? Ideas: AoE Management - AoE Degeneration Methods

[Whiteout.1975]

Ok @Swagger.1459 I'm going to give this 1 more try. Since you seem eager to talk with me.

@Swagger.1459 said:

@"Whiteout.1975" said:You only hear what you want to hear, not the facts, or even opposing views.

I've agreed with people quite a few times on points/idea's they have made here. This even goes for yourself ...

Within my very first reply to you here I have stated: "You could possibly get more initial lag maybe. If the fight is big enough." from July 7th 2019. I have already conceded in the notion of possibly getting more "lag". So there is no need to constantly keep bringing this up as if I haven't realized this. This just delays the discussion from progression.

Aoes are capped at 5 for technical reasons. During mass battles the server can’t handle the load with what’s going on now, yet you want to add more functions to aoes that will strain the system more... Yet you don’t want to accept that fact for some reason.

Read over your idea and tell me how this was supposed to reduce the amount of aoes (and lag too) being used by players? It doesn’t, like at all. Just changes how they function and nothing more, plus with a hypothetical 15/20 targets being hit that the system would need to process as well... Devs would be flushing time and money down the drain with changes that makes lag worse in the end and wouldn’t resolve any issues with the “too many aoes being flung around” problem.

Your idea doesn’t reduce the amount of aoes skills players have access to. You want to increase target caps. You add more functions to aoes... You haven’t brought up anything to address any issues, all the idea does is contribute to the problem, not solve it. Not even remotely.

Ok I see the problem... "You want to increase target caps". That's a BIG NO. I do not want to whatsoever. I even stated in another reply why I'm not for adjusting target caps in ether direction for the sake of this general problem of a sea of red... Here: "This is also in part why I've not been sold on moving the number of effect-able targets in ether which direction". Quote taken from a reply I made here on July 9th 2019.

My idea's were meant to allow AoE's to self-adjust to Problematic situations (tons of active AoE's) . That was the goal I was after anyways. It was done as sort of a security measure to prevent a bigger problem (The Sea of Red). I never wanted to change how many Targets AoE's can effect for the sake of this problem. Establishing "Hit Counters" is suppose to be just a way of detecting a high amount of traffic regarding AoE's. When players are involved. If a there's some high amount of players detected within AoE... The AoE would attempt to go through it's normal cycle faster and get it's job done and over with. Actual cap of targets effected... Again, would not change.

As for your other separate reply below this one I quoted ... This can go for that too. If what you were saying was what I was actually saying... The of coarse I would agree with you. However, I'm still against the target adjust for issues and reason's I've stated before already from yet another post on July 9th 2019 ?‍♂️

Now, let's just consider what the others have wrote as well so we may progress if you be so kind ? @joneirikb.7506 Has recently done a good summery of the points made here IMO if you would like a reference.

[Swagger.1459]

@Whiteout.1975 said:Ok @Swagger.1459 I'm going to give this 1 more try. Since you seem eager to talk with me.

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:You only hear what you want to hear, not the facts, or even opposing views.

I've agreed with people quite a few times on points/idea's they have made here. This even goes for yourself ...

Within my very first reply to you here I have stated: "You could possibly get more initial lag maybe. If the fight is big enough." from July 7th 2019. I have already conceded in the notion of possibly getting more "lag". So there is no need to constantly keep bringing this up as if I haven't realized this. This just delays the discussion from progression.

Aoes are capped at 5 for technical reasons. During mass battles the server can’t handle the load with what’s going on now, yet you want to add more functions to aoes that will strain the system more... Yet you don’t want to accept that fact for some reason.

Read over your idea and tell me how this was supposed to reduce the amount of aoes (and lag too) being used by players? It doesn’t, like at all. Just changes how they function and nothing more, plus with a hypothetical 15/20 targets being hit that the system would need to process as well... Devs would be flushing time and money down the drain with changes that makes lag worse in the end and wouldn’t resolve any issues with the “too many aoes being flung around” problem.

Your idea doesn’t reduce the amount of aoes skills players have access to. You want to increase target caps. You add more functions to aoes... You haven’t brought up anything to address any issues, all the idea does is contribute to the problem, not solve it. Not even remotely.

Ok I see the problem... "You want to increase target caps". That's a BIG

NO

. I do not want to whatsoever. I even stated in another reply why I'm not for adjusting target caps in ether direction for the sake of this general problem of a sea of red... Here: "This is also in part why I've not been sold on moving the number of effect-able targets in ether which direction". Quote taken from a reply I made here on July 9th 2019.

My idea's were meant to allow AoE's to

self-adjust

to Problematic situations (tons of active AoE's) . That was the goal I was after anyways. It was done as sort of a security measure to prevent a bigger problem (The Sea of Red). I never wanted to change how many Targets AoE's can effect for the sake of this problem. Establishing "Hit Counters" is suppose to be just a way of detecting a high amount of traffic regarding AoE's.

When

players are involved. If a there's some high amount of players detected within AoE... The AoE would attempt to go through it's normal cycle faster and get it's job done and over with. Actual cap of targets effected... Again, would not change.

