Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Vaknar wanted smth that's not simply a scaled aoe, so I gave a suggestion of a much better system that truly requires skill to use.
Calling something a shit design when you've never used it just makes you silly. Kind of invalidates your opinion of it tbh.
That's like me saying L2 is shit and I haven't played it yet.
Right now I see no damn point why aoes can't just be a yet another skill that simply damages players for a value similar to single target attacks. You keep saying it's unfair, but I don't see why you think that.
I see aoes as unfair to groups of people because why should a single attack do so much dmg to multiple people for, usually, the same price as a single target attack would to a single character.
I'll play Albion just to have the ability to say that I still don't get this design even after trying it, because experiencing something does not equate changing your mind on it.
tbh dont waste ur time with albion, unless u like grinding a lot..but u do. so maybe ull enjoy it lol
That doesn't give me a proper perspective, what that does is make me easy to write off due to a lack of experience.
Because of balance, balance is give and take. It's absolutely okay for AoEs to be destructive in large scale PvP when they hit a bunch of players, scaling lets you tweak those high and low end variables while making sure they are balanced and don't destroy one person in them.
Saying they're a one button nuke is factually incorrect, because we have no seen every AoE in the game.
Thats why they get balanced in combat iterations. AoEs are meant to blanket an area and meant to damage many people, single target attacks are meant to damage one.
I was never trying to change your mind, I told you that.
I am also not trying to dismiss people on the forums when they fundamentally lack more PvP experience than me, because my view point comes from an OG PvP veteran whos got 20+ years in this genre. But, I will dismiss someone who says a food sucks without ever sampling it and in that regard, I don't pay attention to folks who dismiss a mechanic without knowing much about it.
So of course my viewpoint and my suggestions are going to come from a place of someone who knows how to handle such mechanics.
Do I think people deserve a chance? Yes. Do I think people deserve a chance without changing what they're doing? No, if people ball up and trying to brute force shit like an uncoordinated mass and if they get murdered for it, they need to change their approach or get farmed.
To me an aoe is a skill that strikes as many people as are present in its area for the same base dmg. If the power of the skill is 100 and it does 100 to a single person - it will do 100 each to 10 people, if there's 10 people within that aoe.
One person won't suddenly receive 1k dmg simply because the aoe has the potential to do 1k overall dmg.
Is that how aoes worked in games you played? Did they do their full potential dmg to a single person if they were unscaled? Is that why you cling so much to their scaling?
No. AoE scaling does this:
AoE = 100 damage.
1 person in AoE, 1x modifier = 100 damage
2 person in AoE 1.1x modifier = 110 damage
3 person in AoE 1.2x modifier = 120 damage
4 person in AoE 1.3x modifier = 130 damage
You can change the modifiers per person in the AoE.
So we could say
10 person in AoE 5x modifier = 500 damage
That’s all AoE scaling is in its most simplest form.
Devs can tweak those modifiers to balance out any AoE in the game.
So that 5x mod is brutal right? Well they can set it to were 5 person in an AoE has a 2.5x mod. So if five people leave the AoE, it’s only 250 damage.
Its still a bad design that should knly ever be used as a last resort. In a situation where it is that last resort, it works. However, it should still be that last resort.
It’s actually a fine design that works.
From a PvE perspective, it is incredibly bad design.
The topic isn’t PvE, it’s killing ballzergs.
copy the strategy, not the result. because it worked in one game, doesnt mean it will work in another one.
also, you arent taking into consideration that you can have more than one person using an aoe in a group, so lets take your example of 10 people in the aoe receiving a 5x modifier. if i also have 10 people casting an aoe at the same time onto that group, thats 5000 damage, not 500 anymore. people wont even have time to leave the fire as they will be evaporated instantly... 1 win button.
at least ur example is not as bad as OP's. he wants a group of smaller numbers to be able to evaporate the bigger number, so 5 people could kill 10 for example , or 20 or 30 instantly by stacking aoe. he wants to get the advantage simply because he has less people in his team, regardless of whether the enemies are stacked or not. its a win button no matter whether you can see it or not.
you can say w no aoe stacking and yes to scaling...but u could also say yes to aoe stacking and no to aoe scaling.
if the issue is that zergs are unfair to smaller numbers, and let me tell you that zergs were the strongest race in starcraft 2 at launch at least, not sure now, then just voice your concerns and let the devs, who have all the infor aobut the game and are actually better than everyone in this forum at designing the game, find the appropriate solution...a solution that isnt a one win button just because you think its unfair that the other team has more people.
