? Ideas: AoE Management - AoE Degeneration Methods

I think it's fairly obvious to say, that what AoE's do exist... Will only go away based on how they are allowed to go away. So how do they go away? Well, mostly over time.... Unless you're a Necro Mark. In which case you can last a fairly long time until touched by an enemy. However, this all got me to thinking... Why should "time" be the main and in most cases... Only influence that tells an AoE "Okay you're time is up" or better yet... "You've done enough". I don't believe it should be. At least, not the only major influence that should. Therefore, this post will be me touching base on possible methods (idea's of mine) that can be used to degenerate AoE's; outside of time casually being the main factor. However, I'm open to other idea's as well :+1:

BTW, Any numbers I use are obviously subject to change and merely added as a starting point to further enhance perspective ?‍♂️

Possible Degeneration Methods:

Hit Counters

This method allows AoE's to also deplete upon reaching a certain set amount of interaction (with players/targets). Rather than through time alone (how long an AoE lasts naturally/with traits).

• Example: If an AoE hit's lets say 15 players/targets ("15" being it's threshold) during it's duration... Then it will instantly deplete just based on that alone and disregards whatever time it would normally have left.

In order to maintain effectiveness for AoE's that get more effective over time OR to maintain effectiveness as they are regardless ... The following should happen:

• As AoE's that gain higher amounts of interaction before their Hit Counter threshold. They would speed up their process of normal effectiveness (whether that effectiveness normally grows or not) based on the amount of interaction present within them... Not just time alone. This would have to then be designed to where Interaction > Time so that "Interaction" can become the dominate AoE degeneration factor... That way "Interaction" and "Time" don't conflict based on an AoE's normal routine of effectiveness. However, "time" would otherwise still be a factor in the natural sense.

• Example: If an AoE hit's 5 players/targets out of a Hit Counter Threshold of 20 targets... That could further progress that AoE through it's normal routine faster. If "5" targets is the requirement to progress faster here.

So the bigger the fight let's say (because more numbers influencing AoE's). The faster an AoE would take place. Smaller numbers... The Slower and more natural way an AoE would degenerate.

TLDR: Hit Counters... AoE's can now also degenerate though certain amounts of target interaction (being effected by the AoE in some way)... Not only time. The Result is: Higher Interaction = Faster AoE Degeneration (less active time). On the flip side... Lower Interaction = more "normal" (when an AoE naturally depletes) degeneration.

AoE Downscaling

This method allows AoE's to shrink in size. This can be done through some combination of "Hit Counters" and/or Time... perhaps (likely) depending on the AoE.

• Let's say you have an AoE that's an initially effective radius of 360 and last for 5-10 secs. However, it's decided that "360" is too large of an effective radius for that set time. Well, with this idea... An AoE can be set on some combination of Hit Counters and/or Time. To which the AoE then reduce's from it's initial set size. In this case it was 360. It could then perhaps after 2-3 seconds reduce in size. If we are just basing it off "time" here. And let's just say it's decided to reduce by a radius of 120. In which case it would reduce to a 240 radius AoE after hitting that 2-3 second mark.

• Now, the only thing I'll say about this idea. Is the smaller the AoE the less likely it is to involve targets of who and who not it may effect. So this may influence the likely hood of receiving a higher degree of targets towards Hit Counter's. However, I think an AoE can have a point of being "big enough" and "effective enough" still. To where this could still be a healthy option. If not a more healthier option; than not having the idea implemented whatsoever. All things considered.

TLDR: AoE Downscaling... Certain AoE's may reduce in radius through a "combination of "Hit Counters" and/or Time". In order to receive a more desirable radius if too problematic in it's initial state.

Lastly, the reason I just decided to make this post. Is honestly because I just felt like AoE's are a problem. Creating further lag I believe and IMO just a really messy style of combat (more so bigger fights). However, this "problem" is nothing new. Also, I truly believe these idea's could possibly help. Thus, I thought that I would be doing a disservice not to share them. There was also a Dev that said something a long while ago, about AoE's being a problem, but I don't know the post or remember which dev?... So if someone knows and can show me here, that'd be great :+1:

Thanks for reading <3

So part of the suggestion is to combat lag, but in reality it adds more lag because each aoe placed has a timer and radius effect change that the system needs to calculate.

