024]

I'm actually fairly sure, atleast in the case of healing and condition removal, that should some of the original 5/10 not be in need of either it rolls over to another target within range. This is purely based on numbers I get running with a squad, which wouldn't be possible if I whiff it on people not in need of the support.

 

When it comes to boons, making them skip targets who already have them would make stacking both in duration and strength almost impossible. This is exactly what subsquad priority is for, to encourage each subsquad to have this coverage. The only problem is with superspeed, which will overwrite the current duration, however it would be way too strong (since an effect and not a removable boon) if it would stack. Also you now have the opportunity to give your party double the benefit in certain cases, while if it proritized people outside your group this would no longer be possible.

 

The system as is is meant to cover your groupmates and then splash the excess over to random squadmates within range. Not only does this mean fair distribution, but most supportive skills have a limited range - which means if neither of your "dedicated receivers" are within it then it will do what it does today anyways, so the efficacy in f.ex a WvW setting would quickly drop to 0. In raids this is already optimized with 10 people, and this might even be incentive from the devs for us not to only create megablobs but smaller groups aswell.

[Dediggefedde.4961]

> @"rng.1024" said:

> When it comes to boons, making them skip targets who already have them would make stacking both in duration and strength almost impossible. This is exactly what subsquad priority is for, to encourage each subsquad to have this coverage.

 

I think you misunderstood the suggested change.

 

The priority list suggests, that subgroups still are preferred for boons. That way, for your group regarding boons from your group nothing changes.

I want to change what happens to the floating boons. If they prefer targets that don't have the boon/effect yet, you can reliably use for example 2 renegades and 2 tempests to cover 20 people with alacrity and superspeed.

 

At the moment, the chance at 15 people with 1 tempest and 1 scrapper for all 5 of the 3rd group to get superspeed is around 1.6%.

Especially with superspeed, this is a big source of slackers if the commander gets superspeed.

With other boons, it's not as critical, but it would also be nice if 10-target-source-boons are reliable in non-source groups...

[rng.1024]

> @"Dediggefedde.4961" said:

> > @"rng.1024" said:

> > When it comes to boons, making them skip targets who already have them would make stacking both in duration and strength almost impossible. This is exactly what subsquad priority is for, to encourage each subsquad to have this coverage.

>

> I think you misunderstood the suggested change.

>

> The priority list suggests, that subgroups still are preferred for boons. That way, for your group regarding boons from your group nothing changes.

> I want to change what happens to the floating boons. If they prefer targets that don't have the boon/effect yet, you can reliably use for example 2 renegades and 2 tempests to cover 20 people with alacrity and superspeed.

>

> At the moment, the chance at 15 people with 1 tempest and 1 scrapper for all 5 of the 3rd group to get superspeed is around 1.6%.

> Especially with superspeed, this is a big source of slackers if the commander gets superspeed.

> With other boons, it's not as critical, but it would also be nice if 10-target-source-boons are reliable in non-source groups...

 

What you don't take into account in your 15 man group is that instead of 5 people getting pulsing boons for it's full duration, 10 people get it for half. It's arguable whether or not that's a desired outcome.

 

Also I never mentioned subsquad priority went out the window, only why the floating boons weren't further prioritized. So no I did not misunderstand your question.

 

Like I already stated, having it deprioritize those with the boon already with a superfluos source, would cause all kinds of issues. Like for instance, your guardian is the first to pop big stability (10-man shout). This means as the next guardian pops his (other subsquad) if you have any stab from any source, even just 1, you will get nothing. Then you will need double the coordination that groups have today. Or in the case of Fire Overload, instead of giving 10 people 10 might this would cause an incredibly awkward distribution given might is so common, changing targets after every pulse because they now have the boon. Not only that, having to search for and adjust to different targets would take a massive toll on server calculations needing to be done each second, as we already know would result in significant server lag if enough players are present.

[Aeolus.3615]

If boons could ignore minions for a start.. would be nice...

[Shep.4026]

> @"rng.1024" said:

> > @"Dediggefedde.4961" said:

> > > @"rng.1024" said:

> > > When it comes to boons, making them skip targets who already have them would make stacking both in duration and strength almost impossible. This is exactly what subsquad priority is for, to encourage each subsquad to have this coverage.

> >

> > I think you misunderstood the suggested change.

