Laetitian wrote: » Endowed wrote: » Otr wrote: » There are 6 factions in the game: 5 metropolis nations and the 20 neutral nodes outside them. And when they are all in an (largely predetermined) brotherhood (not in-game mechanics) they are just one blob faction. Steven comes from games which are exactly this. Haves and have-nots, where RMTs are incredibly effective. :Elrond Voice: " I was there three thousand years ago in Lineage2" What's your point? If all players across the entire realm are part of the same alliance "brotherhood," there's no opposition against the brotherhood. Okay? At that point the players have made their decision, and you should probably want to go play on a different realm that's not infested with lame people anyway, no?
Endowed wrote: » Otr wrote: » There are 6 factions in the game: 5 metropolis nations and the 20 neutral nodes outside them. And when they are all in an (largely predetermined) brotherhood (not in-game mechanics) they are just one blob faction. Steven comes from games which are exactly this. Haves and have-nots, where RMTs are incredibly effective. :Elrond Voice: " I was there three thousand years ago in Lineage2"
Otr wrote: » There are 6 factions in the game: 5 metropolis nations and the 20 neutral nodes outside them.
Dolyem wrote: » Also, if there is no AOE cap, zergs will crumble to small groups.
George_Black wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Also, if there is no AOE cap, zergs will crumble to small groups. With or without caps, if AoC allows for AoE gameplay to overshadow single target dmg the massively larger numbers will always win and nobody will enjoy pvp.
Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Adding AoE spells that increase damage based on how many targets are in the area as a means to get rid of zergs is just swaping one low skill play for another. If the idea is to get rid of low skill play, then it isn't ever going to work. if the idea isn't to get rid of low skill play, then it is pointless to implement. No it just punishes large groups of players that arent coordinated. Think of it as a "zerg tax". Should numerical superiority be a valid strategy? Of course. Should you have to be wary of things that can counterract it? Yes. That's the point of anti-zerg, ant-deathball type mechanics like having a handful of scaling AoE damage abilities (or like ive suggested, items like mines, grenades, bombs, etc). I think you are missing the point. Sure, a game should have anti-zerg mechanics and/or systems. Not arguing that point. However, systems where a small number of players can influence a large number of players in a significant way should take some skill. Making it so AoE damage scales up based on how many targets it will hit is something so low skill that people could make use of it by accident. It is a low skill "solution" to the low skill "problem" of zeros. At the very least, make it so that bards are able to mark players with an effect, and a different class has AoE abilities that multiply damage and increase the target cap by an amount based on how many marked targets they will hit. Even that is fairly base level in terms of player skill. Simply adding damage to AoE's based on total targets is mind-numbingly unskilled and should be as discouraged as mind-numbingly unskilled zeros are. I really don't get how people can complain about something like zerging, but then think such an unskilled solution is a good idea. I get your point and we are nearly at agreement here but I still think having special skills or items that require good timing and were far and few between (so wasting them was a possibility) is no less "no skill" than a zerg shoveling it's way though a chokepoint with overwhelming numbers and no consequences to its movement/grouping. I still think some kind of strong AoE has to be a tool against that behavior. I am NOT saying numbers shouldn't be a valid strategic win condition, they just shouldn't be the only one and should also require skill in coordinating otherwise they can be punished with the aforementioned mechanics or skills.
Noaani wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Adding AoE spells that increase damage based on how many targets are in the area as a means to get rid of zergs is just swaping one low skill play for another. If the idea is to get rid of low skill play, then it isn't ever going to work. if the idea isn't to get rid of low skill play, then it is pointless to implement. No it just punishes large groups of players that arent coordinated. Think of it as a "zerg tax". Should numerical superiority be a valid strategy? Of course. Should you have to be wary of things that can counterract it? Yes. That's the point of anti-zerg, ant-deathball type mechanics like having a handful of scaling AoE damage abilities (or like ive suggested, items like mines, grenades, bombs, etc). I think you are missing the point. Sure, a game should have anti-zerg mechanics and/or systems. Not arguing that point. However, systems where a small number of players can influence a large number of players in a significant way should take some skill. Making it so AoE damage scales up based on how many targets it will hit is something so low skill that people could make use of it by accident. It is a low skill "solution" to the low skill "problem" of zeros. At the very least, make it so that bards are able to mark players with an effect, and a different class has AoE abilities that multiply damage and increase the target cap by an amount based on how many marked targets they will hit. Even that is fairly base level in terms of player skill. Simply adding damage to AoE's based on total targets is mind-numbingly unskilled and should be as discouraged as mind-numbingly unskilled zeros are. I really don't get how people can complain about something like zerging, but then think such an unskilled solution is a good idea.
Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Adding AoE spells that increase damage based on how many targets are in the area as a means to get rid of zergs is just swaping one low skill play for another. If the idea is to get rid of low skill play, then it isn't ever going to work. if the idea isn't to get rid of low skill play, then it is pointless to implement. No it just punishes large groups of players that arent coordinated. Think of it as a "zerg tax". Should numerical superiority be a valid strategy? Of course. Should you have to be wary of things that can counterract it? Yes. That's the point of anti-zerg, ant-deathball type mechanics like having a handful of scaling AoE damage abilities (or like ive suggested, items like mines, grenades, bombs, etc).
Noaani wrote: » Adding AoE spells that increase damage based on how many targets are in the area as a means to get rid of zergs is just swaping one low skill play for another. If the idea is to get rid of low skill play, then it isn't ever going to work. if the idea isn't to get rid of low skill play, then it is pointless to implement.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » @Veeshan a question. What did you mean here Veeshan wrote: » TLDR: AoE need to be effective at clumps but less effective against single targets so like single target spell does 60% more dmg than an aoe skill so to get your value u need to hit 3 targets at a time kinda deal. Did you mean "Skill A is single target and has 100 power. Skill B has 60 power when hitting one person, but has 100 power when hitting 3 people" or did you mean "skill B has 60 power, so when you hit 3 people for that 60 power - you do more than 100 dmg overall, so it's more useful than using skill A against one target"? Or perhaps you meant something completely different?
Veeshan wrote: » TLDR: AoE need to be effective at clumps but less effective against single targets so like single target spell does 60% more dmg than an aoe skill so to get your value u need to hit 3 targets at a time kinda deal.
Dimitraeos wrote: » George_Black wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Also, if there is no AOE cap, zergs will crumble to small groups. With or without caps, if AoC allows for AoE gameplay to overshadow single target dmg the massively larger numbers will always win and nobody will enjoy pvp. Why would having a handful of AoE options to punish heavily grouped up zerg/deathballs mean that single target is overshadowed? How does a smaller group fight a larger group without some kind of strong aoe to punish them zerging?
George_Black wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » George_Black wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Also, if there is no AOE cap, zergs will crumble to small groups. With or without caps, if AoC allows for AoE gameplay to overshadow single target dmg the massively larger numbers will always win and nobody will enjoy pvp. Why would having a handful of AoE options to punish heavily grouped up zerg/deathballs mean that single target is overshadowed? How does a smaller group fight a larger group without some kind of strong aoe to punish them zerging? Because the zerg group has the option for the same abilities. You have let's say 20 people with aoe abilities that deal 2k aoe dmg. No limit on targets. And you have 30 people with the same shit. The 30 will win.