This is a much cleaner idea to tackle aoe issues... https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/44028/ideas-to-tone-down-offensive-aoes

I remember when this game came out and how impressed everyone was with how the combat system handled damage application. How simple yet effectful the balance was with various fields, how sleek and varied reticle application worked, and how that interbalanced with cleaves, projectiles and so on.

Since then, the system has grown more complicated but certainly not better. As it grew unecessarily complex it lost much of what made it effectful and the developers lost their grasp over balance along that path (the same can be said about the effect, boon and condition systems).

That leads me to my question for this thread. Is it really a mechanical issue? Is this not just another overcomplicating path to dealing with issues that surround a number of more recent skills or abilities? Skills that are overtuned both mechanically and numerically with abnormally large radii as well as overstacked effects in those fields or cleaves. A very simple suggestion (that I remember making over and over throughout PoF with regards to things like Shades and WoD) would be to just overhaul reach and size of these things instead. The typical 180-300 fields seen on eg., Staff Eles fits the mode rather well and remains reasonably balanced still to this day. There are just too many 600-900 fields and cones now.

We've definately hit a point where less is more. So, an overhaul of AoE size and spread? Sure, just make it flat, fix what's broken, not what isn't.

Ed. Not to put down the suggestion from a general perspective of fun ideas with mechanics, they already have the tech so they could easily make a reverse of the boss mechanics we see with a filling fields. It's just that now and here doesn't feel like the right place or time. You know, WvW, track-record, issues.

@"Swagger.1459" said:So part of the suggestion is to combat lag, but in reality it adds more lag because each aoe placed has a timer and radius effect change that the system needs to calculate.

This is a much cleaner idea to tackle aoe issues... https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/44028/ideas-to-tone-down-offensive-aoes

So you could be right. You could possibly get more initial lag maybe. If the fight is big enough. However, I was aiming more for the longevity of the lag and AoE's in general. Which, I saw as worse.

Another nice thing IMO that I did not mention in the OP. Is if AoE's don't last on the ground as long. Targets can't keep moving through so many of them re-picking up any boons that might have been stripped and etc.

• To kind of put it in perspective. It's a similar take to when Anet nerfs a skill by toning down the damage, but giving a longer duration to compensate. To somewhat compare the mindset at play here. Except here... AoE's are more so adjusting based on the kind of interaction they're facing. And adjusting to reach a more hopefully more desirable outcome.

Your idea could be good. It could be bad... As I think their are some valid concerns there as well. Which too may be right or wrong. However, I think... Or hope that we can agree that reasonably seen idea's should be tested to truly judge their outcome.

Thanks for adding your idea's to the discussion though :+1:

(I have to go out for a bit IRL ttyl)

@Swagger.1459 said:snips

the aoe cap nerf is what helped turn wvw into a blob friendly noob fest. reducing the amount of targets from 5 to 3 would mean ppl would have to run even bigger to maintain the same amount of effectiveness... horrible idea imo. skill over numbers.

I think the best thing that can happen to aoes is to nerf their duration and buff their effectiveness. cut in half or even more the amount of time they do area checks to see who is standing in them = way less lag.

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:snips

Actually, you’re wrong.

Please pay attention to this...

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:“We considered the nerfs for passives in WvW. But in the end we were really concerned that the reduced defenses would make large group fights a lot less fun. There are just too many AOEs being flung around.”

Right now, as is, there are too many aoes (as clearly stated by Ben). Increasing numbers of targets on aoes creates even more of an aoe meta period. Reducing targets on aoes gives options to re-evaluate things like passives, melee becomes more of a viable option and reduces the calculations the system needs to process... You are way off on this topic of aoes.

Edit- And there are plenty of scenarios where 1 zerg melts another zerg in seconds, but you want to make aoes to hit more targets... That’s not really a logical thing to do.

@"subversiontwo.7501" said: "Is it really a mechanical issue?"Good question. I believe to some degree it is honestly. Maybe not completely... Maybe it would be better to some degree if certain skills weren't AoE's to begin with. At least not the kind of AoE's we are talking about here. However, my fear is that whichever class has the most AoE's to make general good use out of still... We would just see more of that class (or classes) to compensate for this hypothetical change. Which probably will make the game even less fun because it would further welcome less diversity.

