Nerfing supports + removal of target limits.

[DanAlcedo.3281]

On 2/22/2022 at 5:00 PM, Strider Pj.2193 said:

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’?  
 

 

Firebrand and Scrapper are support. 

Scourge and Hammer Rev is mostly seen as dmg but they have some naturally build in support. 

Staff Weaver is pure dmg. 

Mesmer builds and Spellbreaker are utility. 

 

Normally, a squad is 40% support. 50-55% dmg and 5-10% utility. Sometimes utility is skipped in favor of more dps. 

More then 40% support is always overkill(over heal?). 

[Mabi black.1824]

18 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

They do not have the same benefit, not the same as a group of 40. A group of 40 can disperse two times as much than a group of 20 can, thus the group of 20s effectiveness is 1/4 of the group of 40 (because the group of 20 have half the players using skills and have half of the potential to disperse damage because the opposing group has 40 players)

Another example, say you are in a 1v1 and you are fighting a necromancer that brought 9 minions with him, and you use a 5 target ability. That ability will hit only 5 of those 10 bodies. If this ability pulses for another set of damage, it will hit again only 5 of those targets, but probabilistically not the same ones. 
 

if the necromancer is hit the first time and not the second time, then the necromancer neutered your skills effectiveness by 50%. You did your skills full damage (10,000) but that damage is spread out to 10 bodies (10,000/10) meaning you only do 1000 DPS per target rather than 2000 DPS per target (10,000/5)

This dispersion makes it easier to heal people because it effectively staggers the damage your Zerg is taking out over time in chunks that healer can cope with.

it is very clear your feedback justice thanks.

let's say that 10 minutes later those 20 men will find an enemy group of 10, they too will be able to spread the area damage better, that was what I meant.

at this point I wonder what would improve removing the limit of 5 to your attack ability.

the damage capital remains ivariata 10k , you get the certainty that to those 10 enemies you will offer a maximum damage of 1k to each, if it is a complete team of 50 you will practically tickle it.

don't you prefer to be sure that your skill hits 5 enemies with a damage of 2k?

[Strider Pj.2193]

7 minutes ago, DanAlcedo.3281 said:

Firebrand and Scrapper are support. 

Scourge and Hammer Rev is mostly seen as dmg but they have some naturally build in support. 

Staff Weaver is pure dmg. 

Mesmer builds and Spellbreaker are utility. 

 

Normally, a squad is 40% support. 50-55% dmg and 5-10% utility. Sometimes utility is skipped in favor of more dps. 

More then 40% support is always overkill(over heal?). 

Yeah, TThats what I see as well.  The actual support composition in a squad even tends to be less than 40% (unless it’s a very organized closed squad raid) as you’ll have a couple of ransoms tucked into an additional party on in comped classes.  
 

Thought I was missing something for the past several years…. 
 

But, it turns out hyperbole is a thing,  😉

[RisenHowl.2419]

14 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Risen won't show any outnumbered fights...but I have one here that he won't show that speaks for itself.

 

 

The best you can do is pulling up a stream from ... 9 months ago? JADE tags 3-4 nights a week during NA prime time, we have four active tags covering three time zones. We lose fights like dozens of times a week, that's what happens when you have >300 active members of varying experience. The difference is we log all the data and use sophisticated tools built by our players to parse it, then base comp and build decisions on real world findings. You should try it sometime.

 

Still haven't seen any clips of you fighting 10v30 though, so what's your expertise founded on?

[subversiontwo.7501]

1 hour ago, RisenHowl.2419 said:

The best you can do is pulling up a stream from ... 9 months ago? JADE tags 3-4 nights a week during NA prime time, we have four active tags covering three time zones. We lose fights like dozens of times a week, that's what happens when you have >300 active members of varying experience. The difference is we log all the data and use sophisticated tools built by our players to parse it, then base comp and build decisions on real world findings. You should try it sometime.

 

Still haven't seen any clips of you fighting 10v30 though, so what's your expertise founded on?

It feels like you two are having your own discussion outside of the topic.

How did all of this start or what was the root argument relevant to this thread? Maybe you should summarise and bring it back to that. Are any of you arguing for nerfing supports, increasing target caps or making outmanned fights easier or are you just talking about who's better at fighting outmanned?