> >

> > The priority list suggests, that subgroups still are preferred for boons. That way, for your group regarding boons from your group nothing changes.

> > I want to change what happens to the floating boons. If they prefer targets that don't have the boon/effect yet, you can reliably use for example 2 renegades and 2 tempests to cover 20 people with alacrity and superspeed.

> >

> > At the moment, the chance at 15 people with 1 tempest and 1 scrapper for all 5 of the 3rd group to get superspeed is around 1.6%.

> > Especially with superspeed, this is a big source of slackers if the commander gets superspeed.

> > With other boons, it's not as critical, but it would also be nice if 10-target-source-boons are reliable in non-source groups...

>

> What you don't take into account in your 15 man group is that instead of 5 people getting pulsing boons for it's full duration, 10 people get it for half. It's arguable whether or not that's a desired outcome.

>

> Also I never mentioned subsquad priority went out the window, only why the floating boons weren't further prioritized. So no I did not misunderstand your question.

>

> Like I already stated, having it deprioritize those with the boon already with a superfluos source, would cause all kinds of issues. Like for instance, your guardian is the first to pop big stability (10-man shout). This means as the next guardian pops his (other subsquad) if you have any stab from any source, even just 1, you will get nothing. Then you will need double the coordination that groups have today. Or in the case of Fire Overload, instead of giving 10 people 10 might this would cause an incredibly awkward distribution given might is so common, changing targets after every pulse because they now have the boon. Not only that, having to search for and adjust to different targets would take a massive toll on server calculations needing to be done each second, as we already know would result in significant server lag if enough players are present.

 

I don't quite know why and I sure as hell don't understand everything you just explained, but m8, I am in awe of your understanding of how boons work in this game. There is most definitely nothing rng about it.

[Dediggefedde.4961]

> @"rng.1024" said:

I might still have trouble understanding you. However the stability problem is already present.

even if all groups have 2 guards and only mine has none and all proc their 10-target stability, there is a chance I dont get any, since they target each other.

A system that ensures that everyone has at least 1 stack and not some rnd 2 groups 25 stacks of stability instead is in my opinion preferable.

[rng.1024]

> @"Dediggefedde.4961" said:

> > @"rng.1024" said:

> I might still have trouble understanding you. However the stability problem is already present.

> even if all groups have 2 guards and only mine has none and all proc their 10-target stability, there is a chance I dont get any, since they target each other.

> A system that ensures that everyone has at least 1 stack and not some rnd 2 groups 25 stacks of stability instead is in my opinion preferable.

 

I get your point, but I believe it's not intended to be a guarantee. The way it is implemented points to it acting more like an additional gamble that may or may not benefit you - which already is pure powercreep since you now can do the job of 2x your own profession. But the point is it requires positioning, timing and trait/skill investment as is and therefore it is excusable. The moment we do your suggestion the support meta locks and we have permaboon-trains, as of right now the benefit doesn't necessarily outweigh the sacrifice when it comes to profession-stacking.

 

Also keep in mind there are alot of ways to abuse the system, f.ex pop your 5-man 1 stack 2 sec stab as the commander calls for stab denying your party any meaningful cc-protection, or a dps profession giving you their 1 second protection and another party gets the elementalist overload 5 second protection.

 

To be honest I don't see how the change would do that much, durations would still be uneven and range would still be king. So unless you are a true meleeball, have figured out the exact timings of when to coordinate your boons and the builds to achieve 100% uptime - then sure. But that would only lead to further unnecessary profession nerfs or a forced change of the meta, like with the stability change.

 

Random is good:

- Rewards good play

- Creates an inherent flaw

- Is optional

 

Any other mechanic would increase powercreep meaning we might not have 10-man target skills much longer because they proved to be too sustained in organized play.

[rng.1024]

> @"Shep.4026" said:

> > @"rng.1024" said:

> > > @"Dediggefedde.4961" said:

> > > > @"rng.1024" said:

> > > > When it comes to boons, making them skip targets who already have them would make stacking both in duration and strength almost impossible. This is exactly what subsquad priority is for, to encourage each subsquad to have this coverage.

> > >

> > > I think you misunderstood the suggested change.

> > >

> > > The priority list suggests, that subgroups still are preferred for boons. That way, for your group regarding boons from your group nothing changes.