Veeshan wrote: » George_Black wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » George_Black wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Also, if there is no AOE cap, zergs will crumble to small groups. With or without caps, if AoC allows for AoE gameplay to overshadow single target dmg the massively larger numbers will always win and nobody will enjoy pvp. Why would having a handful of AoE options to punish heavily grouped up zerg/deathballs mean that single target is overshadowed? How does a smaller group fight a larger group without some kind of strong aoe to punish them zerging? Because the zerg group has the option for the same abilities. You have let's say 20 people with aoe abilities that deal 2k aoe dmg. No limit on targets. And you have 30 people with the same shit. The 30 will win. Doesnt quiet work that way, player density of the larger group is higher so your aoe will hit more targets at once since a smaller group can spread out easier than a larger one. Dont get me wrong the larger group has the advantage still but it not as much 10 players vs 30 players the cluster of 30 players ill be more dense so any aoe are more likely to hit more targets at once than the group of 30 aoeing the group of 10 Single target skills 10 players = 10 instances of dmg 30 players = 30 instances of dmg AoE attacks for 10v30 10 players casting aoe can do 0-300 instances of dmg (However higher chance to hit closer to the 300 mark due to more players density) where 30 players do 0 - 300 instances of dmg aswell (However lower chance to hit the 300 mark due to lower player density)
George_Black wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » George_Black wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Also, if there is no AOE cap, zergs will crumble to small groups. With or without caps, if AoC allows for AoE gameplay to overshadow single target dmg the massively larger numbers will always win and nobody will enjoy pvp. Why would having a handful of AoE options to punish heavily grouped up zerg/deathballs mean that single target is overshadowed? How does a smaller group fight a larger group without some kind of strong aoe to punish them zerging? Because the zerg group has the option for the same abilities. You have let's say 20 people with aoe abilities that deal 2k aoe dmg. No limit on targets. And you have 30 people with the same shit. The 30 will win. AoE gameplay with or without limits is the same thing. Dont delude your selves that somehow your smaller group of 20 is more skilled and with the assistance of unrestricted aoe skills you will survive the aoe dmg coming from the 30 people. To combat AoE zergfests you need to make guild leveling a tough, active gameplay in order to unlock more slots, more skills more perks (alliance invitations/formations, castle ownerships). Restricted aoe or not if zergs arent addressed with actual solutions the few will lose to the many. Player skill and organization will matter if the difference is 5-8 player difference, with the smaller group being very good at pvp and the larger very bad. How is it not obvious that aoe restrictions do nothing at all if AoEs and zergs are not considered in the games/guilds/combat development?
George_Black wrote: » Any combat tool "used against zergs" is better at the hand of zergs. Zergs are addressed with meaningful guild progress quests. Nothing else.
Noaani wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Adding AoE spells that increase damage based on how many targets are in the area as a means to get rid of zergs is just swaping one low skill play for another. If the idea is to get rid of low skill play, then it isn't ever going to work. if the idea isn't to get rid of low skill play, then it is pointless to implement. No it just punishes large groups of players that arent coordinated. Think of it as a "zerg tax". Should numerical superiority be a valid strategy? Of course. Should you have to be wary of things that can counterract it? Yes. That's the point of anti-zerg, ant-deathball type mechanics like having a handful of scaling AoE damage abilities (or like ive suggested, items like mines, grenades, bombs, etc). I think you are missing the point. Sure, a game should have anti-zerg mechanics and/or systems. Not arguing that point. However, systems where a small number of players can influence a large number of players in a significant way should take some skill. Making it so AoE damage scales up based on how many targets it will hit is something so low skill that people could make use of it by accident. It is a low skill "solution" to the low skill "problem" of zeros. At the very least, make it so that bards are able to mark players with an effect, and a different class has AoE abilities that multiply damage and increase the target cap by an amount based on how many marked targets they will hit. Even that is fairly base level in terms of player skill. Simply adding damage to AoE's based on total targets is mind-numbingly unskilled and should be as discouraged as mind-numbingly unskilled zeros are. I really don't get how people can complain about something like zerging, but then think such an unskilled solution is a good idea. I get your point and we are nearly at agreement here but I still think having special skills or items that require good timing and were far and few between (so wasting them was a possibility) is no less "no skill" than a zerg shoveling it's way though a chokepoint with overwhelming numbers and no consequences to its movement/grouping. I still think some kind of strong AoE has to be a tool against that behavior. I am NOT saying numbers shouldn't be a valid strategic win condition, they just shouldn't be the only one and should also require skill in coordinating otherwise they can be punished with the aforementioned mechanics or skills. Having special skill is one thing, making all AoE's (that are unlikely to be rhat rare) scale damage up based on how many targets they hit is a completely different thing. If you are arguing for "something", that's great, and we agree. If you are arguing for the specific AoE effect, that is less than great. First of all, it is not likely that AoE's will be rare enough as to make blowing a cooldown to be an issue - you will have another AoE on hand if you want it. Second, with a support class in the game, you don't want to blanket discourage people from being reasonably close. Having AoEs just blanket do additional damage based on how many targets they hit will render support basically worthless in PvP. Combined, this makes the notion of this blanket effect on AoE's come across as nothing more than a solution (or potential solution) for a different game that people are trying to suggest for Ashes without actually considering the effects in this game. On the other hand, make it so a few specific AoE's scale up in damage, targets and even area based on how many people it hits with a specific condition that bards can place on rivals, and you have a situation where support are needed in PvP, where healers cleansing this condition becomes exceedingly important, and where timing bards using this condition with DPS using the AoE that is increased by it is a key to winning in PvP. Just "AoE does more damage based on how many people it hits" is not suited to Ashes, and I really can't see how anyone would ever specifically want that here.
Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Adding AoE spells that increase damage based on how many targets are in the area as a means to get rid of zergs is just swaping one low skill play for another. If the idea is to get rid of low skill play, then it isn't ever going to work. if the idea isn't to get rid of low skill play, then it is pointless to implement. No it just punishes large groups of players that arent coordinated. Think of it as a "zerg tax". Should numerical superiority be a valid strategy? Of course. Should you have to be wary of things that can counterract it? Yes. That's the point of anti-zerg, ant-deathball type mechanics like having a handful of scaling AoE damage abilities (or like ive suggested, items like mines, grenades, bombs, etc). I think you are missing the point. Sure, a game should have anti-zerg mechanics and/or systems. Not arguing that point. However, systems where a small number of players can influence a large number of players in a significant way should take some skill. Making it so AoE damage scales up based on how many targets it will hit is something so low skill that people could make use of it by accident. It is a low skill "solution" to the low skill "problem" of zeros. At the very least, make it so that bards are able to mark players with an effect, and a different class has AoE abilities that multiply damage and increase the target cap by an amount based on how many marked targets they will hit. Even that is fairly base level in terms of player skill. Simply adding damage to AoE's based on total targets is mind-numbingly unskilled and should be as discouraged as mind-numbingly unskilled zeros are. I really don't get how people can complain about something like zerging, but then think such an unskilled solution is a good idea. I get your point and we are nearly at agreement here but I still think having special skills or items that require good timing and were far and few between (so wasting them was a possibility) is no less "no skill" than a zerg shoveling it's way though a chokepoint with overwhelming numbers and no consequences to its movement/grouping. I still think some kind of strong AoE has to be a tool against that behavior. I am NOT saying numbers shouldn't be a valid strategic win condition, they just shouldn't be the only one and should also require skill in coordinating otherwise they can be punished with the aforementioned mechanics or skills. Having special skill is one thing, making all AoE's (that are unlikely to be rhat rare) scale damage up based on how many targets they hit is a completely different thing. If you are arguing for "something", that's great, and we agree. If you are arguing for the specific AoE effect, that is less than great. First of all, it is not likely that AoE's will be rare enough as to make blowing a cooldown to be an issue - you will have another AoE on hand if you want it. Second, with a support class in the game, you don't want to blanket discourage people from being reasonably close. Having AoEs just blanket do additional damage based on how many targets they hit will render support basically worthless in PvP. Combined, this makes the notion of this blanket effect on AoE's come across as nothing more than a solution (or potential solution) for a different game that people are trying to suggest for Ashes without actually considering the effects in this game. On the other hand, make it so a few specific AoE's scale up in damage, targets and even area based on how many people it hits with a specific condition that bards can place on rivals, and you have a situation where support are needed in PvP, where healers cleansing this condition becomes exceedingly important, and where timing bards using this condition with DPS using the AoE that is increased by it is a key to winning in PvP. Just "AoE does more damage based on how many people it hits" is not suited to Ashes, and I really can't see how anyone would ever specifically want that here. I thought I made it clear that some kind of anti-zerg aoe ability wouldn't apply to all AoEs but in fact only be a handful of abilities and/or even just items you had to craft that were particularly effective against a would be "deathball" zerg (mines, bombs, grenades)
Noaani wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Adding AoE spells that increase damage based on how many targets are in the area as a means to get rid of zergs is just swaping one low skill play for another. If the idea is to get rid of low skill play, then it isn't ever going to work. if the idea isn't to get rid of low skill play, then it is pointless to implement. No it just punishes large groups of players that arent coordinated. Think of it as a "zerg tax". Should numerical superiority be a valid strategy? Of course. Should you have to be wary of things that can counterract it? Yes. That's the point of anti-zerg, ant-deathball type mechanics like having a handful of scaling AoE damage abilities (or like ive suggested, items like mines, grenades, bombs, etc). I think you are missing the point. Sure, a game should have anti-zerg mechanics and/or systems. Not arguing that point. However, systems where a small number of players can influence a large number of players in a significant way should take some skill. Making it so AoE damage scales up based on how many targets it will hit is something so low skill that people could make use of