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
Yes I know what it says, hence why I said “I highly doubt Steven will let the castle sieges stay random”.
The superior guild is still going to win with group movement, organization, and proper formations.
That’s actually how line fighting works, you can throw hypotheticals at it all you like. But to actually partake and know what works and what doesn’t is a different story.
Those other headless chicken players do their own thing, but you would know that if you were in the sieges.
You are very clearly talking from a lack of knowing what works and what doesnt - in a PvE setting.
The notion of sending people in to trigger the multiplier would work, as it is something I have done in another game to exploit a different mechanic. However, the real baller strat if your suggestion were implemented (assuming Intrepid arent also giving up on PvE) is simply to bring along single target DPS because in order to balance them for PvE in this kind of game they would be either two or three shotting everyone but your tanks.
This is why you dont know what you are talking about - from a PvE perspective.
Edit; I'll give you some context.
Players in PvE can largely ensure they are fighting many targets at once. Be it pulling multiple mobs, or the simple fact that most bosses have adds.
Thus, in order for single target DPS to be viable, they need to deal a like for like ability needs to deal 2/3 the amount of damage an AoE DPS character can deal. This is a rough amount, but is somewhat accurate in every game I have played.
Using the 100 damage example from above, with an additional 10% to the base damage per target hit, lets assume a cap of 8 targets (many games limit AoE's to 8 targets, so it isn't just a random number).
The suggestion with those numbers would see the AoE dealing 180 damage to each of those 8 targets. Lets just assume you are wanting each capped AoE to deal 10% of an average characters HP (it seems you want more than that, but lets go with this). This means we are talking about characters having 1,800 HP in this example.
Now, in order for a single target DPS to be viable, it needs to be able to deal 2/3 the damage of the AoE. The total maximum damage the AoE can deal.
While the AoE dealt 180 damage to each target, that actually means it dealt 1440 damage over those 8 characters. This is the number the single target ability needs to deal 2/3 of in order to be a viable class - meaning that like for like ability would need to be dealing 960 single target damage - in a game where characters have 1,800 HP.
On the other hand, if that AoE didnt scale and just dealt 100 to all 8 targets (still too high for an AoE imo), that single target DPS build would be viable with the like for like ability dealing only 600 damage.
If you're suggesting your going to use npcs, alts, etc to bolster the AoE, the problem here is no ones getting through a competent front line. It's a moot point with blanket AoEs being thrown around.
But I don't see the point in bragging about killing an AI/script. PvE isnt a new concept, it's been around since I've been gaming since the early 2000s. So there's the misread on me on your part.
In a game like Ashes, they can and should easily tune the AI/mobs around the archetypes - its really not a big deal.
And that's all this discussion at the end of the day is, tuning. I can trust that the development team who cares about PvP and PvE will know to tune the classes around each other then the AI/mobs to the classes, it's basic.
What would be the damage from the most basic single target attack/spell that people use as their main source of dmg (give an average value if there's multiple such abilities/attacks).
What I'm trying to get is kinda the same thing Noaani was pointing out. If aoes do a shitton of dmg due to scaling, then single target attacks either have to be waaaay cheaper or do comparable dmg, in order to keep any semblance of pvx class balance in the game.
I assume your example was just that, an example. But I would also assume it's built on experience (which you like to say you have more of), so you gotta have a rough estimate of single target median dmg in mind then. So what is it?
I'm not about to detail the strategies I've come up with in different games to get around or make use of various mechanics and systems present. It's probably best to just make the assumption that if i am preaented with an opportunity for my guilds AoE's to deal an additional 50% damage, I'll make sure that this ie what happens. You have what you can control, I have what I can control. In the gsmes i've seen you talk about, I agree. Yeah, but this isnt what I am talking about - I am talming about balancing archetypes againet each other.
If a game has each a single target and an AoE DPS specalist (and if we assume an AoE cap of 8 targets), the single target specalist will have to be dealing 6 times the damage the AoE specalist can deal to one target.
Thus if an AoE is able to deal 10% of a targets HP in gamage, a single target specalist will be able to deal 50%+ with one hit. If they are not able to deal that much damage, there is no point in bringing a single target DPS. I mean, it is basic.
This thing that I am explaining to you about why scaling AoE's wont work in a game like Ashes because of whst it would require in order to balance classes is basic. Its observational level knowledge of game design, you dont even need to play a game to understand it, let alone know the first thing about actual game design.
However, it is observational from a PvE perspective, not a PvP one, so I do fully understand why you may not have observed it (thus why I am explaining it again).
