Nerfing supports + removal of target limits.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

4 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Oh I play it sometimes. A nasty cele reaper that tops out at about 16 minions. 

But here's the kicker - minions pretty much instantly die to AoE. Just like people in zergs. Funny coincidence that.

 

Yes, please keep defending this build.  

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

 

30 minutes ago, RisenHowl.2419 said:

This a great showcase for your lack of experience in big fights.

 

You boast about exp but you've never won any 10 v 30's or 15 v 30's. Your meme videos of burn DH clapping PVE zergs at a tower base is not a realistic interpretation of what actually happens in fights. Burning condition is easily cleansed by experienced players, and your delusion that groups would "spread apart" is not based on any real analysis. Like others mentioned, if healing and boons lose target cap as well, then it remains favorable for folks to group together in balls still.

 

The game would largely remain the same, with the exception that small groups can actually fight bigger groups with a chance to win the fight. A skill that targets 80 people against against a group of 20 people isn't gonna magically do 4x damage. /forehead

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Jarwan.8263]

Risen.. nobody said any of those things couldn't happen? but you know what? still undeniable that target caps favours bigger group...

i honestly don't care if people switch metas on how to organise their stats and builds, and whether or not those are fair cause that's a separate topic all together... the fundamentals in how many you can attack is unfair. it favours large groups, i'll keep saying it until it gets through to you cause its undeniable.

 

most of the meta trains are 70% support, 20% of burst classes and 10% rangers who didn't get the invite but still hang around the tag.

and if theres 50 of them, you need to be under the same condition as them, same quantity of players AND THEN its about who drops the quickest kitten first... not fair.. if 20 players have the smarts to take down a 50 man train of meta builds then they should be allowed to without RNG restrictions on who or not is in the center of an aoe field and how many.. its unfair. 

up to the player to decide whether or not they want to heal through those bombs or scatter... you should learn how to be able to defend yourself in a competitive game. not rely on safety nets hard coded.. and if you didn't know how unfair it could be then i apologise for seeming brash about it.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Jarwan.8263

[RisenHowl.2419]

8 hours ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

1. yes, yes it does.

 

2.  well yes? thats the whole point. if a few players wanna jihadi across the plains to drop a bomb on a zerg (half the maps pop on some occasions) they shouldn't be punished by being unable to do very little of anything especially when the zergs already stacked together booning and healing.

nothing prevents that same zerg from retaliating with ease. both groups of differing size should take equal risk.

whereas right now the bigger group has a hard-coded advantage over the smaller group. people still focusing on the 1v50.. please take the time to consider what this mechanics actually there to do. I could be wrong but i'm 70% sure that i read the nerf to power coefficients were placed to extend the length of zerg fights more. and i believe target caps are designed to do exact same. perpetuate zergs. zergs is what wvw is about... if thats the case, don't force it in the codes too.. let people decide how they choose to play, and don't give them a safety net when they choose to stick together.

I've given examples of how 2 classes could wipe 50 stacked players in the blink of an eye without target caps. It's something almost every class could do if target caps were removed. It would be the end of people stacking up entirely because stacking  = mass deletion.

 

It's a game mode that supports everything from 1v1s to 70v70v70. If you can't fight 70 people with your 1, how does it make sense to you that the game should cater to your 1 vs their 70? Wouldn't it make far more sense for you to group up with 69 other players so you can get an 'even' fight? Otherwise you're kinda saying your enjoyment as a single player that doesn't want to interact with other players is more important than the enjoyment of 70 other people who've chosen to play together which is a little conceited right?

 

Do you not understand that removing target caps would remove the ability of people to 'play the way they want to play'? It would force them to play in a cloud. That wouldn't favor you and would make it significantly harder for you to roam at all

8 hours ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

3. think about that for a second.. thats exactly how it should be...  the trade/off between stacking vs clouds should be part of the decision making in zerging. as it is already when you decide on using your skills or not facing said zerg.

and really ask yourself as a solo player if you'd better deal with that than a boon ball stacked on 1 another.

 

if all 50 cloud around (which takes organisational skills) to attack me and i go down as a result, thats completely fine. but on the off chance i managed to get one down. that player should then not be safe on virtue of being above the target cap when players swarm to ressurect. its unfair. take the L

It already is a part of the decision in playing with a coordinated group? Most groups have their own composition worked out, the reason people don't run a coordinated 50 person cloud right now is because it's less effective against good groups that stack and more effective against small groups of pugs. No one gives a kitten about fighting small groups of pugs because you're going to run them over either way with the current system. If the coordinated groups are forced into clouding though the small groups may as well find a new game since there won't be any competing.

