Target caps vs the numbers game

[Xenesis.6389]

38 minutes ago, SoftFootpaws.9134 said:

If we removed the downstate from the competitive modes and just made revival skills bring dead players back to life with resurrection sickness, it would be alot more balanced. It may not feel that way, but its something you have to experience to understand.

But then organized zergs would still have a big advantage as they are the ones mostly using the res skills.

If you're going to take away down state then make it across the board, no downstate at all, no res skills at all.

[joneirikb.7506]

One of the main problems with these kind of discussions, is that anything changed to benefit the smaller groups also benefits the larger group. And usually more than most people think/expect. As others have  said above, most just think what they themselves gain and assume that they themselves are obviously good enough to benefit from it.

In the case of Increasing the target caps, it would in most cases benefit the larger group, as they're simply able to slap on more AOE's than a smaller group. This means that unless you stealth bomb a larger group, you just get deleted. In general almost all fights would be MUCH faster, to the degree that you wouldn't really have any kind of sustain against a large group, you'd just be deleted.

Could a few well organized small teams kill some large groups with it? Yes. Most of the time would large groups just instantly delete opposition? Yes. Which would happen more often ? And how much fun would the average zergling enjoy being on the receiving side of this?

 

If Outnumbered actually worked better (locally rather than map global), there could be an argument for increasing the outnumbered sides target cap, as a way to fight against a larger opponent/zerg. But unfortunately it's way too flimsy and barely functional for that.

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, SoftFootpaws.9134 said:

Literally every other RvR game I've played for the last two decades has had a larger offensive cap than defensive cap. Half of the replies in this thread don't really map to my experiences in those games, in which it was almost always advantageous for the smaller group to have a larger offensive cap.

 

That said, those games also all have real resurrection systems and skills, not just reviving downs. Believe it or not, the downstate system is one of the biggest advantages a zerg has, since they can just rub everyone back to life, whereas with a proper resurrection system you have to deal with cooldowns and such (no rallies, no rubbing, only revival skills), and as a result zergs get wittled down much faster by tactics that this game refers to as "clouding". That's not to mention that when you defeat someone, they're instantly out of the picture and can't still throw rocks at you. Mist Form through a portal and so on.

 

If we removed the downstate from the competitive modes and just made revival skills bring dead players back to life with resurrection sickness, it would be alot more balanced. It may not feel that way, but its something you have to experience to understand.

 

So basically, downstate is bad, rallying is bad, rubbing is bad, not having to slot and use your build and skills to bring a defeated player back to life is bad. Even in PvE, its mostly been a mistake that puts allies in danger more often than not, even though it does add flavor there.

 

Full dead, force respawn. Downed can be revived. Would love a downstate event with this.

[enkidu.5937]

On 5/12/2023 at 7:46 AM, Cyninja.2954 said:

So in short: no math, but simply anecdotal evidence which can be summarized as: player experience needed. Gotcha, exactly what I had said.

As far as clouding working, that's because the majority of blobs do not adapt to the cloud via adjusting their skills or builds on dps slots because they are focused on engaging other blobs (imagine running cele against cloud in dps slots for example, pretty much never happens but would make clouding useless).

Going by actual synergies played by experienced players it's pretty unbreakable at current support levels. The main detriment as I had stated is from the immobility and concentrating many players in 1 spot leaving the remaining border open to attack due to slower response times.

I fully understand that you guys struggle a lot with recruiting ppl for your stack-on-tag Meta. I explained why, but unfortunatelly simple math seems too demanding. And you don't want ppl to cloud against you, cause you lose too much. So you try to tell ppl, that clouding doesn't work. The usual stuff. 😏

 

For my part its ok, the TO can keep on stacking vs. larger numbers and get blown in seconds. They seem to belong to the 85% average player base, and not some supernatural fight elite that stacks boon balls at WSR. So its their fault I guess 🫠

 

On 5/12/2023 at 1:10 AM, apharma.3741 said:

Honestly it strikes me that the person hasn't come across a proper unified server blob like WSR used to have years ago. You couldn't do anything against it because they had 40% of the entire group as support throwing out enough heals to literally just stand there and take the enemy pug commander then roll them.

