Nerfing supports + removal of target limits.

[Cyninja.2954]

7 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Somewhat understood? Lol No it's trivially obvious. Dispersion drops as speed of players drops...because dispersion is related to player movement and position relative to one another. To repeat again... if you are standing completely still and you place an aoe in the same spot, the target system will select the same people over and over and over again and no dispersion occurs. You can go and TEST that on the SPVP golems.

 

 

 

That is only partially true and shows why your strict mathematical approach is limited at best and often is not actually reflected in in-game peformance (the entire back and forth in this thread being a perfect example of limited models meeting real situation).

 

Yes mechanic wise, aka game mechanic wise, that is the correct answer. In actual game play though, the answer is dispersion is decided by:

- player skill of both the attacking and getting hit player

- the difficulty of landing the attack affecting the former

- the skill of every surrounding player besides the 2 earlier players in question affecting behavior

 

Movement speed only positively or negatively affects possible dispersion. It does not define it. Player skill does. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Forum Moderator.3419]

Hello Everyone,

Just a reminder to keep it civil and avoid attacking each other. I've removed a few posts.

Regards.

[God.2708]

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I take back what I said earlier. This is the most meaningless thing you’ve ever said.

 I have a skill that targets 80 players and I’m in a 80 man Zerg so I’m in a bigger group right…and I target a single person running around by themself. My skill does 1/80th it’s potential damage.

if you don’t understand the above then it’s a lost cause

So bear with me here.

The claim: Target caps favor bigger groups.

The counterpoint. Target caps do not favor bigger groups. Having more people is the advantage and it is inherently independent of game mechanics.

Let's take a group of 40 and group of 80.

There are no target caps. They both explode. The end.

There is a 5 man target cap. Does the group of 80 kill twice as many people as the group of 40? Or more (which is what you claim) obviously if the group goes to infinity size damage goes to zero and no one dies, but we aren't dealing with infinite sets we're dealing with, at best, 300 person sets assuming minions. So we need simple napkin math to show that the relationship between players killed and group size is non linear. I am convinced you can show this, but you haven't.

 

-BUT-

These groups *without* target caps get wise. They realize 'wait if we both die we should just split in half then they can't kill both parts' so they do it. Again, everyone dies.

And again

And again

And again...

Until it is 40 individuals VS 80. And suddenly the 40 man group realize their infinite splitting strategy didn't work, they are all dead and there are still x enemy players to kill

Will you look at that. You removed target caps and it - still- favors the larger group. You need to demonstrate that the target caps removal results in a different balance state IE. The X players killed is consistently different across different group sizes with and without target caps. All you've done is demonstrate that big groups are bigger in a lot more annoying words.

You said an 80 target cap skill hitting 1 person deals 1/80th it's damage. At what target cap state does spreading out reduce damage more than bobbing together? And how does spreading out in any way favor smaller groups that are also forced to spread out?

[Zyreva.1078]

27 minutes ago, God.2708 said:

So bear with me here.

The claim: Target caps favor bigger groups.

The counterpoint. Target caps do not favor bigger groups. Having more people is the advantage and it is inherently independent of game mechanics.

Target caps do favour larger numbers disproportionally because the dmg mitigation is based solely on numbers. The more players within close proximity of each other, the more players won't take dmg without having to actively avoid anything.

Ofc larger grps are favoured inherently, but stuff like more dmg still requires them to run decent builds and use their skills properly to actually take advantage of their numbers. Dmg is also avoidable, so there are ways to outplay the opponent in this regard. But you can't counter or outplay dmg caps. It just puts a hard limit on how much dmg a small grp can deal to a larger force, no matter how well they coordinate their spike, no matter how bad the opposing zerg is at avoiding the burst. The only "counterplay" is to bring more numbers yourself.

It has been countless times where target caps and downstate (both mechanics favor numbers and kinda reinforce each other) are the sole and only reasons we couldn't defeat much larger numbers.

Edited March 3, 2022 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[Mabi black.1824]

I've read a lot of complicated and interesting things in this post, and I'm not entirely sure I got it right.

let's say that as it was asked by someone you are granted a trial week and they double the limit from 5 to 10.

at this point all the healing or area damage skills that previously involved 5 players are now spread over 10.

the potential of that weapon and its area ability remains unchanged, if before it hit or cured 5 players of 1k each now it will hit them and cure them by 0.5k each.