The thing (as we both know) is WvW allows for so many players and the AoE's that they can bring with them. That your extremely likely to get a lot of AoE's just based on that alone. The fight sizes can vary of course, but the problem seems to be in medium-large scale fights primarily.

I would however like to describe an important analogy here. Imagine the players are basically like sponges. AoE's are like puddles. The players can now actually "soak" up the damage from those AoE's causing them to actually degenerate faster/lose mass. Not just waiting there for the puddles to evaporate. Or better yet... Running through those puddles, getting wet, but not actually taking water away from them. More sponges... Faster degeneration.

There is most definitely an issue with AoE "time" here. I think that we can maybe agree on that. It's like I said at the start... "What AoE's do exist... Will only go away based on how they are allowed to go away".So other than ripping a good amount of AoE's from the game directly. Which will probably result in stacking classes who still have the most AoE's... And likely resulting slower fights. Due to being able to effect less players at a time. These idea's are what make's the most sense to me for now. However, I'm not saying that certain other suggestions (like your's) might not go well in combination with them :+1:

@"subversiontwo.7501" said:Ed. Not to put down the suggestion from a general perspective of fun ideas with mechanics, they already have the tech so they could easily make a reverse of the boss mechanics we see with a filling fields. It's just that now and here doesn't feel like the right place or time. You know, WvW, track-record, issues.

I appreciate you in being open minded. Talking about their current "tech" is a wonderful example here to further show what possible. Thanks. Also, I do 110% agree WvW's track record is quite horrible. However, I decided to not let that affect my contribution towards Idea's here; for whenever it is that Anet may see value... Even if the risk involves "never" lol. Oh well. I still get to walk away with the dignity of trying haha :+1:

TL;DR all AoE fields creep in with time

They already use this in PvE, except the other way around (expanding AoE). Its a decent enough idea.

So many of the AoE effects are persistent, which is the issue here. Just have more of the skills create the field, warn you to move out of it before it hits, and if you manage to not make it out then you take the effect of the hit and eat the damage, conditions, or control effects, then the field disappears. So many of them have lingering effects that check on whether an enemy is in it every tick, applies effects, rechecks, and so on. That creates lots of negative time. Most skills in the game are fire and forget, focused on targets, and are generally not about avoiding incoming skills actively.

This is a cost reward analysis issue, AoE effects are highly rewarding and generally difficult to miss, easy to land, hard to avoid. A Chaos Storm from Mesmer has no warning before the first tick hits, because of this, each tick is really low damage, if instead that storm hit after a small delay (with the circle being able to be seen before it hits) then you get a chance to move out, THEN the field can actually be a bit bigger, and effects that can get you out of the field become even more valuable. It also means the effect can be stronger since it can be avoided. Same for a number of AoE crowd control effects, once again, goes down nearly instant, immediate effect, boom large pay off, low effort. Putting the burden on players to see small character models, and see animations on them through damage numbers floating off their heads, status effects, and particles is just too difficult, and all the while guessing where the field is about to appear at.

In short, if they were to adjust AoE effects, it would be a large overhaul, many would need field animations and less cast animations, higher payoff, but harder to slightly harder to reliably land. Result is a shift in active gameplay in large fights where fields can be seen and avoided long before the damage hits (like the jungle tendril shots so common in HoT, easily avoided, but if you got immobilized in one and a few hit ya, ouch).

The main things in active combat games that needs to be telegraphed are hard Crowd Control effects, and Area of Effect skills, in such a manner as to avoidable without relying on using skills unless the effect is meant to be hard to avoid (and thus less pay off). Far too many crowd control effects are near instant with no animation to prepare for avoiding them. Thus combat devolves into trading breaks for CC effects and waiting on cooldowns again. Power gets taken out of positioning, but there again defensive stats are also too weak in this game, and focusing on pure damage is general the correct answer to most situations.

Short of a huge overhaul, the likelihood of seeing any of these changes for AoE is just flat unlikely. There have been a few games that have learned the power of correctly balancing telegraphed CC, AoE effects, and visual cues while also utilizing active avoidance... the most successful ones seem to be MOBA style games, but the lessons they learned and apply in their games apply to all player versus player environments. Instant targeted slows into hard CC AoE or skillshots make for way better gameplay, high damage AoE that can be avoided but comboing that with other people firing off abilities to trap the enemy in a bad spot... all this kind of stuff is good. It is already in the game with siege, just a matter of not being extended onto player abilities for some reason.