Bud, the scaling example is just that. To illustrate how scaling works.
I’ve run my fair share of guilds, I’ve ran plenty of PvP groups over the years. I already had syncing AoEs in mind before I came to this post as the OP and the rest of the discord goers talked about it in depth.
I know how to destroy clumps, I made groups for the task.
It’s not an iWin button, because you will never sync AoE in the same spot in competent players. They will spread out. That’s the key point here. Zerg players are not competent or they wouldn’t Zerg by the very definition.
It’s perfectly acceptable for a smaller more elite group to roll over zergs many times their numbers.
Like I’ve said, I’ve been doing this for years. I know what will and what will not work.
And if it's 500, then I still do not understand why you consider it unfair if the aoe is just base 500 dmg to single targets. It would just be another "single target" ability when used against single targets.
Are you talking about separate balancing for pve and pvp on abilities then? Cause that's what this sounds like. And that kind of design approach brings a whole lot of shit with it, that Intrepid will have to deal with throughout the entire game's lifetime.
With this comment do you mean that good players will always run around at a distance from each other that is always higher than the diameter of any given aoe? Or that, in your experience, majority of aoes are not on-cast abilities so the good players can simply dodge out of them before their effect takes place?
Cause the first one implies big ranges on other abilities (healer, buff, tank, etc), which then allows people to be that spread out.
While the second one is just about how Intrepid will design their aoes. I'm used to on-cast aoes, so all it takes to sync them on a group of people is simply telling your players to "hit them with an aoe as soon as there's 3+ people in an aoe diameter" and then your members simply herd the enemy groups into aoes (by pulling, kiting, chasing, etc).
I guess if all aoes have a delayed effect that would increase the skill requirement for their usage, but then I'd just come back to my initial point of "why not just give it full power across the board, instead of scaling it", cause if aoes are only useful against zergs (and maaaaybe mobs sometimes) and the whole point of aoes is to prevent zergs from even existing - then what's the point of aoes if they're successful? They'd just be a weak ability that no one uses.
Since Intrepid don't want a seperate combat system for PvE and PvP, any discussion about any aspect of either absolutely must consider the other.
That isn't up for discussion - not unless Steven decides he is suddely ok for combat roles for each seperately.
Fact is, scaling AoE attacks up based on number of targets restricts all PvE content to being nothing more than AoE zerging. No other option would be viable in a PvE setting. Let's not even discuss how actually overpowered a single target DPS character would need to be in order to just be viable in a setting where AoE's scale upwards.
It isn't uncommon for AoE's to be scaled down in PvE, using a similar ratio to the above;
1 target in AoE, 1x = 100 damage
2 target in AoE 0.9x = 90 damage each - 180 total damage
3 target in AoE 0.8x = 80 damage each - 240 total damage
4 target in AoE 0.7x = 70 damage each - 280 total damage
Even with this form of scaling, AoE's in PvE are still incredibly powerful, as the total damage there shows.
With the scaling suggested in this thread above, that AoE that hits 4 targets is dealing 520 damage in total
Again, it's an idea that should only be considered if there is nothing left that can be done.
it is acceptable for a small group to kill a zerg, but it isnt acceptable that you can do so with a 1 win button that can also be used outside of zerguing situations. if zergs are so bad, why do u need the scaling? its true that good players will spread out etc, but thats not the point here. a zerg of good players will beat ur small group and also a zerg of bad players. thats not the point. as the op said when i said the same thing, we r talking about a small group of good players vs a big group of bad players.
what are you going to do then when you fight good players and you are outnumbered? is it acceptable for you to lose then because they have more numbers? or you gonna ask for something else just because you dont have numbers?
In another game, my alliance has daily fights against odds of 4 to 1 (real numbers). While we are dunking on them in direct kills, our strategic objectives are mostly losses as the opposing alliance's numbers gave them absolute control over larger areas, we can only win how much we can cover (which is fine).
GRID CONTROL
In the combat aspect, certain elements outweigh mere numerical strength!
Such crucial factor is grid control. I've faced odds of 10 to 1 and even 20 to 1, and came out victorious. Achieving grid control in open-world games is indeed possible. It can be accomplished through strategic elements like choke points, doors, teleport floors, timed gates (doors, bridges, trapdoors), spells such as stonewalls, crowd control spells and abilities, reflect spells, push spells, level-capped access points, restrictions based on class, size, or race for certain access points, and limitations on the number of players accessing and utilizing world-spawned items or sites, among other strategies.