I correctly summarized what was the request of the post?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

  

2 hours ago, God.2708 said:

There is a 5 man target cap. Does the group of 80 kill twice as many people as the group of 40? Or more (which is what you claim)

 

The group of 80's damage is being dispersed between 40 people, whereas the group of 40's group's damage is being dispersed between 80 people, therefor group 40's damage is half as effective against the group of 80. For instance, You have 1 guy in group 40 using a spell, and one guy from group 80 using the same spell. The spell from the guy in group 40's damage, is being dispersed between 80 people. while the spell from the guy in 80's group is being dispersed to 40 people. Guy from Group 80's attack therefor, is more likely to hit the same targets, where group 40's spell is less likely to hit the same targets.

 

Quote

obviously if the group goes to infinity size damage goes to zero and no one dies, but we aren't dealing with infinite sets we're dealing with, at best, 300 person sets assuming minions. So we need simple napkin math to show that the relationship between players killed and group size is non linear. I am convinced you can show this, but you haven't.

 

The proof is a hard proof and statement about the relationship at all sizes. That when players are put together in a finite volume using no skills, will not die (because the chance of a finite target capped skill hitting them approaches 0).

 

The proof at infinity is what shows the relationship of the finite examples. As you get closer to infinity (like 300), the chances your attack hits the same targets gets closer and closer to 0. The more you increase the target cap of your skill, the chances of your attacking hitting a target approaches 1. 

 

Just compare the following two situations: You have a skill with a 300 target cap. How many targets is the ability gonna hit every pulse? It's gonna hit 300 of them. So on the next pulse you have a probability of 1 to hit the same targets again.

 

Take the same spell, except now it has a target cap of 1. How many targets is the ability gonna hit every pulse? Just 1. So on the next pulse, what is the probability it is going to hit the SAME person among those 300 people. it's 1/300.

 

Here is the relationship plotted out for you in a graph:

 

https://i.imgur.com/QDYAQG5.png

 

The relationship is proportional, and it asymptotes to 0 at infinite (which is an exponential relationship) The relationship is linear (remains constant at 1 probability) for # of players before target cap is reached.

 

Because the above assumes that players move stochastically, you can add a few terms that shows just how stochastic do players have to move in order to get that behavior, and the threshold for that movement is low...so low that it essentially happens no matter what you do. You can plot the same relationship on a graph as well, but just figure it out yourself. You got the proportion of the AOE radius (area of a circle) which is already an exponential relationship (pir^2), on top of the player crossover radi within that circle, which gets exponentially smaller with each additional number of players.

 

You can go and test these limits in the field which I already did for you on the previous page...but if you want to get a sense of just how sensitive that relationship is, go and do some tests on the SPVP golems...because you can roughly simulate artificial player movement by simply moving the center of your AOE reticule  around rather than having players themselves move. 

 

Aim your AOE reticule at some golems. First, aim your spell on the exact same spot. You will see the ability hits over and over and over again the same targets.

https://i.gyazo.com/eb6921b5073946aeab0192662185516b.mp4

 

Now move your reticule ever so slightly to the left or right of targets. a few units is enough to change the priority of the skill. In fact i'll just make a gif and put it here displaying just how sensitive it is.

 

https://i.gyazo.com/f4121935842c096904976251267a394f.mp4

 

And this is an example where there are only 9, non-moving targets in the radius. the amount I have to nudge my cursor before the target system reevaluates the closest targets gets exponentially smaller the more targets there are, and even more so when they move around. 

 

Therefor the requirement to get dispersion behavior is to just be moving just a smidgy widgy bit all the time in relation to players, enough to cross paths, and i already proved this on the previous page. Likewise, players need to be SO precise with their spike (all aoe's have to essentially land right on top of each other perfectly) to avoid dispersion. Its in practice impossible to avoid this unless you are a PVE zerg that doesn't understand how to ball together or move around. I'd implore you to find an example where, a zerg puts all 40 of their AOE's down on the SAME exact spot in WvW where there is no margin of error in overlap...it's not happening, there is no proof that exists or is even possible.