I don' think such changes would have much effect. WvW gravitates toward zerg vs zerg battles. The big problem with AoEs is the area denial. You can dodge out of one AoE, but you will inevitably end up in another one. No, what am I saying, of course you will end up in 10 other ones, since the AoEs are stacked. Making the. more pronounced would maybe kind of help ins ome situations, especially in smaller scale fights, but during the zerg fights, you have to push at one point. The amount of areas does not change overall with a changed area size. You have to get into and through them, and once you're in full chaos, the while field is plastered with areas anyway. If the fields are bigger and did have a bigger effect, but they were more pronounced I don't think anything would change.

Likewise I don't think shrinking the AoE size by a bit would change something. You'd maybe get a little less stacking, since areas might overlap less, but I don't think any shrinking that makes sense, any shrinking of area size, that would not make areas ridiculously small, is not gonna have much of an effect.

IMO what needs to happen is something of diminishing returns for stacked AoE fields of the same or similar types. If you stack 5 areas doing fire you should not be subject to 5x the effect. If you stack several fire fields, you should not take the full effect of each fire field. Instead each additional field should yield a lesser effect.I can't stack power or vulnerability as much as I want, 25 stacks is the max, I can't stack stability as much as I want, but damaging conditions can be stacked up as much as you want. I can't stack regeneration or Aegis (yeah, I know it stacks duration, but once you've blocked your attack, it's gone!) like that. Yet damaging fields and conditions stack up as much as you want. (yeah, I know there is a limit, but it's too high to play any role).In this context areas pulsing damage, even pulsing power damage should be viewed the same as condition damage.

@"Swagger.1459" said:snipsusing bens statement about passives as an argument against aoes doesn't make any sense. no one is relying on passives to sustain themselves in a zerg. as far as server calculations go, they do math problems very fast. the biggest problem in terms of lag are the durations of aoes. it seems like it if was up to you, every skill would hit one target. "woops, they outnumbers us by 10 people, guess we cant fight them". aoes are meant to be a balancing factor against larger groups. why cant you understand that?

@Whiteout.1975

Hit Counters:

Problem: Benefits larger group, punishes smaller group.

AOE Downscaling:

Problem: Same, benefit large group, punishes smaller group.

As much as I dislike it, the AoE's are also one of the best ways for an outnumbered group to fight against the outnumbering group. And reducing it in any way will cripple the outnumbered more than the outnumbering that can still just load more AoE's on top.

Something that could make AoE's better against outnumbering, and worse against the outnumbered, would be to make AoE's with additional damage based on how many allies nearby, in order to simulate that normally people packed tightly will have a harder time to dodge.

Otherwise, I think a better start would be to reduce the number of AOE's in general in each class selection, and rather make the aoe's have more impact rather than spammy. Essentially AoE's should be good for a coordinated attack, not just spamming constantly and just watch people die as there is no way to avoid all the red fields. (Put some degree of skill into its use)

@"subversiontwo.7501"

Great post, that hit me just in the nostalgia feelz.

We just went past the 4 year anniversary of the Pre-HOT patch, which is where I basically felt everything started to change and go downhill on this front. Which also marks where GW2 completely changed its "Balance perspective" away from PvP and onto raids/fractals.

All the changes since then, especially the first Elite's felt like a big deviation from the earlier work, and very much like it tried to do all the things the old core classes couldn't do from before, by stepping over that balance line. Basically:

"Lets make this Elite special! Yeah let it do something that the Class couldn't do before. Hmm, this class was balanced around not having too much defense, so lets give the elite a lot of defenses!"

(Random, I think the Elite's could possible work better if they excluded 1 or 2 core trait lines. So Pick Elite 1, then you can't use Traitline X and Y)

Regarding AoE's, as I mentioned in last post, I'd like to see the number of AOE's go down, but rather give them more impact, so it works best in coordination and not spamming.