If you do indeed trust that Intrepid will balance classes and such, the also trust that they wouldnt even consider a mechanic like this unless they opt to make combat in PvP and PvE follow different rules.
if for Example a HUGE Enemy Group is attacking our Node and we are the Defenders -> then similar or same as in a Video already showing a "Monster-Coin(?) Horde" attacking a Node,
we will place our AoE's to nuke the Hell out of whoever approaches right at the Gate(s) and possible Holes in the City-Wall, right ?
Right ?
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Guild is " Balderag's Garde " for now. (German)
Obviously there were other groups as well, but if you wanted to be anywhere near the top in terms of farm/money/gear - you were in either of those party types. And, obviously, they dominated pvp as well. Later on even the archers god a strong aoe
Yes, aoes have always been the best tool for killing people in chokeholds. That's, like, their entire point. And they have inherent "scaling" in the form of hitting as many people as the can fit inside their area.
But this discussion has pretty much been about making aoes an even stronger tool, not only against people in chokepoints but against any group that is not separated by 10m of space between each member. And some of us think that a tool like that is somewhat silly
I illustrated how damage scaling to you because you keep saying “OP button”, mostly because I don’t think you were grasping the mathematics portion - of how scaling works. It contextually wasn’t applied to any particular game.
You want baseless math, made up figures for abilities that are not finalized. Screaming OP with no actual basis at all outside of making up figures without any context or reference to in game Ashes data. It makes it invalid and not worth discussing, I’m not wasting my time with nothing. My response to the OP is very generalized for a reason.
That’s what most of this thread is, made up. The only thing I’m interested in are the concepts which are concrete present in other IPs. Damage scaling, line fighting, and zergbusting.
I don’t worry about AI, it can be tuned around the archetypes. It’s basic coding and figures.
Intrepid is going to do what Intrepid wants to do ultimately, that’s always into consideration on these forums. It is telling though how quick the usual suspects are to jump on things they don’t like.
And at 20+ years in this genre, it’s a “been there done that”. That is more experience than the majority of the community.
No one is concerned about this - you are simply not following the conversation.
The concern about PvE is not in the classes being balanced against the content, it is in the classes being balanced against each other FOR the content.
In PvE, I can make it so I have many targrts around my group or raid most of the time; 90%+, realistically. Based on that, if the game has scaling AoE's and the balance between AoE damage and single target damage is set at a median point rather than the extreme, why would I ever bring single target damage dealers? Clearly AoE damage dealers are vastly superior in 90%+ of all situstions, because i have made that the case.
Thus, in order to make single target damage dealers viable, they need to be balanced against AoE players dealing the maximum damage they can deal, not some median or average amount.
If an AoE damage dealer can deal 180 damage over 8 targets, I am not going to take a single target damage dealer that can only deal 400 damage to 1 target. It just doesnt make sense at all for PvE. If that single target damage dealer was hitting for 600 damage instead of 400, it starts to make sense (though overkill now starts to become a factor).
Saying "The only thing I’m interested in are the concepts which are concrete present in other IPs" simply means to me you arent really after anything here, as you are taking solutions from games that arent comparible to Ashes, and seemingly refusing to even try to understand the differences in Ashes that makes those solutions not work here.
So, I've given you two reasons why it won't work for Ashes (is not suitable for PvE at all, is easy for people to exploit), but I'm now going to give you the third and most obvious;
Ashes PvP is mostly designed around community involvement, rather than specifically keeping things within your guild.
Intrepid want players that happen upon a siege to be able to join then and there. They want people to pick to either attack or defend a caravan when they see one being attacked. They want people to join in on monster coin events, on world bosses, on almost everything.
With that, even the most organised guild in the game needs to expect to be fighting in an unorganised mess most of the time.
For the most part, community participation content like this is all about mi dlessly following the leader, about being a big mass of players doing what needs to be done.
Adding scaling AoE's goes directly in the face of that - directly in the face if what Steven actually wants Ashes to be, as opposed to what you want it to be (community participation vs guild only PvP).
In these more community focused content pieces, scaling AoE's will ruin the game.
You have 20 years of experience and have experience in games with scaling, so I'm literally just asking for an example of why you believe scaling works. Your main argument for it has been "solo players don't die to aoes, while zerg does". To me that shit makes no sense, which is why I've been trying to get an explanation out of you.
I understood how scaling mathematically works back when I read your link to albion. I don't understand why you think it works as a concept, or why you keep saying that solo players would suddenly die from it more than from solo target abilties.
If you don't want to tell me that (and you sure make it seem that way), tell me what link on the wiki can show me the difference between practical aoe dmg and single target dmg.