Ed. Nevermind I can see that Justice does, well, to some degree at least, I just lost track of it because the argument was limited to examples of wells or pulsing AoE for some weird reason, as it isn't very relevant given the position he is taking or trying to represent. It also seems to float into theory not related to concrete changes to the game which makes it even more difficult to follow.

Edited February 24, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[RisenHowl.2419]

4 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

It feels like you two are having your own discussion outside of the topic.

How did all of this start or what was the root argument relevant to this thread? Maybe you should summarise and bring it back to that. Are any of you arguing for nerfing supports, increasing target caps or making outmanned fights easier or are you just talking about who's better at fighting outmanned?

Ed. Nevermind I can see that Justice does, well, to some degree at least, I just lost track of it because the argument was limited to examples of wells or pulsing AoE for some weird reason, as it isn't very relevant given the position he is taking or trying to represent. It also seems to float into theory not related to concrete changes to the game which makes it even more difficult to follow.

You're right, this has needlessly digressed. I'll put up a summary on why removing target caps is stupid.

 

Gameplay reasons:

-The entire game would shift to whoever hits first in large scale fights. Any 1 person would be capable of wiping 70 if they stand too close together. People stack up to build siege, enter/leave chokes like portals, or even just to kill lord npcs in towers and keeps. This can be easily achieved with stealth pushes and portal bombs. Literally anyone can stealth, walk into your map queue of people, and blow it up in <1s.

 

-Removing the need for tight coordination between groups of players decreases the skill required to play this game mode overall.

 

Logistical reasons:

-The server load would increase dramatically and no one's going to pay for that. The game gets unstable with a 5 target cap as is.

 

-Players would leave for other games en masse because teamwork and coordination would no longer be rewarded. There's less reason to stick around and form a community if you're punished for standing too close to one another.

 

-The whole purpose behind the current system is ultimately to keep people playing and buying gems by forming interpersonal connections so they can compete in a cooperative setting. Smaller communities means less incentive to keep playing gw2 means less gem purchases for anet.

 

-The entire trait and skill system would need to be overhauled. We'd go through years of wildly broken balance as people find exploits anet missed while they try to build an entirely new system from scratch. All of their data on trends and expectations from the last 9 years becomes worthless overnight.

 

Logical reasons:

-fighting 10v50 wouldn't become magically easier, if anything it would become even harder. The 50 will likely adjust to a cloud comp. With no reason to focus on builds that bring ranged, non-projectile aoes they're free to focus on skills that have high single target spike damage and pulls, allowing them to easily rip apart smaller groups. On the flip side, the smaller group is going from hitting 5 targets with their aoes to hitting 1-2 people due to the larger group spreading out, giving them even less potential for meaningful spike damage.

 

-The game would devolve into 'who can cloud out and camp the enemy spawn point first'. That sounds awful

 

-An advantage smaller groups have against a stack is that they can out-maneuver them. No one's going to chase down 5 people with 50 every time they leave spawn, it's boring for everyone involved. Right now a group of 5 can rotate to towers and camps to sneak them. That changes if people don't need to group up, as soon as you leave spawn they'll call for numbers and you'll get swarmed.

 

Other fun bits from this post's replies:
-Apparently it's hard for people to fight minionmancers because the minions will soak up all your damage in a 1v1? Why people aren't single targeting the necro or putting their aoes closer is still a mystery

 

-The game at present is 'unfair' because people who talk to one another have an advantage. Grouping up with other players is hard when people don't like you

 

-People think zergs are 70%+ support characters. This really baffles me

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

7 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

 I just lost track of it because the argument was limited to examples of wells or pulsing AoE for some weird reason, as it isn't very relevant given the position he is taking or trying to represent. It also seems to float into theory not related to concrete changes to the game which makes it even more difficult to follow.

the reason I limited my examples to pulsing AOE is because it is easier to understand for others how the targeting system works with those examples. But the target system works this way for all abilities, against both enemies and ally targets.

 

This is actually how it’s possible to go and test the behavior of the targeting system, because it works the same way for allies. Go and take a buff like Spotter, or Soothing Mist, or Glints Passives…these skills can effect more than their listed target cap, because of how they pulse buffs that last for a duration longer than the interval. Skills like Soothing Mist can effect up to 15 (13 actually) people concurrently, because you can spread the boon out to different set of 5 people at each interval the buff goes out.