 

You can already single out and finish individuals in a large group, use mist form or literally any other invuln/stealth mechanic available to do it. You may not get away after you get the stomp but removing target caps doesn't help you there in any way.

 

If that group is a cloud or a ball makes no difference, they'll still be able to res any single target downs you generate but you'll be far less likely to kill them and get away if it's 50 people focusing on single target damage and pulls rather than builds that can carpet bomb.

8 hours ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

4. well thats why you have supports around you dumping cleanse right? if you are seriously that inept in a game to not be able to shift your index finger an inch over to cleanse it off for yourself or any group members, then you all deserve to get clapped m8.

builds/stats/conditions is a separate topic.. i've said this already in like 2-3 separate responses.

You're misunderstanding the scale for how much damage a single person can put out if they know what they're doing. You could wipe an entire map queue with literally a single button press in 1 second. If you hit them from stealth that's GG. If they cleanse or mitigate the damage it's not a problem because you only pressed 1 button. You can just press the same button again. Guardians can do it 8 times in a row if they want. Who gives a kitten if they only kill 20 with the first button press, they can wipe another 20 a second later. Stacking would be dead without target caps.

8 hours ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

5. wait what? your argument sort of falls in on itself because all of that already happens when 1 servers actively dominant over the other.

the advantage that a solo player has over a blob is that they are all on 1 part of the map? therefore what? maps empty for you to roam around in? surely thats a disadvantage for solo players. you playing a tourism simulator? is that really a good thing?

how could that be something you want? an mostly empty bl cause everyones stacked instead of clouding.. theres 3 separate exits from a waypoints spawn, use another.

The advantage a single player has against a zerg is that the zerg won't split into 5 groups of 10 to hunt you down, they don't give a kitten about chasing 1 player around, it's a waste of time. That's your biggest advantage as a single player right now, you can rotate around the map and pick your fights when they're favorable to you because a map only holds 70 people, if 50 of them are focused on a tower in one corner of the map there's only 20 other players spread out across the rest of the map to stop you from doing w/e.

 

If the meta is to spread out so your map queue doesn't get popped by a single player, there's more people available to chase you down and delete you.

8 hours ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

But you mean that it allows you to maneuver around those who are stacked.. well it doesn't change the fact that those who do, equates to 1/3 perhaps 1/2 of the maps pop. if not all at times. i would much rather clouds around a map than large stacks of boon ball any day of the week.. least then if 1 goes down.. the zergs have to make the decision of running over to swarm and ressurect. and if they do they should therefore be open to receiving any kind of damage aoe placed on that spot. UP TO YOU to take the risk. every single player would be under those same conditions including me if i choose to join a zerg.

You think you'd rather fight against a map filled with people using builds that excel in destroying single targets?

I feel like there's a ton of people with your mindset who pick off stragglers that are trying to get back to their group and think 'ah yes, zerglings are terrible and they only get carried by numbers.'  They're not terrible, they're using builds that are optimized to fight 70 people. They're not running condi cleanse, they're not running (m)any stun breaks or mobility tools, they're not running builds that can reset fights infinitely until their burst lands.

 

Removing target caps forces those players to run builds that are optimized to delete w/e special nonsense you're solo roaming on. Why on earth do you think 50 people would stop to res their teammate so you can bomb them if instead they can just single target focus you from 1200 range and rally their downed teammate instead? They're still going to massively outnumber you, they'll just be doing it on builds that are even less favorable for you to fight.

8 hours ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

its unlikely that any one person has the necessary damage stats to ever be able to take down a zerg in any given situations given that those players have brains too and could just as readily utilise their defensive skills. so why is the removal of target limit suddenly a big fuss? could just give it to us for 1 week. see how it goes.. ANY CHANGE would be nice compared to what it is now.

This is pure ignorance, you don't have the skill required to blow up a map queue were target caps removed. There are literally hundreds of people out there who do.

[Strider Pj.2193]

I guess I would ask, because this thread is now the second thread which someone has thrown out the ‘70-75% supports’ for a Zerg composition…. 
 

What do people consider a ‘support’?  
 