I'm asking all of this BECAUSE you have the experience. But instead of sharing your knowledge you simply run around in one place getting stuck on completely different parts of the discussion.
I gave you the answer the first time.
I'll say it, one more time. I don't actually care though if you like the answer.
AoE Damage scaling allows power relative to the amount of people standing in it. It allows developers to adjust the AoE. It's oppressiveness can be controlled to a very fine level. Which means if a group large enough to reach the scaling cap of the damage provided by that particular AoE, they will get hit with max damage. If that damage is oppressive enough that group cannot handle it, they will die or they will rethink their strategy. Guess what? It addresses the issue of Zergs and Deathballs, while allowing single target classes to not be completely useless in largescale PvP because their power can be adjusted to hit harder against single targets.
That does not include their abilities to counter act the AoE - the most we have right now is Aegis. There's literally nothing to talk about when none of the toolkits are finalized.
AoEs - Shape, Size, Damage Numbers, Mana cost and any tertiary affects of an AoE.
Single Targets - What kind of single target do you want me to talk about? A concussive shot? A snipe? A powershot, backstab? What kind of ability are we talking about?
I am done repeating myself, but I am sure not feeding into the derailment of a thread - the topic is the topic, its not what anyone else wants.
Except this directly relates to the topic. Having a proper perspective on what players expect/want the rough values to be is a great thing imo.
But it's been obvious from the very start that neither OP nor you were interested in discussing anything concrete about this topic. You were interested in the vague "just make this work" statements and empty claims of "this definitely worked in other games".
I doubt I'll get to a lvl of progress in Albion where I'd get the answer I want, so for now I'll simply keep relying on the videos I posted. And those videos do not show aoes working in the way you claim they do.
People don't like this idea
But the question is... what if AoC beta starts Q1? Does it worth leveling in a new mmo?
My bet is still Q3. But if it is somehow q1 then it is indeed pointless to try and get to high lvl in albion.
Specifically, August 27th, so you can still go for it!
Spoilers!!
I did get my answer after all!
Here's a small compilation that shines a light on what I was trying to get out of Solvryn.
I went through the entire thread again just to make sure I didn't miss what he's talking about in this pic before. The closest thing to this was What I was trying to get out of Solvryn is what that "full strength" implies in the context of other dmg sources. And the first pic here answers that. Ranger hits against single target enemies are weaker than aoes at their max strength. That's literally "the numbers" I wanted.
The second part of that pic is another thing I've been asking for since the start of the thread - an opinion on the balance of aoes. And we finally have the answer from Solvryn, which is "one shot everyone in the aoe". Would be great to hear the opinion of the OP, but he checked out a long time ago, so whatever.
And now for what I think is one of the main differences in experiences here, that lead to the classic "5++ pages of pointless back and forth w/o any shred of understanding".
I think I tried pointing towards this before, but I didn't go hard enough. Throughout the discord discussion (where I pulled the quotes from) and in those 2 other quotes from this thread - it seems that when saying "aoe" Solvryn (and some others) were talking about an area on the ground that lingers for a period of time, ticking its dmg at intervals (the sleep quote implies that to me, which is why I added it).
While when I say "aoe", I'm talking about a singular momentary effect, akin to an arrow hit (happens once and does dmg only on that hit).
So every time I said "people would get nuked during movement, because you can't keep a perfect line formation at that time" I didn't mean "there's gonna be a fucking red circle on the ground that people will keep walking over" and instead meant "as soon as there's 5+ people in a general aoe-sized place - they get clapped by several mages instantly".
At 1:47 in this video you can see the cursor turn into a magic staff and see the character have a casting bar over their head. And there's a dome near the enemies due to this cast. That's the aoe that Solryn and others seem to be talking about (except I dunno if theirs is a channeled thing or not). And as you can see, the zerg is stopped right outside of it, because they know it's an insanely powerful spell (the mage receives <1k dmg from others, but hit 2 people for 12k and 7k with a single tick of that aoe dome).
And as I said on page 2, I'm all for channeled aoes scaling. But in none of Solv's responses, to me saying that, was there an indication that those are the ones he's talking about.
I guessed well but at limit
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/422112/#Comment_422112
Still today I was hoping for Q2: June or even sooner.
So... time to level up in Albion Online
If people tried to circunvent this by bringing everybody in the guild as solo, then then would not have any of the party boosts and heals.
I'm simply throwing this grenade onto the table
Good post, not different than a small post i did in this thread about having a chain lightning that scales up the damage when there's more people clumped up together