Most people don’t actually know this is a thing, because subgroups inhibit that behavior from happening (subgroups make your buffs effect the same players over and over again, wasting the potential of skills like soothing mist, cutting their effectiveness in 2/3 basically)

 

The spreading and dispersal behavior of the target system is the same for enemies like mentioned before. Unlike concurrent buffs to allies, In contrast,  damage being spread out concurrently against an enemy zerg is not beneficial to you.

Edited February 24, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[subversiontwo.7501]

5 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

the reason I limited my examples to pulsing AOE is because it is easier to understand for others how the targeting system works with those examples. But the target system works this way for all abilities, against both enemies and ally targets.

Well, that is the flaw of your argument then and Infusion pointed it out already back on page one. The system may randomise similarily, yet multiple hits means more randomisation, but even more importantly it means damage over a timespan where opponents move. That's also important for the context, because it means that you generally do not havoc or fight outmanned with those types of abilities, making the relevance of such an example questionable.

It is way easier to "focus cleave" with something like a Phase Smash. On top of that there are PbAoE skills as well (or similar skills that are not projectile-based like Devouring Darkness) that has natural focus+cleave making it far more likely to land your cleave predominantly on the same targets. That context is important, once again, because that is how you de-mystify how to havoc, how you take outmanned fights or how good groups play. In a good guild you can expect all three types of markers being used - marker calls, marked calls and target calls.

That's how we have depth in the system, reward more ambitious plays, and why we don't need simple reticle AoE to have higher caps. Fighting outmanned is supposed to be possible, it is not supposed to be easy. Lately, people tend to confuse things being challenging with things being impossible. If it is challenging but possible that is a sign of the balance getting it right. Then the system promotes proximity-based play (which mechanics exist for) and it provides ways to break proximity-based play and counter-play it for high rewards. This means that we as players get the option to both cloud or ball, allowing for different but balanced approaches. Meddling with rather powerful things, like caps, risks alot of volatility on that balance.

Edited February 25, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

3 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Well, that is the flaw of your argument then and Infusion pointed it out already back on page one. The system may randomise similarily, yet multiple hits means more randomisation, but even more importantly it means damage over a timespan where opponents move. That's also important for the context, because it means that you generally do not havoc or fight outmanned with those types of abilities, making the relevance of such an example questionable.

It is way easier to "focus cleave" with something like a Phase Smash. On top of that there are PbAoE skills as well (or similar skills that are not projectile-based like Devouring Darkness) that has natural focus+cleave making it far more likely to land your cleave predominantly on the same targets. That context is important, once again, because that is how you de-mystify how to havoc, how you take outmanned fights or how good groups play. In a good guild you can expect all three types of markers being used - marker calls, marked calls and target calls.

That's how we have depth in the system, reward more ambitious plays, and why we don't need simple reticle AoE to have higher caps. Fighting outmanned is supposed to be possible, it is not supposed to be easy. Lately, people tend to confuse things being challenging with things being impossible. If it is challenging but possible that is a sign of the balance getting it right. Then the system promotes proximity-based play (which mechanics exist for) and it provides ways to break proximity-based play and counter-play it for high rewards. This means that we as players get the option to both cloud or ball, allowing for different but balanced approaches. Meddling with rather powerful things, like caps, risks alot of volatility on that balance.

 

There's a lot to say here but I'll just focus on one aspect of it, which is that your underestimating the efficiency of this property of dispersion... It is so efficient that it can not be effectively avoided.

 

This dispersion that happens is heavily dependent on the relative distance between players. For example, you have player A, standing 600 units away from player B. You use an AOE skill (let's just say it has only 1 target cap) on the initial location of player A, with a radius of 600, then the distance that needs to be crossed before this dispersion occurs is the half way point between player A and player B (300 radius). When player A passes player B at the 300 unit mark, marked in blue, the AOE would select and hit player B rather than A.

 

Continuing the example, let's say you have 5 players you are against now, and again using the same 1 target cap 600 radius AOE ability, you use the skill. The crossover point in which that AOE would get dispersed is based on the relative distance between any of the 5 players from the location of the attack. So if these players are moving around stochastically (meaning they are moving around in random directions) the cross over region is much much smaller... the crossover region being where C passes E, and the skill hits player E.