> > > I want to change what happens to the floating boons. If they prefer targets that don't have the boon/effect yet, you can reliably use for example 2 renegades and 2 tempests to cover 20 people with alacrity and superspeed.

> > >

> > > At the moment, the chance at 15 people with 1 tempest and 1 scrapper for all 5 of the 3rd group to get superspeed is around 1.6%.

> > > Especially with superspeed, this is a big source of slackers if the commander gets superspeed.

> > > With other boons, it's not as critical, but it would also be nice if 10-target-source-boons are reliable in non-source groups...

> >

> > What you don't take into account in your 15 man group is that instead of 5 people getting pulsing boons for it's full duration, 10 people get it for half. It's arguable whether or not that's a desired outcome.

> >

> > Also I never mentioned subsquad priority went out the window, only why the floating boons weren't further prioritized. So no I did not misunderstand your question.

> >

> > Like I already stated, having it deprioritize those with the boon already with a superfluos source, would cause all kinds of issues. Like for instance, your guardian is the first to pop big stability (10-man shout). This means as the next guardian pops his (other subsquad) if you have any stab from any source, even just 1, you will get nothing. Then you will need double the coordination that groups have today. Or in the case of Fire Overload, instead of giving 10 people 10 might this would cause an incredibly awkward distribution given might is so common, changing targets after every pulse because they now have the boon. Not only that, having to search for and adjust to different targets would take a massive toll on server calculations needing to be done each second, as we already know would result in significant server lag if enough players are present.

>

> I don't quite know why and I sure as hell don't understand everything you just explained, but m8, I am in awe of your understanding of how boons work in this game. There is most definitely nothing rng about it.

 

You sir/lady, is the awe-inspiring one <3

[Dediggefedde.4961]

> @"rng.1024" said:

> Random is good:

> - Rewards good play

> - Creates an inherent flaw

> - Is optional

>

> Any other mechanic would increase powercreep meaning we might not have 10-man target skills much longer because they proved to be too sustained in organized play.

 

I disagree with your list since random does not reward good players.

The stability situation is a bit too artificial, but I have a more realistic example.

We run 2 tempests and a scrapper in a group of 25, which is a somewhat common ratio nowadays.

This is enough cleansing and healing since those do already what I suggested. If your group is full HP or without conditions, squad-members are healed/cleansed instead.

Now the commander demands superspeed (tempests running eye of the storm, scrapper procs shocking speed with hammer/shield-4 + bulwark).

Usually in an organized squad, staying further away from the commander than the shocking speed radius is already punishing (unless you play dmg-ele, hunter or thief). So, you can bet that the whole zerg is in the eye-of-storm range.

The factor that decides who will get superspeed out of the 3 guaranteed groups is only the distance to the caster. And during a battle, this is completely random, since most people stack in situations superspeed is demanded. You could only say that staying further away from the commander than 600 when he wants to rush somewhere with superspeed is punished right now. But the opposite is in my opinion not "good play" but should be the norm for most classes.

 

I agree with your third point, though. Any type of team play will be boosted since it rewards thinking about group-constellation and build-choice. However, at the moment you have the choice of basically ignoring the 10-target extension and either put a source in each group of 5 or live with groups not having a guaranteed source not getting anything occasionally. The change would combine the advantages, so you can have guaranteed coverage, provided you bring enough classes, and some free group slots.

[rng.1024]

> @"Dediggefedde.4961" said:

> > @"rng.1024" said:

> > Random is good:

> > - Rewards good play

> > - Creates an inherent flaw

> > - Is optional

> >

> > Any other mechanic would increase powercreep meaning we might not have 10-man target skills much longer because they proved to be too sustained in organized play.

>

> I disagree with your list since random does not reward good players.

> The stability situation is a bit too artificial, but I have a more realistic example.

> We run 2 tempests and a scrapper in a group of 25, which is a somewhat common ratio nowadays.

> This is enough cleansing and healing since those do already what I suggested. If your group is full HP or without conditions, squad-members are healed/cleansed instead.

> Now the commander demands superspeed (tempests running eye of the storm, scrapper procs shocking speed with hammer/shield-4 + bulwark).

> Usually in an organized squad, staying further away from the commander than the shocking speed radius is already punishing (unless you play dmg-ele, hunter or thief). So, you can bet that the whole zerg is in the eye-of-storm range.