Afair, they run away before they lose when facing a cloud, cause "its not fun" 🤡 Or standing in the lord room behind a gate, farming PvElers for 30 mins without capping, while we flip their map 😚

 

Funnily, i watched a twitch vid last week from a WSR com who went completely mad, cause his veil was not on voice, very entertaining, high quality gaming 👍

 

[Cyninja.2954]

44 minutes ago, enkidu.5937 said:

I fully understand that you guys struggle a lot with recruiting ppl for your stack-on-tag Meta. I explained why, but unfortunatelly simple math seems too demanding. And you don't want ppl to cloud against you, cause you lose too much. So you try to tell ppl, that clouding doesn't work. The usual stuff. 😏

You made a mention of "math" but have failed to provide any so far, still waiting for you to actually give ANYTHING in that regard. We have math for damage calculations, group compositions (for all game modes), cost of utility skills, stats, cost-benefit etc. for builds and all of them come out to the same thing: specializing yields a higher total output. Being a jack-of-all results in neither impressive damage, nor impressive sustain and gets even worse when factoring for traits, utilities, etc.

I did mention where boon balls fail and due to which reasons in part and why clouding "can" be effective (let's not ignore that a majority of cloud fails too, I'd say even more often than running a counter karma/ppt train). The most efficient composition to dominate a border is actually between 3-4 squads to be run simultaneously, with a few small havoc groups to flip camps.

44 minutes ago, enkidu.5937 said:

For my part its ok, the TO can keep on stacking vs. larger numbers and get blown in seconds. They seem to belong to the 85% average player base, and not some supernatural fight elite that stacks boon balls at WSR. So its their fault I guess 🫠

 

Afair, they run away before they lose when facing a cloud, cause "its not fun" 🤡 Or standing in the lord room behind a gate, farming PvElers for 30 mins without capping, while we flip their map 😚

 

Funnily, i watched a twitch vid last week from a WSR com who went completely mad, cause his veil was not on voice, very entertaining, high quality gaming 👍

If that same WSR blob actually split into 2-3 squads, you'd be singing a different tune. Then again, let WSR do what WSR does, not for me to decide.

In this scenario, you merely "outplay" your opponent because you are out for ppt while they are out for kills. That's not math, that's merely a different approach and priority with a lack of desire to adapt on one side and the lack of ability to adapt on the other.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[apharma.3741]

WSR was just an example, there's tons of 15-30 man guild groups who are just as good it's just guilds change every other month as people take breaks, swap guilds and drama. You don't crack them, they move on because they get bored of farming the same few people and don't want to PPT.
Though it's nice to know enkidu is a PPTer, that explains his viewpoint. 

[MaLong.2079]

I though the meta for small groups was to go full sustain and just pinsnipe one target at a time.

[TheGrimm.5624]

11 hours ago, MaLong.2079 said:

I though the meta for small groups was to go full sustain and just pinsnipe one target at a time.

Small scale doesn't have meta, hence why it is small scale since it has diverse rolls and goals that are varied for their tasks.

[enkidu.5937]

21 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I did mention where boon balls fail and due to which reasons in part and why clouding "can" be effective

Thats why, I cannot figure out what you try to argue about. You already agreed with me that clouding is the Meta, cause u wrote it works vs. most blobs, see . . .

On 5/11/2023 at 8:46 AM, Cyninja.2954 said:

Ranged cloud is the meta against mediocre or poor blobs. It barely tickles proper setup blobs or squads. What it does do is keep blobs/squads more engaged versus them fighting a smaller blob/squad.

On 5/11/2023 at 3:26 AM, enkidu.5937 said:

If you face a „stack-on-tag zerg“ you can bomb them easily from free-caster position. They move in slow motion and willfully eat your AoE all the time, while the cloud just evades their AoE ticks. Its so boring to be honest. 😏

Yes, that's what the majority of public blobs play like.

And as I said, stack-on-tag works with fight guild players, but that is a minority, as you confirmed, see . . .

On 5/11/2023 at 8:46 AM, Cyninja.2954 said:

I also loved running with smaller organized groups taking on blobs in the past. Somehow that was not the majority of players though as far as I remember.

So we both totally agree. Maybe with a different definition of "the Meta", which in my case is (and to my knowledge in PvP team games in general), that it works best for most players (not for the top 15% hardcore players, they have their own side Meta which is glass cannons  and stack-on-tag) and is applicable for most game situations.