 

[Jarwan.8263]

bro just say you want to stack up with a tag and be done with it. I don't even play solo most of the time... i'm in a group roaming an empty borderlands unless we spot a group of 10 by lucky chance without them waypointing and if theres 5 of us, we can't hit all 10... and if we lose.. absolutely fine but theres also inbuilt mechanics saying 5 of those players are technically 100% damage free.

and fighting 5v4 is just meh.. rather fight outnumbered and have no restrictions to how many we can damage.. its what players who put time into learning their classes should be able to do.

what those skills can or can't do is a separate topic altogether.

you need 10 players to fairly fight 10.. 20 to fight 20... in a game mode that can't guarantee even number of players at any given time.

not everyone likes meta trains m8. quite a significant like to break off and do their own little thing.. and overtime you realise how skewed it is when theres nobody left to fight but blobs at certain point.. just log off? this is the only mode i enjoy playing.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Jarwan.8263
clarification

[RisenHowl.2419]

19 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

 

You boast about exp but you've never won any 10 v 30's or 15 v 30's. Your meme videos of burn DH clapping PVE zergs at a tower base is not a realistic interpretation of what actually happens in fights. Burning condition is easily cleansed by experienced players, and your delusion that groups would "spread apart" is not based on any real analysis. Like others mentioned, if healing and boons lose target cap as well, then it remains favorable for folks to group together in balls still.

 

The game would largely remain the same, with the exception that small groups can actually fight bigger groups with a chance to win the fight. A skill that targets 80 people against against a group of 20 people isn't gonna magically do 4x damage. /forehead

 

 

 

 

 

I've showed you mine. can you do the same?

 

A skill that's capped at 5 targets would in fact "magically" do 4x the damage against 20 with the target cap removed. I thought you prided yourself on your math?

 

It's not favorable for people stack, at all, if the entire stack can get deleted in 1s. Who cares if you can get 10x the boons and healing out if your group can get nuked by a single player faster than your group has time to react. Stealth pushes and portals would be guaranteed map queue wipes.

 

20 minutes ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

Risen.. nobody said any of those things couldn't happen? but you know what? still undeniable that target caps favours bigger group...

i honestly don't care if people switch metas on how to organise their stats and builds, and whether or not those are fair cause that's a separate topic all together... the fundamentals in how many you can attack is unfair. it favours large groups, i'll keep saying it until it gets through to you cause its undeniable.

 

most of the meta trains are 70% support, 20% of burst classes and 10% rangers who didn't get the invite but still hang around the tag.

and if theres 50 of them, you need to be under the same condition as them, same quantity of players AND THEN its about who drops the quickest kitten first... not fair.. if 20 players have the smarts to take down a 50 man train of meta builds then they should be allowed to without RNG restrictions on who or not is in the aoe field and how many. its fair. 

up to the player to decide whether or not they want to heal through those bombs or scatter... you should learn how to be able to defend yourself in a competitive game. not rely on safety nets hard coded.. and if you didn't know how unfair it could be then i apologise for seeming brash about it.

Obviously target caps favor big groups, this is a game mode that caters to forming social connections because that's how you keep people playing and paying. Anet couldn't care less if a single player leaves because they can't form social connections, that's not their bread and butter man.

 

Do you understand that it's also unfair for 1 person to reliably wipe 50? You seem to think it's only fair if 1 can wipe 50, but those 50 grouped up and put time into coordinating with one another, time that's invalidated completely by removing target caps. If they don't adjust to the new meta those 50 people will happily just find a new game where their coordination is rewarded. Then the game loses players which is less people for you to fight and less money in anet's pocket. There are real-world considerations that outweigh your desire to fight 'fairly' against 50 people. Whining that you can't do it all on your own because the game is 'unfair' to single players is childish af

 

If you want to fight 50 people, find 49 friends who feel the same way and group up. That's how the game works lol

 

No, most meta groups are 40% support, 40% dps, 20% utility. Pug groups are whoever was around and bored. I don't know what you're fighting that would run 70% supports, i think it's more likely that your damage is low so you think anyone who isn't full glass must be an unkillable support character.

 

You're under the impression that the meta would change so 20 coordinated people can take down 50 coordinated people. I'm telling you, based on years of experience and tb of data, that it'd only take 1 player to kill 50 coordinated players faster than they could react any time they stacked up. The game mode's fight structure would entirely collapse. There would be no stacking, at all. Not on lords in keeps, not while building siege, not while moving through portals, none. Groups would spread out in 600-1200 range amorphous blobs to benefit from 600 radius support skills while minimizing incoming aoe damage. They'd build for stealth ressing and pulling downed players. They'd build for ranged single target spike damage and pulls to yank people in.