PLAYER-DRIVEN GAMEPLAY
The second point revolves around the often-forgotten design philosophy of player-driven gameplay!
This concept, unfortunately neglected by developers worldwide, finds a haven specifically in EVE Online's logistics system, logistics is EVE's healing. In EVE, players can apply from 1 to 8 remote repair modules on others, offering flexibility in healing distribution. This player-driven approach brings a layer of skill and decision-making, highlighting precision and prioritization. It contrasts sharply with indiscriminate AoE healing spells where everyone in the vicinity receives healing.
In the context of AoC, if mass healing spells and buffs required that healers or boosters to individually click on each party member or cast the spell multiple times, or at least multiply the cast time based on how many people are entitled to receive such healing, then deathballs would require skill and player interaction with the user interface, setting a more nuanced and strategic experience.
Always remember: AoE is hand-holding, and when a system excessively guides your actions, they tend to exploit it fully.
Veridict
The fusion of these two ideologies is what brought us exceptional PvP experiences, such as Mordhau, Battlerite, Ultima Online, Dark Souls Series, Counter-Strike (we will include shooters), League of Legends, EVE, and more.
Solofication of mmos has been the biggest mistake in the genre. Obviously it's good for profits and the ads of "omg, this game has, like, so many players now!", but it's shit for the game itself.
Also, for such scaling to be reasonable for AoEs that already are the meta for mass pvps(specially in closed places) and to not completely stablish a full player spread only-strategy static meta, there would be a necessity to also create skills that take advantage of players being spread out to counter balance it.
Lineage 2 had such a skill, it was called Rush Impact, a 0 Cooldown instant cast Stunning AoE Gap Close with a minimum range requirement that incentivised players to stay close together and not get rush chains between separated players, while the rest of the game AoE's and skills like Thunder Storm and Aura Flash took huge advantage of players being clamped together.
The key classes owners of said skills HAD to be checked in mass pvps. A single well geared, well supported and well played Doombringer with his Rush Impacts could wreck havoc even under huge numeric disadvantages.
Aren't we all sinners?
I was sticking to the topic at hand which I’ve made a specialty of.
Collision Detection doesn’t stop climbing by itself, but it helps.
Like I said before, these kinds of abilities (starting from powerful aoes) usually bring balance changes with them, because people complain about it a ton. And it all starts a vicious cycle of balancing that never ends. Well, that's of course if the devs are even trying to balance their game.
By the time the Kamaels and Doombringer were released Majestic Sets and Major Arcana Robe were already in the game, considering that stuns were present in all archers, all daggers, all fighters and all tanks, it just made those already popular sets even more popular and certainly made people more willing to use CON dyes, use Talisman of Grounding and Eva Saint's to over-enchant their resist shock buffs, but the next anti-stun set released was Vesper Robe only 4 versions later in Gracia Final. The future robe sets also had stun resist as mage are the most stun vulnerable by having the lowest CON stat among all classes it was simply the best for them.
Aren't we all sinners?
As for 1.5 years of waiting, I'd mostly chuck it up to the fact that Kamas were a completely new thing, so it took time for people to fully level them up, gear them, test them and figure out their OPness. Same applies to Soulhounds paralysis being quite OP and the Vesper Noble Light's set resistance to it.
I still remember majority of light gear classes using dark crystal against me on oly, before Noble was around
Either way, my point is that these things require constant rebalancings. And while no mmo will ever be truly balanced, I would prefer if the balance swings didn't have to be as big as some of L2's were (or at least seemed to me).
I'll ask you like I ask everyone else though, do you have a time machine to really know if it is unreasonable or not?
You can talk about properly balanced AoEs, but that's all AoE scaling does on a finite level.
The "counter" balance to spreading out is having a competent PvP team who has the strategy and tactics to make moves against your opponents.
But, there will already be mass pull mechanics in the game with Tank/Tank (Guardian).
Source for this one when you can, please, I missed something important.
sure give me a second to look on the wiki
I'll keep looking through the wiki and ask Lex, it's going to take me a minute to find it.
If a spell does double damage to you because you are too close to too many people, teams will start to spread out and form new tactics pretty quickly. Even knowing that is a potential threat will change Zerg tactics for sure. Especially around choke points.