> The factor that decides who will get superspeed out of the 3 guaranteed groups is only the distance to the caster. And during a battle, this is completely random, since most people stack in situations superspeed is demanded. You could only say that staying further away from the commander than 600 when he wants to rush somewhere with superspeed is punished right now. But the opposite is in my opinion not "good play" but should be the norm for most classes.

>

> I agree with your third point, though. Any type of team play will be boosted since it rewards thinking about group-constellation and build-choice. However, at the moment you have the choice of basically ignoring the 10-target extension and either put a source in each group of 5 or live with groups not having a guaranteed source not getting anything occasionally. The change would combine the advantages, so you can have guaranteed coverage, provided you bring enough classes, and some free group slots.

 

So you are saying someone popping the 10 man superspeed with 3 targets in range is just as good a player as the one that makes sure he always has 10 targets? Well I disagree, not only do you have to make sure most of your party is included, but in doing so you automatically splash the benefit to others that are in range too.

 

The easiest solution requires simply a defined front/mid and backline. Just spamming it when stacked doesn't require any afterthought - and this is exactly why certain buffs don't stack and range is a limiting factor - to encourage active gameplay. What happens if we apply your scenario? Optimal coverage is reached when you spam your buttons off cooldown. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, but then gw2 isn't quite the game to go looking for that in, if that's how you like it.

 

And you can't ignore how if this change was made, 10-target support would be mandatory - simply because it cannot whiff and makes you worth 2 players. I'm not saying random is optimal, just saying that it's the better of the two alternatives namely because you can waste them, can rng them away and can help immensely if you have a good player who knows when and where to pop them.

 

This reason alone, that if your change went through you would be worth double, would mean way more sustain for absolutely no change in damage - which is powercreep nonetheless. Which further begs the question: would you then be fine with certain power/condition skills becoming 10 man and spread out from the original bomb to others behind tag without any decrease in effectivity? Because that's what we're looking at.

 

Edit: I simply don't see how it would do any good, however at the same time I cannot tell what changes it would cause should it be implemented. It's definitely doable, and I 100% get your desire for it, so I wouldn't mind. I just enjoy hearing your thoughtprocess and arguments, which are all valid btw. But I feel this is more of a camp issue where people find themselves in one or the other, like with the addition of WvW mounts - and we both know how that turned out :)

[Dediggefedde.4961]

> @"rng.1024" said:

> So you are saying someone popping the 10 man superspeed with 3 targets in range is just as good a player as the one that makes sure he always has 10 targets?

No? I hope I didn't! ^^

In all my examples, there should be 25 players in range in all cases.

I was talking about 3 groups = 15 players at one point. You own group is guaranteed to get the buff, but if it's a 10-target-boon, the remaining 5 are applied by proximity, which is in a stacked WvW-zerg pretty random.

The problem with boon priority does not exist if the number of targets is above the people in range. ^^

 

> The easiest solution requires simply a defined front/mid and backline.

This is, in theory, a solution, but has two problems:

Backline further away than eye-of-storm range usually has a problem following.

Also, boons shared across back-/frontlines (alacrity, stability, superspeed) require everyone to stack.

 

> And you can't ignore how if this change was made, 10-target support would be mandatory

On one hand, this is true. We see this with firebrand which mostly replaced 2 core-guards. However, most setups already run 10-target traits and usually you don't put a tempest or scrapper in every group.

 

> This reason alone, that if your change went through you would be worth double, would mean way more sustain for absolutely no change in damage - which is powercreep nonetheless. Which further begs the question: would you then be fine with certain power/condition skills becoming 10 man and spread out from the original bomb to others behind tag without any decrease in effectivity?

I agree that this will only benefit organized zergs while not directly disadvantaging others. However, it is actually mostly an offensive buff. As far as I remember, 10-target supports are renegade-alacrity, herold-buffs (might, fury, swiftness) and tempest-shouts. Aside from superspeed, which is a , not purely defensive tactical buff (and some mostly unused tempest-shouts), those are all offensive buffs.

So, instead of more sustain, I expect the damage to increase from this change.

 

> Edit: [ ... ], like with the addition of WvW mounts - and we both know how that turned out :)

I like the mounts... my necro was never this fast ;) and desert-border became defendable.

Some things still need change in my opinion, but that's a different thread. ^^