 

21 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

(let's not ignore that a majority of cloud fails too, I'd say even more often than running a counter karma/ppt train).

Not sure about your definition of "fail" here. For me "fail" means your numbers + skill is in sum equal or bigger than the enemy, but you constantly lose. Or numbers + skill is equal or lower than the enemy, so losing is ok, but you just get blown up in short time, so the enemy is not delayed and can get more wins per hour.

 

From all what I've seen, range cloud works very well. Doesn't get blown up in short time vs. stack-on-tag blobs. And you might also have a wrong definition of "range cloud", ofc there can be a com that calls a bomb, and a squad with subgroups, synergies and all the tools from stab strips to stab share. So if you want to compare a well-organized stack-on-tag squad then you should compare it with a well-organized range cloud squad.

 

21 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The most efficient composition to dominate a border is actually between 3-4 squads to be run simultaneously, with a few small havoc groups to flip camps.

Yup, thats exactly what the range cloud is usually based on. People cover several maps solo or small scale, and when one calls "home hills 30 reds", then people gather and range cloud. Ofc, you can also do this coordinated with a com and a squad, that spreads over maps, but I guess its save to say that this is the exception.

 

21 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

You made a mention of "math" but have failed to provide any so far, still waiting for you to actually give ANYTHING in that regard.

Not sure what else math to provide. TO looks for a tactic vs. more numbers, and has made calculations with target caps. So I suggested to range cloud:

1. from AoEs, your squad will not receive 5 x 5 hits but maybe 2 x 2

    

2. and you don't need half the people on support, so that would turn the calculation already to

   50 x 5 x 5 = 1250 hits for the range cloud

   25 x 2 x 2 = 100 hits for the stack-on-tag squad

Additionally, in a cloud I can make full use of dodges, invulns, group stab etc. at the right time when I get focussed. While a stack-on-tag squad that gets constantly bombed by range cloud cannot, cause you simply don't know if you will get hit or not. Also in a cloud you can outlast heavy cooldowns and low HP by just falling behind (not a good idea in stack-on-tag), or adapt your level of aggressiveness to you level of skill (hard in stack-on-tag). You can play the build you like, you don't have to fulfill a specific role, and whatever.

 

So, in short, if the TO cannot make Anet to increase the general target cap to 10, then you should go for a tactic where you make more use of the target cap than the enemy with bigger numbers. And thats simple math imo.

 

21 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

We have math for damage calculations, group compositions (for all game modes), cost of utility skills, stats, cost-benefit etc. for builds and all of them come out to the same thing: specializing yields a higher total output. Being a jack-of-all results in neither impressive damage, nor impressive sustain and gets even worse when factoring for traits, utilities, etc.

No one said "jack-of-all". In a cloud you most of the time have free-cast, so you need less boon skills to keep up your boons, less cleanses to cleanse your condis, and so on. Just go Marauder and you'll be fine 🤗

 

On 5/12/2023 at 7:46 AM, Cyninja.2954 said:

As far as clouding working, that's because the majority of blobs do not adapt to the cloud via adjusting their skills or builds on dps slots because they are focused on engaging other blobs (imagine running cele against cloud in dps slots for example, pretty much never happens but would make clouding useless).

 

Going by actual synergies played by experienced players it's pretty unbreakable at current support levels. The main detriment as I had stated is from the immobility and concentrating many players in 1 spot leaving the remaining border open to attack due to slower response times.

Yup, that makes range cloud the Meta: playable for most players, works vs. most blobs cause they are unable to adapt, and it is only surpassed by squads that stack experienced players . . . and I would add that I expect to lose in the latter case anyways, just with the difference that cloud survives and is playable, while stack-on-tag would just get blown up in seconds (happens often enough even when numbers and skill level and coms from both stack-on-tag squads are quite equal).

 

 

[Dawdler.8521]

12 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Small scale doesn't have meta, hence why it is small scale since it has diverse rolls and goals that are varied for their tasks.

Except as soon as the group grows larger than 2-3 peeps, everyone and their grandma gets a pocket firebrand, scrapper and couple of aurashares for that permaboon goodness. The "small scale meta" is, unsurprising to anyone, exactly the same as the zerg meta except... on a smaller scale.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[coro.3176]

On 5/11/2023 at 10:12 PM, SoftFootpaws.9134 said:

Literally every other RvR game I've played for the last two decades has had a larger offensive cap than defensive cap. Half of the replies in this thread don't really map to my experiences in those games, in which it was almost always advantageous for the smaller group to have a larger offensive cap.