 

Quote

These groups *without* target caps get wise. They realize 'wait if we both die we should just split in half then they can't kill both parts' so they do it. Again, everyone dies. 

 

Until it is 40 individuals VS 80. And suddenly the 40 man group realize their infinite splitting strategy didn't work, they are all dead and there are still x enemy players to kill 

 

That is the whole point, it gives no inherent advantage to grouping together, or splitting apart. When the enemy splits apart, you as an individual want them to ball together so that you get more value in your skills. When they ball together, they get no advantage in numbers, but they are two players using two times the skills you can use, and those aspects balance/cancel each other out.

 

The fact that happens means players will dynamically change between grouping and splitting apart constantly...combat would become more complicated, and a lot more dynamic.

Edited March 3, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Zyreva.1078]

31 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I correctly summarized what was the request of the post?

No.

In your example a skill that could hit 5 players for 1k each would be able to hit up to 10 players for 1k each. The whole point of an increase or removal of target caps is that skills do not become less effective the more players they hit.

[Mabi black.1824]

ok so the request of this post is to double (if we bring the limit to 10) the healing or damage capacity of all area skills.

in relation to this bisno at this point change the parameters of everything else. we should double the health of the players we should double the damage and healing of all the skills of single attack.

if we do not think about this we are practically asking for a change that goes in the opposite direction to the concept of balance of the game mode.

more or less how to ask the administrator .......... hei anet please double the damage and healing capacity of the warrior and renger's abilities, all the others don't.

[Jarwan.8263]

9 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

ok so the request of this post is to double (if we bring the limit to 10) the healing or damage capacity of all area skills.

in relation to this bisno at this point change the parameters of everything else. we should double the health of the players we should double the damage and healing of all the skills of single attack.

if we do not think about this we are practically asking for a change that goes in the opposite direction to the concept of balance of the game mode.

more or less how to ask the administrator .......... hei anet please double the damage and healing capacity of the warrior and renger's abilities, all the others don't.

giving players equal chance in their server regardless of how many players they have should be more important.

you can't get that unless the cap is removed. increasing it remedies the situation but this mode lets you have squads of 50 players.

it will do little to affect zergs power.

 

 

doubling a specific classes health pool/healing is worse than anything suggested in this thread. it could potentially create more imbalance cause it targets specific classes. whereas this sits on another lane to that. this hits more on team imbalance.  not every server has equal number of active players

not every fight has equal number of players. and giving a huge advantage to a side that has already more players isn't right for a design... it breeds toxicity and overall its just not fun when you're in a team that dominates every match nor is it fun to be on the other end when not enough players are online to defend a keep from a zerg.

no-cap fixes that. justice devoted 7 pages worth of texts explaining this in deeper detail than i thought to research.

 

something to think about is the new engi golem that now acts as a target. so imagine 5 of them with 5 golems. they'd soak up aoe damage meant for players and unless you outnumber them, you have close to 0 chance if that happens.

this doesn't mean that engi's are broken... just that the caps are.

 

[God.2708]

1 hour ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

giving players equal chance in their server regardless of how many players they have should be more important.

you can't get that unless the cap is removed. increasing it remedies the situation but this mode lets you have squads of 50 players.

it will do little to affect zergs power.

 

 

doubling a specific classes health pool/healing is worse than anything suggested in this thread. it could potentially create more imbalance cause it targets specific classes. whereas this sits on another lane to that. this hits more on team imbalance.  not every server has equal number of active players

not every fight has equal number of players. and giving a huge advantage to a side that has already more players isn't right for a design... it breeds toxicity and overall its just not fun when you're in a team that dominates every match nor is it fun to be on the other end when not enough players are online to defend a keep from a zerg.

no-cap fixes that. justice devoted 7 pages worth of texts explaining this in deeper detail than i thought to research.

 

something to think about is the new engi golem that now acts as a target. so imagine 5 of them with 5 golems. they'd soak up aoe damage meant for players and unless you outnumber them, you have close to 0 chance if that happens.

this doesn't mean that engi's are broken... just that the caps are.

 

1. Being a big balled zerg is not the optimal strategy for victory in a straight fight. (Justice argues this in another thread, before you point to his arguments)
2. Being a big balled zerg is not the optimal strategy for victory in a PPT grand scale strategy.
3. Changing target caps doesn't give the smaller group any new advantages in a brawl.