 

They would absolutely wreck any smaller groups by picking them apart instead of carpet bombing. This is not the outcome you're looking for if you want to make it easier to fight large groups. The best suggestion i've seen in this thread is making support skills 5 target and damage skills 10 target. The problem with this is that everyone would just run as much damage/CC as they could and overwhelm the support players. A better solution would be making current 5 target damage skills that have no other effects 10 target, that would only increase potential damage output without increasing potential strip/CC output. This benefits groups that tightly coordinate their bomb more than anyone else.

[Jarwan.8263]

2 minutes ago, RisenHowl.2419 said:

 

 

 

 

I've showed you mine. can you do the same?

 

A skill that's capped at 5 targets would in fact "magically" do 4x the damage against 20 with the target cap removed. I thought you prided yourself on your math?

 

It's not favorable for people stack, at all, if the entire stack can get deleted in 1s. Who cares if you can get 10x the boons and healing out if your group can get nuked by a single player faster than your group has time to react. Stealth pushes and portals would be guaranteed map queue wipes.

 

Obviously target caps favor big groups, this is a game mode that caters to forming social connections because that's how you keep people playing and paying. Anet couldn't care less if a single player leaves because they can't form social connections, that's not their bread and butter man.

 

Do you understand that it's also unfair for 1 person to reliably wipe 50? You seem to think it's only fair if 1 can wipe 50, but those 50 grouped up and put time into coordinating with one another, time that's invalidated completely by removing target caps. If they don't adjust to the new meta those 50 people will happily just find a new game where their coordination is rewarded. Then the game loses players which is less people for you to fight and less money in anet's pocket. There are real-world considerations that outweigh your desire to fight 'fairly' against 50 people. Whining that you can't do it all on your own because the game is 'unfair' to single players is childish af

 

If you want to fight 50 people, find 49 friends who feel the same way and group up. That's how the game works lol

 

No, most meta groups are 40% support, 40% dps, 20% utility. Pug groups are whoever was around and bored. I don't know what you're fighting that would run 70% supports, i think it's more likely that your damage is low so you think anyone who isn't full glass must be an unkillable support character.

 

You're under the impression that the meta would change so 20 coordinated people can take down 50 coordinated people. I'm telling you, based on years of experience and tb of data, that it'd only take 1 player to kill 50 coordinated players faster than they could react any time they stacked up. The game mode's fight structure would entirely collapse. There would be no stacking, at all. Not on lords in keeps, not while building siege, not while moving through portals, none. Groups would spread out in 600-1200 range amorphous blobs to benefit from 600 radius support skills while minimizing incoming aoe damage. They'd build for stealth ressing and pulling downed players. They'd build for ranged single target spike damage and pulls to yank people in.

 

They would absolutely wreck any smaller groups by picking them apart instead of carpet bombing. This is not the outcome you're looking for if you want to make it easier to fight large groups. The best suggestion i've seen in this thread is making support skills 5 target and damage skills 10 target. The problem with this is that everyone would just run as much damage/CC as they could and overwhelm the support players. A better solution would be making current 5 target damage skills that have no other effects 10 target, that would only increase potential damage output without increasing potential strip/CC output. This benefits groups that tightly coordinate their bomb more than anyone else.

yeah no... you can't force players to play a game how you think it should be played.. in what world is that ever okay? the target cap is there to force social connections? in a game full of real life anti-social people including myself.. okay... its a competitive game mode lad.. get your feelings out of the way.

[RisenHowl.2419]

38 minutes ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

bro just say you want to stack up with a tag and be done with it. I don't even play solo most of the time... i'm in a group roaming an empty borderlands unless we spot a group of 10 by lucky chance without them waypointing and if theres 5 of us, we can't hit all 10... and if we lose.. absolutely fine but theres also inbuilt mechanics saying 5 of those players are technically 100% damage free.

If there's 5 of you you can hit 10 np. You can hit 20 np so long as you get a good opening bomb off. It's stupid to think you should be able to hit 50 though.

38 minutes ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

and fighting 5v4 is just meh.. rather fight outnumbered and have no restrictions to how many we can damage.. its what players who put time into learning their classes should be able to do.

The 50 people who put time into their classes are meaningless, right? I mean, only your time has value.

38 minutes ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

what those skills can or can't do is a separate topic altogether.

you need 10 players to fairly fight 10.. 20 to fight 20... in a game mode that can't guarantee even amount of players at any given time.