...

So basically, downstate is bad, rallying is bad, rubbing is bad, not having to slot and use your build and skills to bring a defeated player back to life is bad. Even in PvE, its mostly been a mistake that puts allies in danger more often than not, even though it does add flavor there.

Yes. In GW2, defensive skills like walls and bubbles scale MUCH higher than offensive skills since their cap is literally everyone they can cover. You pop a bubble and cover your full squad? That's a defensive cap of 50, or even more if you're covering non-squad players in it too.
In general, I wish the game had less shared boons/cleanse/defensives, and more personals. Either that, or make the shared stuff more difficult to execute, requiring careful combo setups.

[TheGrimm.5624]

10 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Except as soon as the group grows larger than 2-3 peeps, everyone and their grandma gets a pocket firebrand, scrapper and couple of aurashares for that permaboon goodness. The "small scale meta" is, unsurprising to anyone, exactly the same as the zerg meta except... on a smaller scale.

Saying small scale will have boon balls is the same as saying clouding will have boon balls. It might happen, but not as likely as a comped groups stacking up and forming a squad. Small scale can have boon balls, don't get me wrong there, but the odds are lower per regions/server. Saying small scale meta is boon ball, that takes it a bit far in my books. So I disagree here.

 

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Saying small scale will have boon balls is the same as saying clouding will have boon balls. It might happen, but not as likely as a comped groups stacking up and forming a squad. Small scale can have boon balls, don't get me wrong there, but the odds are lower per regions/server. Saying small scale meta is boon ball, that takes it a bit far in my books. So I disagree here.

 

"Smallscale" by my book is around 5-15 peeps and that includes just random gatherings, pug commands, small clouds and small guilds. No matter the scenario these groups always start to get filled by meta support zerg builds as soon as they approach that magical 5 number. 

I didnt sey they where being effective at boonballing - they just run all the builds required for it.

There is a reason we seperate this from roaming even when talking multiple roamers in the same place - a real roamer neither runs nor have a full minstrel firebrand running right on his heels.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[Cuks.8241]

Clouds only work if they heavily outnumber the boon ball and if the boonball is not a real boon ball and is lacking supports. 

That is why many guilds will avoid t1 because there you often have huge clouds and not much organised groups to fight. 

If you are killing boon balls with clouds, it just means you have huge numbers and such large boon ball would just run over the enemy ball. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

11 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

"Smallscale" by my book is around 5-15 peeps and that includes just random gatherings, pug commands, small clouds and small guilds. No matter the scenario these groups always start to get filled by meta support zerg builds as soon as they approach that magical 5 number. 

I didnt sey they where being effective at boonballing - they just run all the builds required for it.

There is a reason we seperate this from roaming even when talking multiple roamers in the same place - a real roamer neither runs nor have a full minstrel firebrand running right on his heels.

lol, as I thought about replying this made me think about how ANet broke out such defined roles in sPvP but then just threw all WvW into DPS or support. Have seen 2-6 player hovoc groups running pocket Min Fbs and Eles in guild groups. The reason this all made me laugh is when you talk about roamers who knows what they might be building out for if they plan on soloing tasks or just heading out for a nice day of leather gathering and tower sitting. Let alone if they are running builds that could work in all playstyles from roaming, havocing, warbands or zergs. Agree I would expect a variety of builds in all scales but I would hold the biggest variations at the roaming level and less as you go up from there. 

[Flow.2947]

I think the numbers problem comes from the "Metha" and that ppl are not willing or are too lazy to try different things. Some are stuck in the believe that you have to play "Metha" else you don't win... even kicking ppl because they play non Metha. So Numbers are providing the difference because you have more dmg cc and so on. As long as there is no big Metha defining Balance patch there is no change in sight. A big change would be something like go back to the old duration based stability.

The second thing is Why play Metha build?
When you are skilled enough to survive, why do you need to play Minstreal on a Firebrand/Scrapper/Tempest/Mesmer? You could contribute to DPS.
Why would you want to take wells on scourge when your opponent is constantly running out of them?
Why is immobilizing so strong but everyone complains about having a ranger in there squad?
...