@"nthmetal.9652"

• Reduce AoE

Hmm, if they're carefula bout it, I think this could work. Say they reduce all the "spammy" aoe's down to a very small circle, so it's basically just a non-refectable attack that can hit the peopel standing right next to you. While still keeping a few attacks like Meteor Storm as large aoe's, it would give them different roles entirely, and change how you used for example Lava-Font.

• Stackable AoE

Interesting idea. I'll just make up a number of 50%, so after the first AoE hits you the next does 50% damage, the next 50% of that again, etc.

I believe it would be very easy to get to a level where pugs would still die, but an organized melee/sustain meta would bulldoze easy through it. But more worry-some, due to the max target limit 5, I suspect that one a zerg reaches a critical mass, they can still just run through the aoe's easier.

So over all, I think I'd be slightly against this idea.

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@"Swagger.1459" said:snipsusing bens statement about passives as an argument against aoes doesn't make any sense. no one is relying on passives to sustain themselves in a zerg. as far as server calculations go, they do math problems very fast. the biggest problem in terms of lag are the durations of aoes. it seems like it if was up to you, every skill would hit one target. "woops, they outnumbers us by 10 people, guess we cant fight them". aoes are meant to be a balancing factor against larger groups. why cant you understand that?

Player will stack no matter what for low effort wins that’s the tipical gw2 player...Aoes is not a balanced way to balanced smaller groups vs larger it does the oposite reason pvp is utter fail, it only helps casuals hit something in Zerg gameplay....

Your argument of fighting 10 players with aoe isn’t a good example cause it will win the group with more spam in sustain and aoes...

Imo if most cleaves and aoes where animation does not justify being aoe should be reduced to single, ring based skills, carpets, cones should stay as they are, maybe most aoes need to be the smaller aoes w/o traits to increase size.Exception would be some skills that could have its aoe areas increased like MS and similar skills.

@Aeolus.3615 said:snipsthis isn't about autos lol. I don't care about autos. wouldn't mind if their target cap was reduced.

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@"Swagger.1459" said:snipsusing bens statement about passives as an argument against aoes doesn't make any sense. no one is relying on passives to sustain themselves in a zerg. as far as server calculations go, they do math problems very fast. the biggest problem in terms of lag are the durations of aoes. it seems like it if was up to you, every skill would hit one target. "woops, they outnumbers us by 10 people, guess we cant fight them". aoes are meant to be a balancing factor against larger groups. why cant you understand that?

You act as if players aren’t capable of winning when outnumbered... And you’re wrong on that, it’s just harder and some fights you won’t win.

You’re not interested in resolving issues for the greater good of wvw play, your only interest is making sure outnumbered fights favor the outnumbered group. WvW mechanics will never be changed to “what outnumbered groups can or should be able to do”, and that’s the fundamental problem with your suggestions on the aoe topic...The other issue you don’t understand is that changes affect all players and groups, so if you increase targets then the bigger group will have way more advantage anyway, and much greater potency than they do now...

Seriously, try selling your ideas to @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 and see what he has to say...

@joneirikb.7506 said:@"nthmetal.9652"

• Reduce AoE

Hmm, if they're carefula bout it, I think this could work. Say they reduce all the "spammy" aoe's down to a very small circle, so it's basically just a non-refectable attack that can hit the peopel standing right next to you. While still keeping a few attacks like Meteor Storm as large aoe's, it would give them different roles entirely, and change how you used for example Lava-Font.

It would require alot of rebalancing though.

I mean, in theory they could delete all duration/pulsing AoE and just rely on power/condi combos.

Instead of a field that today last 6s and does 6x power damage, it would be a field with no duration, apply higher power damage directly and say bleeding for the remaining damage. No AoE field at all on the floor.

Want to go power? You up your instadamage, but get lower residual damage.

Want to go condi? You do less instadamage, but the residual damage lasts longer and hits harder.

Even something like meteorshower works, just hit fewer meteors once individually and apply burning.

Such AoE would be kept in check by gear since you have to focus on power and condi to maximize damage (ie be a glassy twig).

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Aeolus.3615 said:snipsthis isn't about autos lol. I don't care about autos. wouldn't mind if their target cap was reduced.

The only problem ic with aoes is that the game has way way to many aoe skills in short CD, and will have way more and faster so they can sell next expansion, that’s granted.I don’t see why timers on aoe fields can improve gameplay and reduce lag either...