 

Now, scale this to a 50 man zerg,  huddled together in a 360 radius, and you use a 5 target skill that is 360 radius. The crossover region is essentially infinitesimally small, because the relative distance between players is incredibly small. If those players are moving around in a stochastic manner it is practically impossible to hit the same targets without this dispersal occurring at a maximal efficiency....and the only way to neutralize that dispersal is by doing a spike that is faster than players can move between each other's crossover distance. You can even calculate that distance, which is taking the radius in which the players are huddled (360 radius) divided by the number of players (50) which means the average radial distance between each player is 7.2 units. The unbuffed forward speed of players is 210 units per second, and so you would have to do a spike that happens within 0.034 seconds to avoid dispersion.

 

The above is actually easily recognizable when you understand how buffing occurs in squads without subgroups. In order to get buffs, you and everyone else has to be huddled VERY close together, because the chances that an AOE buff selects you as a target when you are even slightly further away from any of your squad members, drops to near 0. Again, it is the same behavior as damage dispersal except with target allied buffs...and this behavior reaches it's maximal efficiency very quickly when players get closer together.

 

 

In other words, the counter argument that "damage over a timespan where opponents move is relevant", is actually no where near relevant. This is why players huddle close together in tight balls...this is why players that are in tight balls are hard to kill, and this is why players that spread out too much drop like flies, and the reason players even land kills is because of human error. What I'm not saying, is that dispersal is the only factor in how zergs survive...like someone mentioned before, actually using your skills intelligently in the first place and using them in a way that isn't bad is also part of how to play this game...nobody is arguing that. What is being said here, by me, is that target caps play a role in how this game works...not that it is the ONLY factor in how this game works. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Shiyo.3578]

On 2/20/2022 at 4:04 PM, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

I don't think @Jarwan.8263 actually expects to successfully 1vs50. With or without target caps. But fact is, the rather low target cap for offensive abilities disproportionally favours larger numbers (just like - and especially in combination with - downstate) and mechanics that favour a grp that is already at an advantage in a game mode where numbers are rarely even doesn't scream like a good idea to me. That being said, there might still be valid reasons to keep those caps, i'm mainly thinking about performance here. But "1vs50 shouldn't be a thing" is not a good argument, because if one player can somehow overcome the innate disadvantage of being outnumbered that heavily, he absolutely deserves to get rewarded and those 50 people better step up their gameplay instead of expecting to get hard carried by unfair mechanics.

The target caps are also completely nonsensical. Overload  air is 5 but other offensive overloads are 10 because...?

[Lord of the Fire.6870]

I'm confused by this thread .

Both dmg and boons have target caps only condi cleans go over 5 now in WvW . The last thins what they nerfed was the removal from shouts to 10 targets which let Tempest support being not meta anymore.

[subversiontwo.7501]

On 2/25/2022 at 8:04 AM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

underestimating the efficiency of this property of dispersion... It is so efficient that it can not be effectively avoided.

In other words, the counter argument that "damage over a timespan where opponents move is relevant", is actually no where near relevant

Now, scale this to a 50 man zerg,  huddled together in a 360 radius, and you use a 5 target skill that is 360 radius.

The unbuffed forward speed of players is 210 units per second, and so you would have to do a spike that happens within 0.034 seconds to avoid dispersion.

actually using your skills intelligently in the first place and using them in a way that isn't bad is also part of how to play this game...nobody is arguing that.

Going by this, I'd assume that you did not understand what I said. When I spoke about the time of your Well example, I said that time is a factor that makes the example irrelevant. I did not say that damage over time is relevant, quite the opposite. Ontop of that you are essentially repeating the same mistake that I tried to point out when I spoke of relevant examples the last time.

Examples of standing still in a 360 radius or moving in a 360 radius are not relevant because you're either not doing anything or it illustrates something in theory that no one does in practise. Not even the best 15-man groups out there maintain a 360 radius while actually fighting back. That's the relevance bit: Wells are a poor example from a perspective of either havoc or busting because you would not use them for that, it isn't representative. Standing or moving in a 360 radius are also poor examples because the targets you are trying to spike tend not to stand still or be capable of sustaining a 360 radius if they fight back. It's not representative, especially considering that the larger groups get the less coordinated they tend to be.