I was fighting 45v70 on friday, we ended the night with a 1.34 kdr. If you need 20 to fight 20 that's on you

38 minutes ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

not everyone likes meta trains m8. quite a significant like to break off and do their own little thing.. and overtime you realise how skewed it is when theres nobody left to fight but blobs at certain point.. just log off? this is the only mode i enjoy playing.

If all you're interested in is small scale combat, try pvp. There's less people on open world builds in green armor though

 

5 minutes ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

yeah no... you can't force players to play a game how you think it should be played.. in what world is that ever okay? the target cap is there to force social connections? in a game full of real life anti-social people including myself.. okay... its a competitive game mode lad.. get your feelings out of the way.

I'm not forcing anything, i'm telling you the reality of the situation. The game is ran by a company that wants to be profitable, profit is gained from long time players buying gems for cosmetics, forcing players to form social groups and pursue long term goals keeps them playing. They can absolutely build the game's mechanics to support that. That's kind of the point.

[Jski.6180]

So when are they nerfing FB and scraper skills to 3 target because that is on the same level of nerfing 10 target skills. We just seem to be ok with the power creep of FB and scraper but not with the lesser used classes.

If an support skills has less effect it should hit more targets if it has more effect it should hit less targets. There also has to be a way for support to stop supporting them self or your always going to have far more tankly support classes then they should be braking the balancing of dps vs support.

[Jarwan.8263]

1 hour ago, RisenHowl.2419 said:

I'm not forcing anything, i'm telling you the reality of the situation. The game is ran by a company that wants to be profitable, profit is gained from long time players buying gems for cosmetics, forcing players to form social groups and pursue long term goals keeps them playing. They can absolutely build the game's mechanics to support that. That's kind of the point.

and theres no other ways to do that but to skew the fairness in a competitive game mode in favour to those with more players online?

really now... how about making the game fairer and having players enjoy it enough to recommend it to friends... enjoy what guild wars has to offer instead of doing it through social connections of people already in the game for gem store items cause thats quite an insidious thought.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Jarwan.8263
grammar

[Jarwan.8263]

1 hour ago, RisenHowl.2419 said:

It's not favorable for people stack, at all, if the entire stack can get deleted in 1s. Who cares if you can get 10x the boons and healing out if your group can get nuked by a single player faster than your group has time to react. Stealth pushes and portals would be guaranteed map queue wipes.

misunderstood what you meant. deleted. yes.. thats how its supposed to be. fair above all.. who places the skill down first.. not who has more than the other.

Quote

Do you understand that it's also unfair for 1 person to reliably wipe 50? You seem to think it's only fair if 1 can wipe 50, but those 50 grouped up and put time into coordinating with one another, time that's invalidated completely by removing target caps. If they don't adjust to the new meta those 50 people will happily just find a new game where their coordination is rewarded. Then the game loses players which is less people for you to fight and less money in anet's pocket. There are real-world considerations that outweigh your desire to fight 'fairly' against 50 people. Whining that you can't do it all on your own because the game is 'unfair' to single players is childish af

its not about me... what about the other players who log in to find a mostly empty home server barely capable of defending its own keep from just 10 players? cause the odds in favour of them winning as few casual players is not only close to 0. but its hard cemented. and that disadvantage is compounded based on how many extra enemy players join the fray.

 

Quote

 

They would absolutely wreck any smaller groups by picking them apart instead of carpet bombing. This is not the outcome you're looking for if you want to make it easier to fight large groups. The best suggestion i've seen in this thread is making support skills 5 target and damage skills 10 target. The problem with this is that everyone would just run as much damage/CC as they could and overwhelm the support players. A better solution would be making current 5 target damage skills that have no other effects 10 target, that would only increase potential damage output without increasing potential strip/CC output. This benefits groups that tightly coordinate their bomb more than anyone else.

even an increase in the limit will be a big step forward in balance... but it also has to be in proportion to squad size.. which is capable of having 50.  (i only play ele so i only know how my skills work) yes some overloads should hit 10, maybe earth 30..  phoenix 20, dragontooth 40... but to have them all be equally 5... just no.. unfair. i know lifes not fair but a company i paid money to should least look into it and make it so.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Jarwan.8263

[Xenesis.6389]

I dunno man, my arrow cart can already hit 50 people but it seems to be ineffective against zergs!