Doubt Anet Will ever improve the gameplay, by changing aoe, due population target and overperformance of new gimmicks every new Expansion.

Still Anet could start to remove the traits that make aoe rings bigger, that would help a lot the spam and make players play with bit more effort, imo that would be better than give new time to live of the aoe effectsor stacks, well meteor shower could stack o can imagine a funny mechanic.

Some zergbusting skills could become really effective but with height CD, to avoid spam and punishing case of bad timing...Alot can be done, question is.... if it’s on Anet interest to clean the game and have better gameplay, but punishing players that just want spam gameplay w/o have to worry what they are hitting wich is main objective of the game.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@joneirikb.7506 said:@"nthmetal.9652"

• Reduce AoE

Hmm, if they're carefula bout it, I think this could work. Say they reduce all the "spammy" aoe's down to a very small circle, so it's basically just a non-refectable attack that can hit the peopel standing right next to you. While still keeping a few attacks like Meteor Storm as large aoe's, it would give them different roles entirely, and change how you used for example Lava-Font.

This may be a clearer explanation of my wall of text further up. Though it neglects to mention telegraphing the CC and particularly devastating AoE that currently exist and have no visual tell long enough before being affect by it. Some effects should be larger but with more preparation time, others smaller, effects should be visible above where the field is going to take place prior to it hitting by at least a .5 sec (and .75 sec is better). Some can be fire and forget, but the field effect animation is long enough to respond to, this would allow players to self combo, and combo field effects can still be utilized but maybe on more selective effects (or maybe a field can remain but with no persistent effects being applied to enemies or allies).

@joneirikb.7506 said:@"Whiteout.1975"

Hit Counters:

Problem: Benefits larger group, punishes smaller group.

I think there's a misunderstanding of the OP here. The idea here is to allow AoE's to go away faster based on the environment they're in (talking large vs small scale fights). However, to retain their effectiveness as much as possible so that they still work against "larger groups".

Nope. If it's a larger fight. The larger group will have AoE's happen more quickly in general than that of the smaller group. So no... If anything it can help the smaller group.

AOE Downscaling:

Problem: Same, benefit large group, punishes smaller group.

Nope. The larger group will pretty much always have the advantage of more AoE's in general. This idea here doesn't change this fact. As such, smaller groups are already punished based on that alone. No one is benefited or punished anymore than the other than normally. And if AoE's are creeping in/shrinking... Then the smaller group could have an easier time navigating the field; just like the bigger group. Even inside chokes it would be still pretty even, regarding pro/cons. This is not considering Hit Counters though. However, if Hit Counters are involved... Then it's as I stated before regarding them.

As much as I dislike it, the AoE's are also one of the best ways for an outnumbered group to fight against the outnumbering group. And reducing it in any way will cripple the outnumbered more than the outnumbering that can still just load more AoE's on top.

I agree with the first sentence here. Besides that, it's like I said... "The larger group will pretty much always have the advantage of more AoE's in general". And as you say "the outnumbering that can still just load more AoE's on top".

---

Something that could make AoE's better against outnumbering, and worse against the outnumbered, would be to make AoE's with additional damage based on how many allies nearby, in order to simulate that normally people packed tightly will have a harder time to dodge.

I am just focused on reducing the time of AoE's primarily. In respect to whats going on given that situations can very greatly. Your focus is how smaller groups can come up to par defensively against larger groups regarding AoE's. Which is cool :+1: However, I think we have different focus's here... At least initially considering the OP ?‍♂️

Otherwise, I think a better start would be to reduce the number of AOE's in general in each class selection, and rather make the aoe's have more impact rather than spammy. Essentially AoE's should be good for a coordinated attack, not just spamming constantly and just watch people die as there is no way to avoid all the red fields. (Put some degree of skill into its use)

Maybe? But if so... Anet would have to remove A LOT of AoE's for the sake of WvW. Given that WvW allows for so many players to be present at a time. Instead, if we had more smaller maps limiting the numbers of Players by maybe 50%? Compared to currently. Then this whole thing wouldn't as be as big of an issue IMO. I agree though, I don't want AoE's to be so "spammy". It leads to really dull and simpleminded gameplay IMO. Would also prefer skill... But that's in part why I don't want them around so much compared to currently. Have AoE's still be effective by all means... This is what I also wanted in the OP. Just not so many to where players getting hit without much of a thought.