You just want to be able to blow people up. That's all this thread is about. It's all most of these threads are about. Reward with little risk and no effort. No challenge in establishing a community, building friendships, grouping up and keeping things together. Just "I don't have enough please make things fair". Your prayers won't work, the gods left tyria.

[Swagger.1459]

1 hour ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

giving players equal chance in their server regardless of how many players they have should be more important.

you can't get that unless the cap is removed. increasing it remedies the situation but this mode lets you have squads of 50 players.

it will do little to affect zergs power.

 

 

doubling a specific classes health pool/healing is worse than anything suggested in this thread. it could potentially create more imbalance cause it targets specific classes. whereas this sits on another lane to that. this hits more on team imbalance.  not every server has equal number of active players

not every fight has equal number of players. and giving a huge advantage to a side that has already more players isn't right for a design... it breeds toxicity and overall its just not fun when you're in a team that dominates every match nor is it fun to be on the other end when not enough players are online to defend a keep from a zerg.

no-cap fixes that. justice devoted 7 pages worth of texts explaining this in deeper detail than i thought to research.

 

something to think about is the new engi golem that now acts as a target. so imagine 5 of them with 5 golems. they'd soak up aoe damage meant for players and unless you outnumber them, you have close to 0 chance if that happens.

this doesn't mean that engi's are broken... just that the caps are.

 

Nvm the fact that GW2 runs on a refurb engine of GW1, and that the devs clearly stated there would be technical issues… and we all know those issues would cause 10x the lag… It’s pretty ridiculous to be concerned with balance issues by increasing Health, yet you want to unleash every offensive skill in game to 80+ targets. 
 

Any some of you can keep posting in circles with your own “data”, but the fact remains the larger groups still gain more advantages to damage output and have access to more boons and heals to keep themselves alive. Pretty obvious if you think about it for more than 2s. 

 

Also, the more targets a skill hits, the devs would be forced to reduce the damage on those skills… So you can sit there dreaming that you’re going to be critting 80 targets for 5-10k each with a push of a button, but you won’t. 
 

It’s also obvious the devs will not do what you are asking, so instead of complaining about large groups on the forums, why don’t you build your own guild and fight back. And you’d serve yourself better if you actually understand what wvw is primarily about… And hint, it’s a mode designed for larger teams. If you can’t handle wvw, then I suggest going to SPvP. 

[Jarwan.8263]

9 hours ago, God.2708 said:

1. Being a big balled zerg is not the optimal strategy for victory in a straight fight. (Justice argues this in another thread, before you point to his arguments)
2. Being a big balled zerg is not the optimal strategy for victory in a PPT grand scale strategy.
3. Changing target caps doesn't give the smaller group any new advantages in a brawl.

all 3 statements are wrong m8. if damage mitigation is possible then the only way that happens is through stacking, therefore all those points collapse. justice was stating about the movements whilst your stacking that can turn a boon ball into an unkillable machine by designating players to move in specific pattern to consistently distribute damage/heal onto different teammates. he explained it perfectly clear.

9 hours ago, Swagger.1459 said:

Nvm the fact that GW2 runs on a refurb engine of GW1, and that the devs clearly stated there would be technical issues… and we all know those issues would cause 10x the lag… It’s pretty ridiculous to be concerned with balance issues by increasing Health, yet you want to unleash every offensive skill in game to 80+ targets.
 

send me a link to that statement, cause i doubt thats true... i feel like the technical difficulty stems from laziness more than the engine itself.. Anets is probably the best i've seen for an mmo that was released in 2012. they don't need to change the animation, just how many targets aoes can register. the only performance issues i have is with large zergs where i'd have to set the visuals on low just to avoid slideshows. i'm not that technical though, need to research this.

Quote

Any some of you can keep posting in circles with your own “data”, but the fact remains the larger groups still gain more advantages to damage output and have access to more boons and heals to keep themselves alive. Pretty obvious if you think about it for more than 2s. 

not sure what this is trying to say.. that the advantage still rests with the larger group? as it should, only difference is they aren't helped by target caps anymore. that also takes 2s to think about..

thats a better tradeoff cause the modes full of zergs and the game should reward individual contribution to fuel collective. otherwise whats the point of playing if the better rewards come from zerging.