I'll wrap a spoiler on the how's and why's to separate basic points from more complex details or explanations:
 

Spoiler

 

What can help you see it (assuming you'd try to), using your own example, is that once you assume more representative norms then the windows to spike opponents also open up. Those windows do not have to open very much to quickly become likely and reasonable. Plus you can focus (and focus+cleave) targets to separate them (eg., by focusing Devouring Darkness, mentioned in the prior post) when they move, opening up those windows even further. All of that is just about likelyhood and relevance.

Here's where norms and definition comes into the picture: If we're talking outmanned then we need to define it and its expected behaviours or norms. Ratios of 1:2, 1:5 and 1:10 are all outmanned but vastly different. If we look at solo roaming you're likely to see 1:2 up to 1:5 in rarer cases. Arguably, this extends up the scale for groups. It doesn't mean that a party can't be impactful against a full squad but it is not reasonable to assume the party to fight the squad alone. It then likely does it as part of a larger group or cloud. Those definitions have terms: Havoc (with others) and Bust (alone). Havoc is thus reasonable to expect beyond norms established by the smaller scales (1:10), while Busting generally follows those norms through the scales (1:2 with sharp rarity up towards 1:5). Expecting any different is expecting outmanned should be easier at larger scale than smaller scale (solo). You can want that but it has no objective relevance, given balance.

If you assume numbers closer to 1:2 then the value of spikes or separation does not become less relevant but you also gain more options in conventional damage or other ways to affect the outcome. Even if the opponent stands still the ability to focus then extends to wittling opponents down, to create downcleaves and snowball from there with more and more players looped into ressurections etc. Focus-cleave moves from just being about opportunities and separation to also include snowballing.

Also, at a ratio of 1:2, standing still to sustain may be a less ridiculous response in the face of a relatively stronger group (making it a more relevant example) than if you outnumber your opponent 1:5 or 1:10. However, that opens up other issues like essentially letting your opponents freecast by giving them full reigns managing engagement distances. That's why groups generally does not huddle in place. It creates these two types of norms where huddling against something you outnumber >1:2 is just such an abnormal behaviour as it's not a situation where you should expect or be happy with a stalemate, whereas <1:2 so many more factors come into play from snowballing to damage-support balance to damage-support composition norms and ratios (ie., 60:40).

 

 

So let's go back to relevance and look at representative examples instead:

• 5 v 50 (bust) - this does not exist, does not have to exist and the devs will never let exist, so it is kinda pointless to talk about
• 5 v 15-50 (havoc in 5+x+x v 15-50) - this exists, is perfectly possible and reasonable, allowing you to weaponize a cloud or public to succeed versus a public or guild, you can effectively make a losing group win with havoc
• 5-10 v 15-25 (bust) - this exists, has numerous examples even if they may not be on everyone's radar
• 5-10 v 30-40 publics (bust)- this exists, but is exceedingly rare and should be so (for the same reasons as the first point in the list)
• 15 v 25 (15 v 15+x+x) guilds or 15 v 30-40 publics (50 in rarer cases) bust - this exists, has numerous examples even if they may not be on everyone's radar
• 25 v 50 (or 25 v 25+x+x) bust - this exists, has fewer but multiple examples even if they may not be on everyone's radar
• All of the above assumes that you are better than your opponents, of course
• I think most concerns with these issues comes from players in the second point who are simply not good enough, they just want their own one Well, LB5 or Meteor to be more effective (or their cloud's collective but uncoordinated efforts to be, on the same premise), which quite frankly is ridiculous

Then that begs the question, what are we trying to achieve with this thread? Suggest that neither of these things which have ample enough examples and can be explained do not exist or suggest that something ridiculous beyond them should exist? If it is the latter, I'm not going to argue against you, but you're not really arguing reality or balance anymore. It's your hopes and dreams, that's fine, but relevance comes back into question, now for the forums/topic.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

4 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Going by this, I'd assume that you did not understand what I said. When I spoke about the time of your Well example, I said that time is a factor that makes the example irrelevant. I did not say that damage over time is relevant, quite the opposite.

 

 

No, i think you are the one that doesn't seem to understand. Time does not make the example irrelevant...the topic of time (specifically spikes) is irrelevant...because at almost all times dispersion is working at maximal efficiency. Whether dispersion is relevant in whether zergs live or die at all times is NOT what I am speaking about. Dispersion makes larger groups more effective than groups of smaller sizes by a proportion that isn't linear....Dispersion doesn't make zergs un-killable....and your post seems to believe that i am saying that zerg busting can't happen.