And the third thing is i think that many ppl see wvw as pve game mode running in zergs smashing you skills randomly tag everything and get as many loot bags as possible. In big numbers, you can blend out individual skill lvl. And since there is no leader board, many ppl just care about the loot.

 

 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

On 5/13/2023 at 7:49 AM, Cyninja.2954 said:

You made a mention of "math" but have failed to provide any so far,

I did this math and proved it with evidence a a year ago [thread of math in question...in particular Dispersal of Damage and how this gives a thick advantage to a group of larger players] …you are actually never the one that did or does any math, in any of our past exchanges. Ironic.

It’s the same 5 or 6 people I see that have an issue with refuse to adjust their worldview When the evidence is piled up in front of you…

anyway…about clouding;

Clouding is a form of sustain strategy like how stacking is a strategy; clouds split up because the blob can’t charge at all of you if you’re spread out. And this charging from the zerg takes time to do. The more people there are clouding, the more time you give to freecasters in the cloud dealing damage onto the zerg.

Since the zerg is going through the cloud one by one, at a certain threshold, the amount of time it takes for them to kill clouders, matches the time it takes for the clouders they’ve already killed to come back from spawn. The zerg which relies on squad members to survive through this freecasting eventually buckles like the titanic when the numbers in both groups become equivalent…a healer goes down and the group their associated with gets annihilated…which further puts more of the damage that skills can do from target cap onto smaller pools of players and they then implode near instantaneously like a phase transition due to that effect; the protection offered by target caps is robust and if you’ve ever wondered why zergs pop like an air balloon all of a sudden that is one of the reasons why.

You can even map dynamics like this to a geometric model to show what possible things can happen under such conditions to find similarities and relationships one can exploit. 

One interesting mathematical relationship you can draw, is that in an effective 2 dimensional plane like an open field; an optimal cloud formation is a perfect circle. Where as an optimal zerg formation is a 0 dimensional point. if you had an extra degree of freedom the next logical optimal formation would be a hollow 3 dimensional sphere (a shell)…with infinite dimensionality; a fractal shell (where the geometry of the interior of the sphere is like a maze…where it would take infinite time to reach a player in this maze) meaning that for a cloud, variance in elevation and the complexity of the environment is the strongest form of defense you can do…and at the same time is the weakest formation a zerg could possibly take.

But all that interesting stuff aside, target cap is the biggest reason why the 0 dimensional point stacking meta is meta, as the mathematics heavily favor it, over all other strategies. Dropping target caps will favor less and less the 0 dimensional point meta…and my hypothesis is that if they were taken away completely it would be equivalent and therefor dynamical (often changing group dynamics) from zerg formation to clouding formation as a response to the number of players on the opposing side and what strategy they take. This dynamic would fluctuate non-stop between zerg (where grouping is optimal for a larger group) and clouding (where clouding is more optimal for a smaller group) and zergs have to decouple into clouds in order to counter that strategy, and clouds have to couple into zergs to have a numbers advantage over individuals in a cloud. That dynamic would be formally undecidable and therefor a way more interesting game.

the math stated in the op is generally speaking the right intuition on the matter.

Edited May 18, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Cyninja.2954]

8 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I did this math and proved it with evidence a a year ago [thread of math in question...in particular Dispersal of Damage and how this gives a thick advantage to a group of larger players] …you are actually never the one that did or does any math, in any of our past exchanges. Ironic.

It’s the same 5 or 6 people I see that have an issue with refuse to adjust their worldview When the evidence is piled up in front of you…

anyway…about clouding;

Clouding is a form of sustain strategy like how stacking is a strategy; clouds split up because the blob can’t charge at all of you if you’re spread out. And this charging from the zerg takes time to do. The more people there are clouding, the more time you give to freecasters in the cloud dealing damage onto the zerg.

Since the zerg is going through the cloud one by one, at a certain threshold, the amount of time it takes for them to kill clouders, matches the time it takes for the clouders they’ve already killed to come back from spawn. The zerg which relies on squad members to survive through this freecasting eventually buckles like the titanic when the numbers in both groups become equivalent…a healer goes down and the group their associated with gets annihilated…which further puts more of the damage that skills can do from target cap onto smaller pools of players and they then implode near instantaneously like a phase transition due to that effect; the protection offered by target caps is robust and if you’ve ever wondered why zergs pop like an air balloon all of a sudden that is one of the reasons why.