As for your other separate reply below this one I quoted ... This can go for that too. If what you were saying was what I was actually saying... The of coarse I would agree with you. However, I'm still against the target adjust for issues and reason's I've stated before already from yet another post on July 9th 2019 ?‍

♂️

Now, let's just consider what the others have wrote as well so we may progress if you be so kind ? @joneirikb.7506 Has recently done a good summery of the points made here IMO if you would like a reference.

I see now, you want to add a detection system for each aoe that will generate more lag and still not resolve the “too many aoes being flung around” problem. So same amount of aoes + detection system + warning effect + normal aoe effects + collapsing aoe rules + the thousands and thousands of bits of data from each player the system has to process in real time. Interesting.

So when does the aoe actually hit targets? After 10-15 people pass through it, then the last 5 get hit?

I’m not interested in what others are bringing up. I’m discussing your posts, but thank you.

[Whiteout.1975]

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:Ok @Swagger.1459 I'm going to give this 1 more try. Since you seem eager to talk with me.

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:You only hear what you want to hear, not the facts, or even opposing views.

I've agreed with people quite a few times on points/idea's they have made here. This even goes for yourself ...

Within my very first reply to you here I have stated: "You could possibly get more initial lag maybe. If the fight is big enough." from July 7th 2019. I have already conceded in the notion of possibly getting more "lag". So there is no need to constantly keep bringing this up as if I haven't realized this. This just delays the discussion from progression.

Aoes are capped at 5 for technical reasons. During mass battles the server can’t handle the load with what’s going on now, yet you want to add more functions to aoes that will strain the system more... Yet you don’t want to accept that fact for some reason.

Read over your idea and tell me how this was supposed to reduce the amount of aoes (and lag too) being used by players? It doesn’t, like at all. Just changes how they function and nothing more, plus with a hypothetical 15/20 targets being hit that the system would need to process as well... Devs would be flushing time and money down the drain with changes that makes lag worse in the end and wouldn’t resolve any issues with the “too many aoes being flung around” problem.

Your idea doesn’t reduce the amount of aoes skills players have access to. You want to increase target caps. You add more functions to aoes... You haven’t brought up anything to address any issues, all the idea does is contribute to the problem, not solve it. Not even remotely.

Ok I see the problem... "You want to increase target caps". That's a BIG

NO

. I do not want to whatsoever. I even stated in another reply why I'm not for adjusting target caps in ether direction for the sake of this general problem of a sea of red... Here: "This is also in part why I've not been sold on moving the number of effect-able targets in ether which direction". Quote taken from a reply I made here on July 9th 2019.

My idea's were meant to allow AoE's to

self-adjust

to Problematic situations (tons of active AoE's) . That was the goal I was after anyways. It was done as sort of a security measure to prevent a bigger problem (The Sea of Red). I never wanted to change how many Targets AoE's can effect for the sake of this problem. Establishing "Hit Counters" is suppose to be just a way of detecting a high amount of traffic regarding AoE's.

When

players are involved. If a there's some high amount of players detected within AoE... The AoE would attempt to go through it's normal cycle faster and get it's job done and over with. Actual cap of targets effected... Again, would not change.

As for your other separate reply below this one I quoted ... This can go for that too. If what you were saying was what I was actually saying... The of coarse I would agree with you. However, I'm still against the target adjust for issues and reason's I've stated before already from yet another post on July 9th 2019 ?‍

♂️

Now, let's just consider what the others have wrote as well so we may progress if you be so kind ? @joneirikb.7506 Has recently done a good summery of the points made here IMO if you would like a reference.

I see now, you want to add a detection system for each aoe that will generate more lag and still not resolve the “too many aoes being flung around” problem. So same amount of aoes + detection system + warning effect + normal aoe effects + collapsing aoe rules + the thousands and thousands of bits of data from each player the system has to process in real time. Interesting.

So when does the aoe actually hit targets? After 10-15 people pass through it, then the last 5 get hit?

I’m not interested in what others are bringing up. I’m discussing your posts, but thank you.

Ok @Swagger.1459 I don't mind criticism, but when it's consistently done in a sarcastic manner... That's when I start to lose respect. I've stated 1 time my issues with the target idea regarding you before already. You can look on your own post for more. However, you want to ignore that criticism and still push and preach that idea. Yet you wish to keep bringing up the same criticism here about possible more lag even though it has already been settled. Ever since, I recognized it early on from my very first reply to you.

The Red Sea AoE problem is not such an easy issue to settle upon. "However, I'm open to other idea's as well :+1:" was apart of the OP. If you can't have the decency to respectfully examine what others have said to move forward and progress. That says a lot to me. However, it's ironic that you would care to engage in conversation with @Stand The Wall.6987 and @"Aeolus.3615" beforehand... I guess you suddenly decided not to be "interested" sometime after? Alright then.

The difference is I've taken my criticism already... You haven't at all for your idea. For these reasons you will now be ignored because you're not actually trying to help sadly. Only to belittle in favor of your own idea from which you have not seemed to have recognized any criticism for at all. Peace.