 

Quote

Examples of standing still in a 360 radius or moving in a 360 radius are not relevant because you're either not doing anything or it illustrates something in theory that no one does.

 

Again, I think you are just not understanding what i am saying like...at all...Nobody is standing still...

 

This image is an example of stochastic movement. Does it look familiar? It should because it looks exactly like how zergs move all the time. You are sitting here and telling me that my example is about people standing still...no it's not. The examples are about people moving about in a random fashion, and i have said that like 3 or 4 times in that comment...the entire thing is BASED on the fact that people move around in zergs, in the manner depicted in the picture (stochastically)

 

 

Quote

Not even the best 15-man groups out there maintain a 360 radius while actually fighting back. That's the relevance bit: Wells are poor example from a perspective of either havoc or busting because you would not use them for that, it isn't representative. Standing or moving in a 360 radius are also poor examples because the targets you are trying to spike generally don't like that. It is not representative, especially considering that the larger groups get the less coordinated they tend to be.

 

You're talking about Wells for some reason...nobody is talking about wells here. Like i said, the target system works the same for all abilities in the game. Wells, AOE, single target, multi target, cones, roads whatever...it doesn't matter what you are using. AOE is the simplest way to understand and explain the behavior of the target system, and therefor that is the language I will use for you to understand it.

 

2nd, Your getting too caught up in these arbitrary classifications but ignoring the information content. You are assuming that here, that groups DONT bunch into 360 radius circles? I mean what are you even talking about bro?...well guess what, it doesn't matter what people do...that's not where the information content of my post is...when more and more people get closer together, dispersion happens at higher and higher efficiency. it's happening at 600 radius...its happening at 360 radius...its happening at 180 radius...choose whichever you think reflects realistic zerg radius to you and plug into the equation whatever values you want and you will get a number that describes how fast the dispersion is occurring...You will find that you won't get anywhere near the number you want to have in your head. the equation again is :

 

X = Zerg Radius/# of players = where X is the Average Radial Distance per player in units.

 

Take the average radial distance and divide it by the movement speed of the players which will be in units per second, and you get the time in seconds, the time it would take for any individual player to cross over any other player. 

 

(average radial distance per player/Movement Speed *1) = time

 

Illustrating the above: 

600 zerg radius / 40 players = 15 units per player

 

Take some movement speed...say the unbuffed backpeddling speed of 105... one of the slowest speeds in the game aside from /walking. 

 

15/105*1 = 0.142 seconds.

 

With some math sense, you'd be able to figure out, that in order to get a time larger than 1 second, the Average radial distance has to become equal to the movement speed of characters...In other words if a player is traveling at 210 units per second, it will take 1 second for that player to cross any other player, and thus a spike has 1 second to deal it's damage before it get's dispersed to any other players that he crosses over. 210 average radial distance is basically never...I mean when was the last time you saw a 50 man zerg where it's players were spread out 210 units from each other (a zerg spread out over 10,000 radius) It never ever happens happens ever.

 

And again the above is meant to show you how efficient dispersion is. It happens pretty much constantly all the time everywhere so long as there are players, moving around, and those players are close to each other to some degree. The closer they are, the more efficient it is. Once it has reached it's maximal efficiency which is within nanoseconds, they will have an effectiveness of 2x mitigating ( by dispersing) damage against individuals in a group against a group that is half of their size. This doesn't make them impossible to kill...it makes them harder to deal with...It gives them an advantage for simply having more people stacked close together.

[Xenesis.6389]

Remove the boon and condition recycling process!

Application and removal process only, no recycling!

It's bad for the environment!

Then we wouldn't need to raise the caps to beyond category 5!

[subversiontwo.7501]

49 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

You are assuming that here, that groups DONT bunch into 360 radius circles?

Once it has reached it's maximal efficiency which is within nanoseconds, they will have an effectiveness of 2x mitigating ( by dispersing) damage against individuals in a group against a group that is half of their size. /.../ It gives them an advantage for simply having more people stacked close together.

• I'm saying that they're not doing anything of value when they are stacked like that.
• I'm also saying that any of your examples of "maximal efficiency" has no reasonable root in player behaviour.
• A group standing still evening out randomised damage is nothing to be worried about in a larger context of balance.