[Jarwan.8263]

5 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

I dunno man, my arrow cart can already hit 50 people but it seems to be ineffective against zergs!

how about a new 1-shot ballista that takes 500 sups  fix the issue right away.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Jarwan.8263

[Xenesis.6389]

Just now, Jarwan.8263 said:

what about a new 1-shot ballista that takes 500 sups 

 

 I mean.. realistically... taking a long giant arrow the size of your body, straight to the chest, probably should one shot you anyways, from even the walmart version...

[RisenHowl.2419]

1 hour ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

and theres no other ways to do that but to skew the fairness in a competitive game mode in favour to those with more players online?

really now... how about making the game fairer and having players enjoy it enough to recommend it to friends... enjoy what guild wars has to offer instead of doing it through social connections of people already in the game for gem store items cause thats quite an insidious thought.

How does it skew fairness exactly?

 

Those players coordinated with each other. If you wanted to coordinate with other players, you could. You've chosen not to. You have every tool to make it fair at your disposal, instead you chose to not use them in favor of crying on the forums. The system's fair, you just aren't using it.

 

26 minutes ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

misunderstood what you meant. deleted. yes.. thats how its supposed to be. fair above all.. who places the skill down first.. not who has more than the other.

its not about me... what about the other players who log in to find a mostly empty home server barely capable of defending its own keep from just 10 players? cause the odds in favour of them winning as few casual players is not only close to 0. but its hard cemented. and that disadvantage is compounded based on how many extra enemy players join the fray.

How does 'whoever presses their skill first wins' make things more fair to you, does it require more skill to push a button first or to coordinate the efforts of 50 people?

 

You, and those other players, should form up into groups. That's how the people that are grouped up got grouped up in the first place. Full squads didn't just appear in this game at launch and perpetually stay, they developed over time. Two years ago our group ran 5-10, now we're averaging 35-40.

26 minutes ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

even an increase in the limit will be a big step forward in balance... but it also has to be in proportion to squad size.. which is capable of having 50.  (i only play ele so i only know how my skills work) yes some overloads should hit 10, maybe earth 30..  phoenix 20, dragontooth 40... but to have them all be equally 5... just no.. unfair. i know lifes not fair but a company i paid money to should least look into it and make it so.

So if i'm understanding this, you only play 1 class and you only roam on that class but you somehow have the experience to dictate that a 9 year old game mode should receive a massive overhaul because... you can't make friends? This sounds a lot more like it's a you problem than a game problem man

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, RisenHowl.2419 said:

A skill that's capped at 5 targets would in fact "magically" do 4x the damage against 20 with the target cap removed. I thought you prided yourself on your math?

I said a skill that targets 80 people doesn’t do 4x damage against a group of 20.
 

A group of 20 can fully utilize a non target capped skill since they are using it against 80 people which benefits the smaller group, whereas with a 5 target capped skill, they can not. The damage is dispersed and mitigates 3/4 of that damage via that dispersion on any individual target making the Zerg harder to kill.

 

…go and try and verse a zerg with 15 people instead of 80, and you’ll figure it out. 

[Jarwan.8263]

bro i cba reading all that.. i already know you're wrong.. 2 posts ago you just said that the target cap favours the bigger group.

and now you're asking me how its skewing fairness? how about you scroll up.

 

you're asking us, those who aren't co-ordinated as you, have as many guild members as you/friends.. to force ourselves to look for more players, just so we can have enough number to tackle a blob... what if those friends aren't online? what if we all running different builds and aren't as homogenous as all the other players? don't dictate to us how the game should be played. you're right in saying we already have the tools, ANET need to pay attention to this post and remove the restrictions and let players play... theres stability, aegis, protection... supports constantly being moaned about how op it is... well remove the cap on how many can be targeted... lets see how op they are.. if people still survive whats the problem? if not than have the numbers be in proportion to how difficult they are to pull off.. surely thats farer than being unable to damage the extras at all right?

really the big benefit is a minority of players in a given situation has a better chance of having a bigger impact against adversity. and EQUAL chance.. even if its 20 v 40... while they are outnumbered how many they can hit should still be equal to the bigger group.. how can you ARGUE that.. are you insane?

Edited February 22, 2022 by Jarwan.8263

[RisenHowl.2419]

22 minutes ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

bro i cba reading all that.. i already know you're wrong.. 2 posts ago you just said that the target cap favours the bigger group.

and now you're asking me how its skewing fairness? how about you scroll up.