[Swagger.1459]

I'm being direct. You're deflecting to another conversation and not answering an important question... When does an AoE start to "work" for your idea? Does it take 10 or 15 people to touch the ground aoe before it can hit 5 targets? That's pretty important to know, right?

So you have a concern with too many AoEs, yet you are advocating they exist on the map longer... Read what you wrote...

"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."

….Offensive AoEs are either instant or ground target with a timer. 1 person touches a ground target AoE and it triggers, then gone. If, for example, 1 ground target AoE is dropped on a tight stacked group of 50 hiding in a corner, then only 5 get hit anyway, and the AoE no longer exists after activating... So why do you want AoEs to exist longer and require more demands from the servers to process? Makes zero sense.

[Whiteout.1975]

Anyways, moving forward. Let me restate the question I feel is important here:

@"Whiteout.1975" said:

• How can we fix AoE's for 1 general problematic situation (The Sea of Red) without disrupting Lesser situations (No Sea of Red) to which they are not a problem?... And that's putting any actual consistent balance issues with AoE's aside for the time being. I think that's the main question to answer here ?

This is easily a fragile situation because if you touch AoE's one way. Then you seem so far to risk affecting AoE's in situations where there arn't "too many AoE's being flung around" as @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 put it. And that's what makes this more difficult. So I don't think it's too crazy to say we should try to fix them in one aspect., but leave them still effective going both ways for any situation still.

Okay so here are 2 more idea's for now... I'll try to base these off idea's on this post up to this point. As @"joneirikb.7506" kindly summed up near the bottom of pg.1...

AoE Overload

This idea allows certain (talking mostly one's that last firstly) AoE's to have an instant effect based on a certain number of potential target's inside of it. Not 100% how this would play out exactly. However the main goal is if an AoE identifies let's say 10 or 15 potential targets. The AoE will then overload (maybe it's next pulse) with a certain instant effect and cease to exist after having done so.

• How many targets should be hit for an Overload? I'm not sure. It might depend on the AoE a bit. Otherwise I'm guessing 5 or 10 for the most part.

• What would the Overload effect be? I'm sure it will be related in respect to the Overload's AoE in some way.

• Maybe the potential targets is a bit different based on an AoE's radius vs another's? Given that bigger radius's should have an easier time finding more targets in general.

AoE Siege Treatment

This idea follows how siege is treated in the game and the limit to which they can be placed...

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Siege_weapon via "Siege weapon map limit" Section

• "There is a limit to how many siege weapons can be placed within a certain radius of each other. 5 weapons (sites or completed weapons) can be set within any 1000 unit radius. If players try to place a new site somewhere within a radius that already has hit its limit, the placement will fail but the player will retain the weapon bundle in their hands."

Numbers of AoE's allowed in an area will depend on what's considered just enough under "too many AoE's" considering what @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 wrote before. Otherwise the concept of this idea should be fairly straightforward.

[joneirikb.7506]

-Aoe Overload-

How I understood this idea:

• Cast aoe
• Instant effect
• Leave a "trap"
• "Trap" triggers when X targets are within range
• Does Effect to X targets
• Expires

A few thoughts:

• This effectively change all/most aoe into Traps/Mark's
• Potentially huge amounts of "traps" waiting ex defenders making a "trap nest" inside gate before enemy zerg penetrates.
• The X target being a roundabout way of bypassing the "target 5 limit"
• Would allow zerg-busting to be pretty easy (Not necessary a good or bad thing)
• I think there would still be enough "traps" around that it wouldn't make the server-calc any better.
• Would create a lot of "I died out of nowhere" moments in the game, not a good thing.
• Would effectively make a "the ground is not red" step onto it "all the ground is now red".

Overall, I'd be against it, unless paired with other measures, especially reducing the amount of them in the first place.

---

-Aoe Siege Treatment'

"With this patch, only 5 players with AoE skills can be located within 1000 unit radius of each others." ;)

Joke aside. But limiting the number of AoE's in a single area will run into a few problems.

• If the X is too low, you'll have immortal zerg comp, if it is too high you won't notice any difference. And I doubt there exist a "golden line" in the middle, because it will likely change depending on the variable numbers on both sides.
• Not to mention trolling, couple of dorks on your own side, throwing spammable aoe's right behind your own siege, so your team can't aoe sweep the walls.
• Or the elitism "Get out of our zerg if you use AoE! Leave that to the GOOD aoe classes that actually do damage!"
• With the existing target limit, it would bottle neck damage output.
• The amount of Server-Calc for area sweeping for aoe fields, might possibly be the same as for the aoe's in general ?

I'd rather go the other way, if you make AoE's rare enough, you could actually do the other thing Siege got, Target limit 50. But that would require that all player AoE's (that had that target limit at least) had a very long cooldown, and likely other restrictions like fairly low damage, more used as a focused attack against a larger group thing. Or have the new AC change where you can only be damaged by AC's once per Y time unit.