It is two completely different arguments to say:

1. More players are a factor
2. The factor is imbalanced

No one is debating number one because it isn't relevant to the game and its balance. That is you talking to yourself and being frustrated about it.

I appreciate the irony of me saying this but many times the simple is the better: Do we have a meta of players standing still? No? Is fighting outmanned impossible or far too difficult compared to what could be expected? No? Where is the problem?

I can tell you one concern where there could be a problem: If you make it far easier to bust zergs, then people like me who are already capable of it, would just bully publics and inexperienced guilds even more and give people less reason to try and learn. There would also be far more groups capable of that.

Edited February 26, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

25 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

A group standing still evening out randomised damage...

 

Again you don't understand how the games works then. If people are standing still, there is no dispersion...

 

Dispersion happens BECAUSE people are moving around. 

 

You don't know how the game works. Spend some time going to SPVP golems and try randomizing your damage against golems standing still omegalul.

Edited February 26, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[subversiontwo.7501]

22 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Dispersion happens BECAUSE people are moving around.

When groups move they snake, they don't gravitate. They follow the tag (with delays of human reactions, some notably slower than others), not orbit it.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

18 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

When groups move they snake, they don't gravitate. They follow the tag (with delays of human reactions, some notably slower than others), not orbit it.

They don’t have to gravitate, they simply have to move and cross the paths of other players close to them. That margin with which they have to cross each other is only a few units. You don’t seem to understand just how low of a margin a few units is. 120 units is about the size of the reticule of a player. How big do you think 7 units is? It’s practically nothing.

 

You’re asserting that players don’t use their A and D keys while moving forward and move in perfectly parallel lines to one another…which is completely unrealistic. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[God.2708]

Everything you've listed is a linear equation. Where is the non-linearity?

[subversiontwo.7501]

31 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

You’re asserting that players don’t use their A and D keys while moving forward and move in perfectly parallel lines to one another…which is completely unrealistic. 

Not at all. I am asserting that players are so spread out when they move and fight that it is perfectly reasonable to catch the same ~5 targets in a 5-player spike. I'm also suggesting that there is enough separation tools in the game to make that even easier. It's not uncommon for groups of roughly five players to be separated and lag that full 360 range behind their tag or bulk of their squad. Assuming that we still talk about 5-man havoc here.

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

On 2/20/2022 at 6:03 PM, Yuffi.2430 said:

There's plenty more to do: solo roaming,

What is this solo roaming you're talking about? I never see anyone else besides myself do this. 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, God.2708 said:

Everything you've listed is a linear equation. Where is the non-linearity?

 

It's linear because you are taking the average distance of a bunch of non-linear components, which you force into being a single term (the average radial distance between players). The average distance is a very good approximation to the exact solution.

 

You can calculate those examples as a set of non-linear equations, and find the exact solution of the example if you want to do an equation with 400 or more terms (be my guest)...why would I needlessly complicate the solution when its far easier to understand the approximation to that solution with a very simple linear equation.

 

For example you can say that Player A is 100 units away from B, 300 units away from C, 10 units away from D, 311 units away from E... and so on for 40 players and each permutation of those players away from every other player. The exact solution will be a slightly squiggly line if you were to plot the distance relationships on a graph but it will be very close to the approximate solution of the linear solution, which will be a more or less if not exactly a straight line if it's stochastic. 

 

Why do you think many physics equations are linear equations? They approximate non-linear dynamics very well, and the same is the case here. I know what you are trying to do, but I know my stuff, and I've done my homework and my research. This is my field;  non-linear processes and in fact that's how I came to an finding out this exact issue of target caps was through the study of non-linear processes.

 

@subversiontwo.7501

 

https://i.gyazo.com/36facf4319c0221027e9b1f78482ca29.mp4

 

Take a look at the gif for a moment. If you were to count how many people I am passing through, I'm crossing pretty much all of them (50+ people) within a very short time frames. 

 

The only skill i am using here for this test is Ventari's Will (The Tablet Summon) and the Energy Explusion, which spawns at my location. When it spawns, my elite explodes it, and a few healing orbs appear (about 4 healing orbs in total) which grants vigor when those orbs are touched. The orb effects 5 people in a 120 radius when it is touched. Therefor when this skill is used my orbs can effect up to 20 people at a time when they are dropped. If I was in a subgroup of 5, the healing from the orbs would prioritize the effect to the 5 people in my subgroup if they are in that range, and so this test is to show how the targeting system functions with 5 target capped skills, and how they are distributed when you are not in a subgroup.