 

you're asking us, those who aren't co-ordinated as you, have as many guild members as you/friends.. to force ourselves to look for more players, just so we can have enough number to tackle a blob... what if those friends aren't online? what if we all running different builds and aren't as homogenous as all the other players? don't dictate to us how the game should be played. you're right in saying we already have the tools, ANET need to pay attention to this post and remove the restrictions and let players play... theres stability, aegis, protection... supports constantly being moaned about how op it is... well remove the cap on how many can be targeted... lets see how op they are.. if people still survive whats the problem? if not than have the numbers be in proportion to how difficult they are to pull off.. surely thats farer than being unable to damage the extras at all right?

really the big benefit is a minority of players in a given situation has a better chance of having a bigger impact against adversity. and EQUAL chance.. even if its 20 v 40... while they are outnumbered how many they can hit should still be equal to the bigger group.. how can you ARGUE that.. are you insane?

Well, can't argue with that

[AlCapwnd.7834]

2 hours ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

yeah no... you can't force players to play a game how you think it should be played.. in what world is that ever okay? the target cap is there to force social connections? in a game full of real life anti-social people including myself.. okay... its a competitive game mode lad.. get your feelings out of the way.

Im curious why a Anti Social person would play a Social game. Thats not anets problem. Thats yours. No offense.

Edited February 22, 2022 by AlCapwnd.7834

[Jarwan.8263]

Just now, AlCapwnd.7834 said:

Im curious why a Anti Social person would play a Social game. Thats not anets fault. Thats yours. No offense.

come on now, i'll wager a huge amount of money theres people that spend double digit hours on this game... theres no shame in it..

is that what you're implying?

[AlCapwnd.7834]

Just now, Jarwan.8263 said:

come on now, i'll wager a huge amount of money theres people that spend double digit hours on this game... theres no shame in it..

is that what you're implying?

I don't even know how to read that reply.

[Jarwan.8263]

it's alright, most of my colleagues don't either. i'm quite straight to the point.

[Xenesis.6389]

Fite guild spokesperson: "Bwa ha ha ha ha! you need more people to step up to our level to challenge us kiddo."

Solo Fite person: "But what if we don't have as many online?"

Fite guild spokesperson: "Bwa ha ha ha ha! just bring more people!"

Solo Fite person: "What if we increase strips or corruption? you're kinda invincible mister"

Fite guild spokesperson: "Bwa ha ha ha ha! No! just bring more people!"

Solo Fite person: "What if we increase caps to hit more of you?"

Fite guild spokesperson: "Bwa ha ha ha ha! NoNo! just hand over everything you own!"

Solo Fite person: "Ok imma go play lost ark till my fam logs on."

Fite guild spokesperson: "Bwa ha ha ha ha! cough.. hey.. wait.. come back! we're bored! come feed.. I mean fight us! Fine! we'll break into your precious keep and stomp our feet until you fight us! and don't even think about bringing more people or we'll take your content elsewhere!"

Solo Fite person: "Ha Ha Ha Ha we can go sailing in lost ark before EoD!"

[Zyreva.1078]

6 hours ago, RisenHowl.2419 said:

It means you're functioning as part of a unit, you might be playing a class with spike damage while others are playing classes that are good at finishing downs. Together you're more effective. This is kinda the basis of a team oriented game?

But it is not just about the synergy between different builds, it is mostly about numbers. You could still have the same role distribution in a much smaller grp and yet the dmg would become insufficient.

Quote

Were you fighting an organized group? After 1h on staff ele about the only thing you're capable of doing well is dropping meteor shower. [...]

About as organised as the squads i played with i assume, so maybe commander with about 1/3 guild members and the rest pugs. Many but not all players on voice. Open field fights,  ~ 50vs50. Also did some random clouding and pew pewing from walls ofc, but that's not what i was referring to.

And why would using meteor shower be the only thing i would be able to do effectively? Reading skill tooltips, figuring out a basic rotation and using the multitude of aoe dmg and cc skills that staff ele has access to on the enemy blob when the commander calls for it, does not need tons of hours of experience, nor does dropping supportive cds on your own squad or using defensive abilities when under pressure.

To be fair, i wasn't very accurate. I had occasionally played core ele before, so a general idea about what most of my skills do was already there. Weaver was new for me tho. And it took me a lot longer to feel somewhat comfortable roaming on dagger weaver, despite having roamed on dagger core before and generally being a lot more experienced with small scale play, compared to zerging on staff weaver.