If the issue is to reduce lag on AoE's then the simple fix is to just make each AoE strike a specific amount of damage unaffected by crit or defense. This way we can also increase the cap on the targets AoE hits. No more calculations required, then theoretically a lot less lag.

For example, lets take the biggest and most damaging AoE available to a class, the ele meteor shower. Make each meteor hit for 2500 damage, no more, no less. Unaffected by defense, and unaffected by crit. Each meteor hits a max of 3? Make it hit a max of 5. Take the ranger's barrage; instead of it hitting a max of 5 targets, make it hit a max of 10 targets with a flat damage hit of 1500.

I think the biggest culprit though is conditions, and likely coming from Scourges shade bombs. As condition damage changes with the rise and fall of stacks so it's constantly re-calculating. This is an entirely new beast which would be hard to touch.

The problem is first and foremost that there can be tons of AoE's at a time activating and then having to deal with that. They have to be toned down for situations like that. That's the crux of the issue here... Balance regarding them beyond that, is probably another problem to be solved.

I wanted to point out something in general I did not yet. I don't know if it's been stated before. However, I think it should be better considered.

• When an AoE is active... It's true that it check's who to effect based on it's capabilities and the player that laid it. However, in doing so, an AoE generally also must recognize who Not to effect. In order to make the distinction.

This is also in part why I've not been sold on moving the number of effect-able targets in ether which direction. Also, I think saying "oh well just adjust the number of targets" is the default way of thinking about this... And I would be incredibly surprised if the guys at Anet didn't think of this already ? to be fair here. As such, I would like to give them more credit then that. This leads me to believe that the problem must be much more complicated.

If players can keep running or sitting in AoE's for longer... The longer and more often the system has to keep checking. The goal is never to see a "sea of red"... Maybe a good sized "pond".... Maybe, but definitely not a sea of red.

WvW (as I've said) allows for so many players and their multiple AoE's at different levels. That it's a hard thing to manage outright simply. If there was a way to maybe to put a limit to the number of AoE's in an area. That would probably be better. However, I don't think just manually pulling out tons of AoE's from the game for WvW is the answer and could lead to even worse diversity. Maybe remove some AoE's still... But definitely not to the extent I'm sure is needed for the sake of this issue.

If AoE's are to be taken out to some extent. I would start with the biggest offending classes that often carry a high supply. I do think that balance could be better in terms of roles if classes shared more viable AoE opportunities more equal to one another. However, I wish to put an end to the sea of red if possible first.

• Maybe the answer is if the AoE's reach a limit of 20 or something in an area. The system will start deleting or temporarily turning off newer or older AoE's to try to maintain that level ?‍♂️ The system would just be set for what it can better handle.

... I just thought of another idea to throw out just now. If there are too many AoE's in an area... Then how about we Austin Powers them ??

The game could maybe "Freeze" them so that they remain inactive. Then "Reanimate" certain (new vs old) AoE's somehow. Minus all the other bells and whistle's of course lol. Also, maybe those AoE's turn blue instead of red to show that they're frozen?

@Delofasht.4231 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@joneirikb.7506 said:@"nthmetal.9652"

• Reduce AoE

Hmm, if they're carefula bout it, I think this could work. Say they reduce all the "spammy" aoe's down to a very small circle, so it's basically just a non-refectable attack that can hit the peopel standing right next to you. While still keeping a few attacks like Meteor Storm as large aoe's, it would give them different roles entirely, and change how you used for example Lava-Font.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@joneirikb.7506 said:@"nthmetal.9652"

• Reduce AoE

Hmm, if they're carefula bout it, I think this could work. Say they reduce all the "spammy" aoe's down to a very small circle, so it's basically just a non-refectable attack that can hit the peopel standing right next to you. While still keeping a few attacks like Meteor Storm as large aoe's, it would give them different roles entirely, and change how you used for example Lava-Font.

Yep. I 100% agree with this. Here is a very old classic example of telltale way the game show's where AoE's will be before they land.

Skip to about 32:25... The video will show what's being talked about here after.

It should also be the same for Player AoE's. Give close about a second to react... Then proceed :+1: