Nerfing supports + removal of target limits.

[Mabi black.1824]

21 minutes ago, Swagger.1459 said:

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?

great advice 😊

but we also like to chat.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Mabi black.1824

[Jarwan.8263]

 

1 hour ago, Swagger.1459 said:

@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.”

 

fair enough, we have 1 quote from a dev in 2013 explaining that theres technical limitations to aoe without us ever having test it considering certain skills in the past could hit 10 before they were nerfed for balance... so which one is it.

i find it weird how almost every one of those players in that thread seem to make sense for/against on that topic.. freaky.. what has happened over the years.

 

all that tells me is the servers suck to deal with the calculations... i'll pay a monthly sub if it meant a better wvw where teams fights aren't decided by how many players. no caps are a better fix than anything you can come up with.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Jarwan.8263

[Zyreva.1078]

48 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

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.

But an increase or removal of target caps wouldn't mean 10 players are out of a sudden as powerful as 50. The larger zerg would still be at a significant advantage. But the outnumbered side would at least have a small chance at fighting back. Right now there is no point in even trying when you can't touch a large portion of the enmy zerg even if they straight up facetank your dmg.

42 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

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.

The entire point of aoe is to scale according to the numbers of targets, allowing someone to fight multiple enemies at once. And it does exactly that up until a numbers of 5. Why only 5? Why not 10? 20? 50? Probably because the combat system in originally designed arround 5vs5 PvP. But we do have to deal with much larger numbers in WvW, so it would make sense to adjust some skills accordingly, no?

Changes to target caps also doesn't neccessarily mean that the cap needs to be infinite for every single skill or that there can't be further changes to adress potential balance issues that are inevitably going to occur with any big "across the board" change.

Nobody says a removal of target caps would instantly result in a perfectly balanced game. That would be nonsense ofc. But that doesn't mean nothing should ever change. Balance always needs to be a continuous process.

Edited March 5, 2022 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[Strider Pj.2193]

40 minutes ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

my dude, there

 

fair enough, we have 1 quote from a dev in 2013 explaining that theres technical limitations to aoe without us ever having test it considering certain skills in the past could hit 10 before they were nerfed for balance... so which one is it.

i find it weird how almost every one of those players in that thread seem to make sense for/against on that topic.. freaky.. what has happened over the years.

 

all that tells me is the servers suck to deal with the calculations... i'll pay a monthly sub if it meant a better wvw where teams fights aren't decided by how many players. no caps are a better fix than anything you can come up with.

I think it’s more the engine than the servers based on re-reading that.

 

(And I am not going to debate why they don’t overhaul the engine lol because that is its own thread…). 
 

There is a part of me that wonders if they have been experimenting with the engine responses to larger caps with some of the skills and effects that have come out over the past few years.  I cannot remember which skills were effects on >5 over the past few years but it has been some.

 

And the reduction back to five for those may have been because of the effects on the engine and performance.

 

But, as Anet generally talks very little about this (as evidenced by needing a 2013 post to highlight it) I am only speculating.  I also suspect Anet isn’t going to answer it…. They have no reason to…. 

[Swagger.1459]

1 hour ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

 

 

fair enough, we have 1 quote from a dev in 2013 explaining that theres technical limitations to aoe without us ever having test it considering certain skills in the past could hit 10 before they were nerfed for balance... so which one is it.

i find it weird how almost every one of those players in that thread seem to make sense for/against on that topic.. freaky.. what has happened over the years.

 

all that tells me is the servers suck to deal with the calculations... i'll pay a monthly sub if it meant a better wvw where teams fights aren't decided by how many players. no caps are a better fix than anything you can come up with.

Well, that 1 comment ends your dreams of soloing zergs because you are unwilling to muster numbers and fight back. You’d rather the devs change wvw so it’s less effort for you. 

 

And even if the stop gate wasn’t technical issues, your idea is poorly thought out, as is your reasoning.

 

I can confidently say that I’ve come up with a ton better, and more logical, ideas to improve the wvw experience for all types of players. Meanwhile, your idea culminates to the devs doing the work for you, instead of you putting in any effort to build up your guild and server and lead groups to take on other groups and servers, like others put in the work to do. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by Swagger.1459

[Jarwan.8263]

6 minutes ago, Swagger.1459 said:

Well, that 1 comment ends your dreams of soloing zergs because you are unwilling to muster numbers and fight back. You’d rather the devs change wvw so it’s less effort for you. 

 

And even if the stop gate wasn’t technical issues, your idea is poorly thought out, as is your reasoning.

 

I can confidently say that I’ve come up with a ton better, and more logical, ideas to improve the wvw experience for all types of players. Meanwhile, your idea culminates to the devs doing the work for you, instead of you putting in any effort to build up your guild and server and lead groups to take on other groups and servers like others put on the work to do. 

solo'ing zergs again, you haven't even began to understand the reasoning behind it but sure, lets read all your so-called great ideas that can fix this issues without cap removal, which bear in mind can still negate damage cause theres just no other way to remove that possibility. but anyway, i'm incredibly excited and curious to read how you can balance small servers who find themselves against big ones.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Jarwan.8263

[Swagger.1459]

1 minute ago, Jarwan.8263 said:

solo'ing zergs again, you can't even understand the whole point of this but sure, lets read all your so-called great ideas that can fix this issues without cap removal, which bear in mind can still negate damage cause theres just no other way to remove that possibility. but anyway, i'm incredibly excited and curious to read it

You have a habit of wanting others to do the work for you, much like your suggestion. I already provided a quote because you were unwilling to use google, so that was a freebie. You are more than welcome to go through my post history and learn. 

[Jarwan.8263]

no, the last topic on this was 2013, this is fresh. place them on here as an argument against target caps. i'm not gonna go digging for your guaranteed useless ideas that won't equalise damage.. you're that afraid of a zerg getting blown up by lone players when all i ever suggested so, was merely to use as an example to express my point.

theres 9 pages worth of texts explaining how its unfavourable for smaller groups to have these caps and gives an advantage to a group/server that already has more players... how anyone can argue thats how it should be, plays in those zergs.

ye.. sure, you say i want others to do the work for me yet ironically thats probably you getting carried by a commander.

all my points involves the devs doing the work for me? well thats what they are hired to do.. to be developers mate. what do you think a bug report is? this is clearly a flaw. 

the existence of these caps also give me an advantage under the conditions just as every players who use them.. i just don't think its fair... about as fair as attacking a player with no rank who doesn't have a mount... wheres the fun? no challenge if the game limits you to a certain number of players because you choose to play in smaller groups. bit weird... 

 

i didn't ask wvw to be changed to incorporate the way i choose to play the game. i just question why if those who choose to stick together, aren't least given a crutch but instead are improved by the caps against players who are outnumbered.. how can you argue thats fair?

 

so again... lets read your good ideas that can counter the point of this.. cause i'm very curious.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Jarwan.8263

[Swagger.1459]

No, there has been hundreds of the same topic and the end result is the same. Tech issues and the dev wouldn’t do it anyway for logical reasons. 
 

Nowhere to go. Now what? 
 

You are free to read my good ideas in their appropriate threads. This one won’t last much longer anyway so it’s a moot request. 

[Xenesis.6389]

It's funny having this long discussion in 2022, when it's been asked all the way back to 2013, with people saying the same "don't give the technical limit excuse!" 😆

Also a wvw dev Devon Carver(left anet in 2015, came back last year) did say increasing it would increase skill lag. 🤷‍♂️

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Why-do-commanders-ask-us-to-stack/page/1#post2354587

Some extra blast from the past, carry on 🙂

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Please-Explain-the-Logic-of-the-AoE-Limit

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

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Warning-Long-Post-WvW-anti-zerg-etc

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/AoE-Limit

 

 

 

[Svarty.8019]

On 2/20/2022 at 4:09 PM, Jarwan.8263 said:

 better players should always beat lesser skilled..

And thus, your change would end the game. 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

On 3/5/2022 at 3:03 PM, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

 

 

I'm not sure where some of that info really came from but "Your selected target assuming they are in range" is not true. Target system does not priorities targets you select. Again, another simple golem test can show that.

https://i.imgur.com/sAKP9ih.png

Guild Wars 2 (gyazo.com)

The Target system works based on one thing, and one thing only, which is the proximity to the center of which the spell was cast. If that is an AOE with a reticule you can aim, then the closest thing to the center of that reticule is what the skill will hit. If the center of the skill is a PBAOE where the caster is the center, than again, the closest things to you is what the skill will prioritize.

 

All other systems in the game are built ON TOP of the proximity targeting system. Squads, Parties, and other things like pet priority, alter the behavior of the target system by putting it in a kind of "check list" and the target system goes down that checklist based on the proximity of the center for each category on the checklist.

If you are in a party, in a squad, surrounded by ranger pugs that have pets, then the skill you cast will go based on proximity to your party...then proximity within the squad, then proximity to pugs, then proximity to pets belonging to those pugs. If your party happens to have pets, it will go Party->Squad->Pets->Pugs->PugsPets.

 

Another thing, that is relevant to target caps and how it is exploited, is based on how healing from skills work in this priority system. If the healing skill you have is not a buff, but a direct healing skill, Players that are at Max HP will be ignored by the target system, and go to the next closest player. If that player is at Max HP it will go to the next closest player, and so on...and the order it checks is again based on proximity from the center of the spell.

 

Say you have a skill like Med-blaster, which is in the shape of a cone. The center of the spell is the caster. If there are 10 players in your party, 4 of them have pets where 8 of the 10 players have full health and the pets are at half health , the target system will do the following:

 

Party

->Check Closest Person: If HP = Full then skip.

SKIP

->Check 2nd Closest Person: If HP = Full then skip

SKIP

->Check 3rd Closest Person: If HP = Full then skip.

SKIP

->Check 4thnd Closest Person: If HP = Full then skip

Person not at full Health: HEAL

->Check 5th Closest Person: If HP = Full then skip.

SKIP

->Check 6th Closest Person: If HP = Full then skip

SKIP

->Check 7th Closest Person: If HP = Full then skip.

SKIP

->Check 8th Closest Person: If HP = Full then skip

SKIP

->Check 9th Closest Person: If HP = Full then skip

Person not at full Health: HEAL

->Check 9th Closest Person: If HP = Full then skip

SKIP

 

Squad

SKIP

 

Party Kennel

->Check Closest Pet: If HP = Full then skip.

Pet not at full Health: HEAL

->Check 2nd Closest Pet: If HP = Full then skip.

Pet not at full Health: HEAL

->Check 3rd Closest Pet: If HP = Full then skip.

HEAL

 

All 5 targets have been used = END SKILL. (4th closest pet is ignored)

 

The reason that this has an effect on Target cap and why healers have an easier time healing dispersed damage, is because healing skips players that have max health already. Like mentioned before...If you have a squad of 50 players, and a party of 5. The damage packets get dispersed between those 50 bodies. A Healer's spells will skip players that have max health, and it will default to the squads health bars. Therefor When party health is maintained at 100% in your party, your heals spill over to heal your squads health. The more bodies you have, the more damage gets dispersed, the easier it is to keep players at max health in your party and the more spillover healing your squad receives from other parties.

 

To put that into perspective, think about the scenario at infinity. With infinite players, an enemy uses a skill. The first time, the skill hits one of those players, the 2nd time it (always) hits a different player. A healer who is healing inside this infinite party, will ALWAYS heal the player that gets damaged no matter what party that person is in, because the target system will ignore every player that is at maximum health, till it gets to the person who has missing health and will heal them.

 

Regardless of whether Anet does or doesn't want to implement no target cap...i could honestly care less. But what is a fact is that target cap has a many advantages towards players stacking bodies, against players who have less bodies, and i even encourage people to exploit its behavior because the potential for its exploitation has hardly been explored yet. It is a balance issue that in fact causes many balances/diversity problems throughout the entire game...not just the game mode but all over the game. Anet can create whatever excuse they want...but given how much time, energy and resources they spent doing balance fixes over the past 9 years, they could have designed their systems better (because the computational complexity problem they face with their technical issue can be solved with better system design) and it would have probably cost them a fraction of those resources to do that, rather than what they decided to do, ignoring fundamental problems and using thousands upon thousands of manhours to bandaid fixes for 9 years. 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Jarwan.8263]

On 3/6/2022 at 2:16 PM, Svarty.8019 said:

And thus, your change would end the game. 

for the better.. its gonna die anyway when their competitive modes ain't even fair.  justice is a G for putting all this detailed info in. and not a SINGLE response except blocking me from posting every few hours.. how do you expect players to treat devs when they don't even respect players.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Jarwan.8263