Quote

[...]There's different metrics, like you're not going to try and interrupt a single player's heal skill during a zerg fight, but if you don't get stab up at the right time 4 of your teammates are going to explode on push. You don't drop your bomb at the right time in a coordinated spike, your group doesn't generate downs.

But having to time your burst (which typically means dropping it when the commander calls for it, so you don't actually have to know the right time yourself) or pressing stab when you are about to push (which again the comm should call for) or when the existing stab on you is about to run out/got stripped is not particulary hard nor something special about zerg fights. That's basics, sry.

Yes, i don't have much experience in big fights. But it is also stuff that others, including yourself, bring up, which perfectly matches my limited experience. I have yet to see someone bring up an example or show me zerg gameplay that makes me think - yep, that's actually very hard to pull off, impressive gameplay, great player. I see players mostly following commander calls and basic rotations with a lot of "pressing buttons on cd" And face tanking. A lot of it. And that's basically already above average zerg gameplay. Skill clicking and "no need to use 3/4 of my skills" type of players are not uncommon to see in average "epic zerg fight" videos.

Don't get me wrong, there are some great players within zergs. But they typically also have a lot of experience with small scale, whether it is roaming and/or sPvP and it is not their zerg gameplay that really makes them stand out. Also to be clear, small scale/solo gameplay is not always hard or skillful. It can be very easy too, just depends on how willing a player is to push limits and take risks.

Quote

What zerg is focused entirely on offense? At a minimum 40% of every squad is made up of support characters, generally in minstrels lol

I'm not talking about their comp or builds, i'm talking about their gameplay. They don't have to actually do much if anything to defend themself against our dmg except stay within close proximity to each other and maybe press F on occasional downs. They don't have to actually avoid our burst, they don't have to properly time their defensive cooldowns, they don't have to be careful about their positioning. All because aoe caps put a limit on our dmg. A limit they don't have to deal with in those fights.

Quote

 Instead of ranged aoe skills having the highest priority in builds, it'd be pulls and single target spike damage that are favored.

Buff aoe skills and players will stop using them. Astounding logic ...

Quote

 gw2 isn't designed to function without target caps

It is probably also not designed for 50vs50+ blob fights, when considering that you have to disable like half of the player models (and sometimes animations) in oder to get somewhat decent fps with an average modern pc despite the game being 9 years old. Don't even get me started on server lag and visual clutter ...

Quote

My point is that balance decisions take years to stabilize. The game would be dead in the water before it could stabilize from a change as monumental as removing target caps.

What do you even mean by "stabilize"? Reach a point like now, where the devs simply stop trying to balance the game and everyone gets bored of the stale - and still far from actually balanced - game? I'd rather not end up there tbh. Also if it actually took years to create a somewhat enjoyable balance, the game would be dead from the get go, because there used to be zero "data" regarding balance. Yet many players enjoyed the days back then more.

5 hours ago, RisenHowl.2419 said:

I've given examples of how 2 classes could wipe 50 stacked players in the blink of an eye without target caps. It's something almost every class could do if target caps were removed.[...]

Just tell me one thing. How do grps of 5 or less players survive now? Why don't they get blown up instantly all the time, despite not being protected by target caps? I mean, 5 players are always easier to kill than 20 or 50, right? So why does it rarely happen to a somewhat decent organised small grp and when it does happen, it is typically the result of overextension or lacking attention and/or skill, not something inevitable? Hint: There is a difference between stacking and face tanking.

And before you tell me it is just because small grps never fight 30+ players i can assure you, 30+ zergs will absolutely "fight" those much smaller grps and yet they usually don't insta kill. It is more of a "slowly picking off players who got chased down by mounts and ran out of defensive cds while not having the tools aviable to effectively retaliate" type of killing.

4 hours ago, RisenHowl.2419 said:

I've showed you mine. can you do the same?

Can you please point out which of those videos actually shows you with sub 15 take on at least twice your numbers? I just watched the first one and it only displays zerg vs zerg gameplay with both sides being about equal or your side having more players and enemies going down before your squad even touches them (allies outside of your squad still count, just saying).

(On a side note, it is also quite funny how often more than 50% of your 10+ squad's dps is dealt by only 1-2 players. Guess some of your "40% dps" players aren't always that effective at dealing dmg. Luckily it doesn't matter with enough allies arround. Prime example of what i was talking about above).

Edited February 22, 2022 by UmbraNoctis.1907