 

we can gvg... my 10 awesome players vs your 5.. sure its not fair but wvw isn't either with the caps.. wanna schedule a date?

Quote

Also, the more targets a skill hits, the devs would be forced to reduce the damage on those skills… So you can sit there dreaming that you’re going to be critting 80 targets for 5-10k each with a push of a button, but you won’t. 
 

right.. i don't see why damage would need to be nerfed when people constantly moan about supports being op... this just affects how many can be targeted, not how skills work. and those affected would have to be within the aoe... so if you choose to stack... you should be alert enough to cleanse/heal/cloud/flee/pressure.. all these choices are open to you.. but right now stacking is the best and optimum strategy to sustain an entire squad.

you still have to jump into a zerg that can potentially one shot you, just to be able to damage all of them if they choose to be within close proximity. that sounds way more fun than jumping in and doing damage to only 5? while the rest are able to damage you. so what exactly can you do to pressure a zerg if you don't have one yourself. thats the whole point of this thread.

Quote

It’s also obvious the devs will not do what you are asking, so instead of complaining about large groups on the forums, why don’t you build your own guild and fight back. And you’d serve yourself better if you actually understand what wvw is primarily about… And hint, it’s a mode designed for larger teams. If you can’t handle wvw, then I suggest going to SPvP. 

yes it's their game.. they can create it however they want... but they can't skew fairness in a competitive game mode and convince players this is the way it should be played. 

 

They created a giant map so 60+ players can hang in 1 small portion of it completely protected by damage negation.

i have to speak about it from a solo perspective because you can't see the flaws clearly when you play with zergs. they go over your head once you remove the individual impact your skills have.

 

and if you tell me this isn't a solo game then i would say i agree.. but the balance has to start from there and work up.. its not really a good idea to give hard-coded advantage to any team with a bigger group who can just stack to avoid damage cause then your game mode strives to be a gank fest. you need to allow smaller teams a chance to deliver equal counter pressure which happens through better players.

look at it both in micro/macro scale. and if you still struggle then i dunno what i can tell you mate.. i've played this game since 2015, i've given little thought to target cap until recently. partly fuelled from losing faith in anet addressing balance in this mode. this topic though should be in discussion actively until its resolved cause the existence of caps ruin team balancing. nothing to do with skills/stats/builds cause you as a player should know enough of your class to adapt to it.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Jarwan.8263

[Mabi black.1824]

10 hours ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

giving players equal chance in their server regardless of how many players they have should be more important.

you can't get that unless the cap is removed

we are talking about equal opportunities for all players.

your request is not to eliminate the targhet limit, I would have 0 problems with this.

your request is to change the potential of your weapon, claim to bring the damage potential of your weapon and your area ability beyond 50k.

(assuming the opposing team is full and within the area of your skill and assuming you hit them for 1k each)

very well my class has no skills for area damage, so I claim the same damage potential of 50k to the single attack skills for the axe I hold in my right hand and also for the axe I hold in my left hand.

[Jarwan.8263]

45 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

we are talking about equal opportunities for all players.

your request is not to eliminate the targhet limit, I would have 0 problems with this.

your request is to change the potential of your weapon, claim to bring the damage potential of your weapon and your area ability beyond 50k.

(assuming the opposing team is full and within the area of your skill and assuming you hit them for 1k each)

very well my class has no skills for area damage, so I claim the same damage potential of 50k to the single attack skills for the axe I hold in my right hand and also for the axe I hold in my left hand.

man that was tough to decipher, but i understand it now.

i'm pretty sure most classes, if not all have aoe. single target skills are still as effective as they suggest in the tooltip. whoever you target it to, it does the full damage. but aoe doesn't if those targets are above 5 standing on it.

 

so you want 50k damage on axe cause you didn't bother to do anything else but cycle through your 1-5. if the team you go against also has those skills on axe well then... you realise the problem right? it just becomes which side has the axe that can do 50k, and everyone will now start running it. nothing will stop zergs from taking 0 pressure from smaller groups.

 

whereas if you push the argument that this just favours my class more cause i main a glass FA tempest. then i would point out i get 1 shotted by t3 guards on a daily basis.  theres dragonhunters, soulbeasts with prelude, reapers, mirages, holo, ALL of them have aoes.

pushing players to run riskier damage builds should be better for all than the current meta of toughness, vitality, healing power.. like really? how is that fun to fight against when you have to put 100% more effort to deal damage cause your aoes are less effective against a bigger group.

they finally go down and teammates swarm to instantly get them back up taking little to no damage cause of mitigation and their own supports to bolster while you cleanse, dodge, pressure being under their cap. 

the caps steer balance in a complex new direction and no amount of class tweaks can fix the number disparity in a given situation. and adds extra weight to supports + player count.

so i don't really get your point i guess

Edited March 5, 2022 by Jarwan.8263

[Mabi black.1824]

34 minutes ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

so i don't really get your point i guess

my point remains only that of equal opportunities. if you want to get a disproportionate increase in the damage capital of your weapon I demand the same too.

this regarding the specific request you made. if instead we want to think about how to change the style of the game then it is a whole other thing.

at the moment the healing abilities of the area are excessive? I could agree with you. since I don't use healing support classes the first thing I would ask is if these healing skills also have an area limit of 5 players taken care of and the same question applies to the barieres or protective balls. do they also have a limit of 5 protected players?

the same question applies to those strips on the ground that make you collapse when you cross them, do they also act with a limit of 5 enemies involved?

if the answer is no then perhaps it is there that we must reason, and remain on the concept of equal opportunities.

[Jarwan.8263]

moderator monitoring this thread? my responses keep getting deleted... i'm not even insulting in it so the hell..

 

mabi, i don't know how to explain it to you... its not the same thing... yes every aoe should act as intended to every target both damage and healing... the changes have to come from there with no caps.. removing it is not end of the story.. but balance has to come from equalising team strength too.. not just individual class

 

do you know what i do to fields when i see them? not cross them. if i do, i dodge into them to either have them miss or activate whatever mechanism that occurs after. the only time i don't dodge is when i'm in a zerg and theres aoe fields.. you don't need to... you usually have supports there with you and if you tightly packed in you should avoid most of the damage inflicted on you.

 

i dunno how my version of equal opportunity means i completely benefit when it just allows me to bloody play the mode... when a zerg coming knocking on the gate, the few players you can muster can do little to nothing in defense. can't inflict damage on all.. you need a laggy blob to counter a laggy blob. my overloads without caps can do nothing if all those players are ALERT enough to not allow that to happen. if 5 players can successfully do it then its rewarded as such if they can take down an entire zerg somehow without them even retaliating.. it just evens the score for every fights.. cause right now same zerg should easily faceroll that small group in any situation with/without caps so why is it such a big fuss to open the floodgates and strike balance from there?

Edited March 5, 2022 by Jarwan.8263

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

moderator monitoring this thread? my responses keep getting deleted... i'm not even insulting in it so the hell..

 

mabi, i don't know how to explain it to you... its not the same thing... yes every aoe should act as intended to every target both damage and healing... the changes have to come from there with no caps.. removing it is not end of the story.. but balance has to come from equalising team strength too.. not just individual class

 

do you know what i do to fields when i see them? not cross them. if i do, i dodge into them to either have them miss or activate whatever mechanism that occurs after. the only time i don't dodge is when i'm in a zerg and theres aoe fields.. you don't need to... you usually have supports there with you and if you tightly packed in you should avoid most of the damage inflicted on you.

 

 

I understand what you mean, and I'll explain why I disagree.

it is true that to suffer the damage I must stay in the area where you have placed it and that I have the opportunity to avoid it or avoid it partially. this is the intrinsic characteristic of skill. you already have the advantage of placing it at a distance, in addition to the advantage of applying damage to more enemies with the advantage of staying at a distance or even moving away.

to do you damage with my axE I have to put my face in front of yours and I will do damage only to you, and if you start running I will have to chase you and maybe I will be able to make my damage skills work.

a little more risky and limited to a single target and if the opponent is good he can still use his dodge.

so in addition to all the advantages that your area damage ability already has now ask to increase its damage capital a lot, I'm sorry but I continue to ask for the same treatment for my two axes.

the problem that if an enemy group of 50 men knocks on the door of your castle you have to answer with a defense group of as many as 50 men, is precisely the expression of balance of this game mode, is not the problem.

the problem is if you don't have them available for defense in the right place at the right time.