 

Every time I move in a stochastic manner, the target system is selecting a new set of people where it decides players proximity to the center of the location of the skill (Ventari's tablet and where the orbs are placed) with respect to other players.

 

https://i.imgur.com/nvwKYMN.png

 

A snap shot of the gif at a single moment in time...I'm sure you can count, but you can see that it's a lot more than just 5 targets. The healing from the healing orbs being dropped is being DISTRIBUTED throughout the zerg. If I was standing perfectly still, and the zerg was standing perfectly still, and the healing orbs landed in the same place all the time, than my skill would effect the same 5 people over and over again.

 

You see the barrier for entry required to get this behavior is basically nothing. This is a zerg parked at a gate and you can get the effect of dispersion by simply moving around a little. On the move, it's even better because EVERYONE is moving and crossing paths constantly.

 

So the above is a test of allied buffs, but do you want to test how your damage skills are getting dispersed? Go and take a skill like Lava Font or some other pulsing skill...and use that ability against an enemy zerg. Check in your combat log and count how many different people it hits. Guaranteed each packet of damage will not hit the same target more than once (unless you have a good immobilize on your spike), and each packet will hit a different name. If you don't do it I will, it's not a hard thing to go and test.

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[subversiontwo.7501]

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

@subversiontwo.7501

 

https://i.gyazo.com/36facf4319c0221027e9b1f78482ca29.mp4

 

I guess pictures are better, so let's compare the points we are making.

I understand what you are trying to say. However, as I've said all along, your group isn't moving or fighting.

I am saying that if a group moves around a more representative example is something like this (5-6 vs. zerg)

https://i.imgur.com/iyS8Nie.png

You can see the normal movement separation above

You can see the combat separation below

https://i.imgur.com/m3xYpKr.png

This engagement ends with 5-10 kills for the small group and the larger pickup group limping away from the fight

I can even give you an example that is as ideal as possible for your argument:

It is not from an outmanned fight but rather the first spike between two groups that hits some sort of peak size-calibre ratio (meaning that they are not the largest nore the best, but whoever may be better is smaller and whoever is larger is far worse; so they are literally the peak example of the tightest balls out there; a smaller group would ball less, other equally sized or larger groups would ball worse), they would run into 50-man publics or multiple other 25-man guilds without hesitation - including that group from your example.

https://i.imgur.com/mBzwnq6.png

This is the point of impact, within a split second, and if you look closely (the target squad running right) you can see that this is only movement separation into the first spikes. There are no targets called yet and no control being cast, so they are running freely, only separated by movement and combat from the symbol spike (which also gives you some distance measure). The synched phases and strikes are about to land square on the furthest left group and take out a portion of them.

That isn't representative because you generally do not get groups that large being that tight. It doesn't get more difficult to land a spike. Anything after that split second is going to see more separation as players drop, hits control and gets scattered. However, the main point is that even the tightest large groups snake in combat, enough to spike.

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[God.2708]

4 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

It's linear because you are taking the average distance of a bunch of non-linear components, which you force into being a single term (the average radial distance between players). The average distance is a very good approximation to the exact solution.

All you have to do is list the point at which it exponentializes based on player count. At the moment all it sounds like is you are increasing your vector size which is still linear. But given the nature of probability sample spaces to involve exponents I think I get what you're actually trying to say.

But trying to present it as a random probabilistic occurrence isn't a very accurate picture given combat is between two entities that are very much creatures of habit. Stochastic movement would quickly leave you alone when a group is attempting to push, for example.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

3 minutes ago, God.2708 said:

But trying to present it as a random probabilistic occurrence isn't a very accurate picture given combat is between two entities that are very much creatures of habit.

 

This is always the thing people say when they talk about this...that it's not "realistic" when it is very realistic. Just looking at the equation points to how easy it is to step into the realm of stochastic behavior. Even if it's not 100% stochastic, the alternative is modeling zergs as being perfectly linear...IE: walking completely parallel to one another without using AD keys...which is way LESS realistic.

 

Zergs move. Are you really debating that this is not true...

 

Honestly I've had enough of the nonsense here. I'm going in game right now, I'll use lava font on a zerg and we can look together how much dispersion is happening.