it by accident. It is a low skill "solution" to the low skill "problem" of zeros. At the very least, make it so that bards are able to mark players with an effect, and a different class has AoE abilities that multiply damage and increase the target cap by an amount based on how many marked targets they will hit. Even that is fairly base level in terms of player skill. Simply adding damage to AoE's based on total targets is mind-numbingly unskilled and should be as discouraged as mind-numbingly unskilled zeros are. I really don't get how people can complain about something like zerging, but then think such an unskilled solution is a good idea. I get your point and we are nearly at agreement here but I still think having special skills or items that require good timing and were far and few between (so wasting them was a possibility) is no less "no skill" than a zerg shoveling it's way though a chokepoint with overwhelming numbers and no consequences to its movement/grouping. I still think some kind of strong AoE has to be a tool against that behavior. I am NOT saying numbers shouldn't be a valid strategic win condition, they just shouldn't be the only one and should also require skill in coordinating otherwise they can be punished with the aforementioned mechanics or skills. Having special skill is one thing, making all AoE's (that are unlikely to be rhat rare) scale damage up based on how many targets they hit is a completely different thing. If you are arguing for "something", that's great, and we agree. If you are arguing for the specific AoE effect, that is less than great. First of all, it is not likely that AoE's will be rare enough as to make blowing a cooldown to be an issue - you will have another AoE on hand if you want it. Second, with a support class in the game, you don't want to blanket discourage people from being reasonably close. Having AoEs just blanket do additional damage based on how many targets they hit will render support basically worthless in PvP. Combined, this makes the notion of this blanket effect on AoE's come across as nothing more than a solution (or potential solution) for a different game that people are trying to suggest for Ashes without actually considering the effects in this game. On the other hand, make it so a few specific AoE's scale up in damage, targets and even area based on how many people it hits with a specific condition that bards can place on rivals, and you have a situation where support are needed in PvP, where healers cleansing this condition becomes exceedingly important, and where timing bards using this condition with DPS using the AoE that is increased by it is a key to winning in PvP. Just "AoE does more damage based on how many people it hits" is not suited to Ashes, and I really can't see how anyone would ever specifically want that here. I thought I made it clear that some kind of anti-zerg aoe ability wouldn't apply to all AoEs but in fact only be a handful of abilities and/or even just items you had to craft that were particularly effective against a would be "deathball" zerg (mines, bombs, grenades) This seems like something that isn't all that well thought through. Zergs have healers. This means any AoE damage intended to take out a zerg needs to be a lot, and fast. Lets say you have a small number of these increased damage AoE's available - all that means is that you need a lot of people near that zerg in order to all use them at the same time (or near the same time). Basically, you need to zerg the zerg. This means that the best defense a zerg has against this kind of this potential massive AoE damage is them dealing massive AoE damage to their would be attackers. If only there were some AoE's in the game that the zerg could use that dealt massive damage if used against many targets... Do you see why this just doesn't work yet? If you want to defeat a zerg, you can't hand them more tools. Since the only real things a zerg usually lacks are communication and player skill (not wasting a cooldown is not player skill), that is where anything aimed to prevent zergs needs to be focused.
Dimitraeos wrote: » The zerg wouldnt have the same tools actually, that's the point.
Noaani wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » The zerg wouldnt have the same tools actually, that's the point. If you want to survive long enough to get close enough to use one of these things - yes they would. Imagine they deal an average of 15% HP to a player. That doesnt mean you need 7 of them to kill someone - that means you need 14 to be able to assume 7 of them will be used before the person is dead, you will need a number of healers to keep people up, a few tanks to keep the zerg from just running over you with melee, and probably a few others that would be Ashes specific. If we are talking about each attack dealing 15% damage, you are looking at needing 22 - 24 players in order to have a reasonable assumption that you can get 7 off close enough together to make it impossible to heal through - if we are assuming a partially competent zerg. As I said, you need to zerg the zerg to make this work. if you are assuming each attack would deal more than 15% of an average players HP in damage, and to an unlimited number of players within the area of effect, then I'm just going to go ahead and say nope. On top of all of this, there is the need to consider what this kind of AoE would mean for the games PvE.