[Yuffi.2430]

Arrow carts have a target cap of 25.

If raising the target cap will fix wvw encounters, why are arrow carts so useless?

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

moderator monitoring this thread?

it's nice to know that we have vigilant moderators and also present our friend and developer jhos davis I saw that he visited the forum only 12 hours ago.

I think I express the thought of many of us crazy players of this mode of world vs world, which would be really nice and appreciated every now and then to read some thoughts or updates on the work in progress of our developer friends.

[Jarwan.8263]

48 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

as many as 50 men, is precisely the expression of balance of this game mode, is not the problem.

the problem is if you don't have them available for defense in the right place at the right time.

but those 2 statements contradict each other. what happens when not enough are online to defend a keep? the caps is a easy win for larger groups when really players should have equal chance with the skills their given to be able to damage everyone against large groups, this would apply to me and you and everyone else in that situation. 

 

what you are asking for, is for the mechanics of your skills to be changed... thats a separate topic altogether mate.. it has to stem from no caps though to give smaller side equal chance.. what your 1-5 skills can or can't do doesn't make sense to me cause i switch between builds that focus on 1 player vs multiple... so what class are you to run double axe?

i want to know this unusual specific example you bring up so we can tackle this together. to suddenly have axe skills do ludicrous amounts of damage as a result of no cap cause i can shoot my aoes from a distance now and hit every player is a weird point to bring up. 

 

with my zerg, our server matched that went from t6-t1 easily. can dominate your players if we're stacked outside your t3 gates and you only have.. lets say 1-30 players available to defend. thats alot of players.. but your aoe is less effective than the enemies aoe... even if they use the same one as yours... only because they have MORE players as a result of cap.

 

changing your skills is not gonna help if then all those players are just gonna run the same thing as you to do 50k damage on just 1-5 skills with no weapon change or any aoes for that matter.. you want the mechanics to be changed to suit just your class. i feel like thats harder work than just removing the caps for everyone honestly.

if as a result players choose to run FA tempest cause i chose to argue this topic then feel free, good luck side stepping incoming damage and 6k backstabs from an invisible player whilst maintaining pressure. i really don't care if every zerk build consequently gets propped up cause they'll be the glassiest of specs you can find in this toxic spill of a game... what is so scary about that? learn to counter it, they will take huge damage.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Jarwan.8263

[Zyreva.1078]

17 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I understand what you mean, and I'll explain why I disagree.

it is true that to suffer the damage I must stay in the area where you have placed it and that I have the opportunity to avoid it or avoid it partially. this is the intrinsic characteristic of skill. you already have the advantage of placing it at a distance, in addition to the advantage of applying damage to more enemies with the advantage of staying at a distance or even moving away.

to do you damage with my axE I have to put my face in front of yours and I will do damage only to you, and if you start running I will have to chase you and maybe I will be able to make my damage skills work.

a little more risky and limited to a single target and if the opponent is good he can still use his dodge.

so in addition to all the advantages that your area damage ability already has now ask to increase its damage capital a lot, I'm sorry but I continue to ask for the same treatment for my two axes.

Aoe dmg isn't always ranged, single target dmg isn't always melee. Also which axe are you even talking about? As far as i'm aware all of them can hit multiple targets. The closest to being primarily single target would be necro axe with only 1 aoe skill, but that's a ranged weapon, so yea ...

17 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

the problem that if an enemy group of 50 men knocks on the door of your castle you have to answer with a defense group of as many as 50 men, is precisely the expression of balance of this game mode, is not the problem.

the problem is if you don't have them available for defense in the right place at the right time.

But population is not balanced and never will be, so if the only answer to a large zerg is to bring your own, how is that not a problem?

[Mabi black.1824]

1 ora fa, Jarwan.8263 ha detto:

quello che stai chiedendo, è che la meccanica delle tue abilità venga cambiata ... questo è un argomento separato del tutto compagno .. deve derivare kitten nessun tappo anche se per dare al lato più piccolo pari possibilità .. ciò che le tue abilità 1-5 possono o non possono fare non ha senso per me perché passo tra build che si concentrano su 1 giocatore vs multiplo ... quindi che classe sei per eseguire la doppia ascia?

a dire il vero non chiedo alcuna modifica trovo le meccaniche e le dinamiche di combattimento di questo gioco davvero divertenti e tutto sommato bilanciate tranne che per alcune peculiarità sfuggite all'occhio dello sviluppatore.

sei tu che stai chiedendo di rimuovere un limite al numero di nemici che la tua abilità di area può comportare. e non avrei nulla kitten dire anche per questo se il danno complessivo quando fai clic sulla tua abilità non cambia.

ma la richiesta va molto oltre, si chiede di mantenere il danno per un numero illimitato di giocatori coinvolti, il risultato è che quell'abilità ottiene un enorme potenziale di danno 50k solo per esempio ipotetico. e aspettatevi che la mia capacità di singolo danno mantenga il suo potenziale a 2-3k ad ogni clic. Non lo trovo corretto e penso che vada nella direzione opposta al concetto di equilibrio e pari opportunità.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Mabi black.1824

[Swagger.1459]

@Jarwan.8263

 

Since you are unsure of how tech works, in the interest of putting this thread to rest, and to avoid further follow up threads when this one is gone soon…

 

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/So-why-aoe-cap/page/1

 

“What you seem to be missing is that technical limitations are not about the fact that a solution somewhere may have existed for some other thing. Our game is using an engine that has these technical limitations. We could, for instance, display everything as text, which would solve the problem quite nicely, however we’ve found that our graphics offer something a text-based MMO couldn’t quite deliver. The point is, it is very much a limitation of our engine. The load on the server CPU would be quite simply unsustainable if we were to increase the AoE cap as the more players hit by skills the more calculations it has to do and it actually starts increasing exponentially, rather than sequentially. We continue to seek out ways to squeeze more performance out of our game and our servers, but it is highly unlikely we would ever make a change to the AoE limits on player skills.”

 

…

Yeah, I wrote in plain English. That statement was clear and easy to understand. 

I spent 90% of my time solo and small scale roaming, so I’d avoid the assumptions.

 

There are groups that fight outnumbered all the time, and have been successful, so perhaps developing your skill sets for that would be better than asking the devs  to change the entire game mode so you can solo. 
 

I still see you are not understanding the core concept of wvw. It’s a team based mode, not solo mode. Is that understandable? Honestly, you would probably like Spvp better with all things considered… like wvw primary design function was for hundreds of players to occupy these maps and fight over objectives… Which is a big clue that you should have keyed into upon arriving in wvw. And there are definitely not zergs to worry about in spvp, so that’s even better for you. 

 

…

 

So now that we established the technical issues that squash your idea, and the fact that wvw isn’t going to accommodate your dream of solo smashing entire zergs,  perhaps you can move on from this thread and think about some realistic ideas to improve wvw? 

Edited March 5, 2022 by Swagger.1459

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

But population is not balanced and never will be, so if the only answer to a large zerg is to bring your own, how is that not a problem?

hi umbranoctis,

I do not want to be misunderstood, I mean we are all waiting for alliances to see a considerable improvement in the balance between the teams.

but if at that particular moment you do not have the numbers to play against a team of 50 men, you will do everything you can to slow down the advance of the enemy but to pretend that 10 men defend and erase 50 enemies as if they were the same thing, it would be like saying that balance does not really exist.

as I have already suggested in other posts to help the mechanics and 24/7 coverage of this system in a ranking perspective, I suggest working on the war points that that castle generates when it is captured through a constant control of the players on the map. if you are 1/10 of your enemies that capture produces a score of 1/10 compared to when it is captured under equal conditions of players on the map.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

Aoe dmg isn't always ranged, single target dmg isn't always melee. Also which axe are you even talking about? As far as i'm aware all of them can hit multiple targets. The closest to being primarily single target would be necro axe with only 1 aoe skill, but that's a ranged weapon, so yea ...

mine wants to be just an example you can put the class or the weapon you want. the concept is the damage potential of an area damage skill and a single damage ability.

I mean all mechanics has its own logic and proportion. the health of the player the capital of the damage and healing of the various skills etc etc.

if you only change the capital of area damage significantly it is logical to assume that we unbalance everything else.