You can even map dynamics like this to a geometric model to show what possible things can happen under such conditions to find similarities and relationships one can exploit. 

Yes and no.

Yes, given player skill disparity and obvious bulkiness of mid skill level blobs, which leads to snaking and thus easier sniping and pressuring, a blob of this skill level will eventually "buckle" and start shrinking.

No, in regards to high end game play given that the cloud will be lacking offensive boon uptime, given the nature of both boon application ranges as well as builds run in a cloud (and even with dedicated boon application builds, if run in a cloud setup, the uptime would be worse as would the support be). Also as player skill improves in the blob, so does tightness of reduction in snaking, which leads to less stragglers and better support uptime.

Also no in regards to if blob players actually adapted to fighting a cloud. Imagine every single dps in a blob actually utilizing pulls (aka having players swap their usual setup to incorporate skills which allow better focusing down of multiple targets against a cloud setup). This almost never happens unfortunately but is not some theoretical impossibility.

Finally as I had mentioned, the ideal setup is not a singular blob but rather multiple squads of specific sizes (around 15-20 players each) which still allow maximization of specialization effects but allow enough mobility to not be pinned down to 1 specific region of the map. This obviously means the cloud now either has to focus down 1 squad, which they can overpower, but lose ground to the other squads. Or disperse essentially leading to smaller clouds facing smaller blobs, increasing the map wide blob vs cloud kill amount.

That's without taking into account any organizational benefits derived from being unified as a squad (aka having 1 commander call the shots and everybody listening).

The main downside here being: actually having 2-3 squads up and running with commanders and players willing to follow as well as coordinate on 1 map.

8 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

One interesting mathematical relationship you can draw, is that in an effective 2 dimensional plane like an open field; an optimal cloud formation is a perfect circle. Where as an optimal zerg formation is a 0 dimensional point. if you had an extra degree of freedom the next logical optimal formation would be a hollow 3 dimensional sphere (a shell)…with infinite dimensionality; a fractal shell (where the geometry of the interior of the sphere is like a maze…where it would take infinite time to reach a player in this maze) meaning that for a cloud, variance in elevation and the complexity of the environment is the strongest form of defense you can do…and at the same time is the weakest formation a zerg could possibly take.

True, which actually comes into play at different structures and terrain and can easily be expressed or experienced by players depending on how "difficult/annoying" it is for a blob to take an objective (aka, taking XYZ is really annoying versus cloud).

We do have skills which can affect ideal positioning and in general a cloud setup will be lacking the means to deny these, or eventually face the issue of having to focus on to many things build wise.

The build and itemization limits in this game do not allow for builds which self generate all necessary offensive and defensive boons while bringing a ton of damage skills while having high offensive stats and boon removal. Not having the appropriate stats and boons, we know, results in a massive loss of output (both offensive and defensive).

8 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

But all that interesting stuff aside, target cap is the biggest reason why the 0 dimensional point stacking meta is meta, as the mathematics heavily favor it, over all other strategies. Dropping target caps will favor less and less the 0 dimensional point meta…and my hypothesis is that if they were taken away completely it would be equivalent and therefor dynamical (often changing group dynamics) from zerg formation to clouding formation as a response to the number of players on the opposing side and what strategy they take. This dynamic would fluctuate non-stop between zerg (where grouping is optimal for a larger group) and clouding (where clouding is more optimal for a smaller group) and zergs have to decouple into clouds in order to counter that strategy, and clouds have to couple into zergs to have a numbers advantage over individuals in a cloud. That dynamic would be formally undecidable and therefor a way more interesting game.

the math stated in the op is generally speaking the right intuition on the matter.

In short: dropping target caps would benefit solo individuals (aka cloud) because their higher uptime, but smaller damage, would multiply better resulting in potentially more damage total on a singular point if enough targets are present, while their clouded nature would not allow for a similar effect against them.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

5 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Yes and no.

Yes, given player skill disparity and obvious bulkiness of mid skill level blobs, which leads to snaking and thus easier sniping and pressuring, a blob of this skill level will eventually "buckle" and start shrinking.

No, in regards to high end game play given that the cloud will be lacking offensive boon uptime, given the nature of both boon application ranges as well as builds run in a cloud (and even with dedicated boon application builds, if run in a cloud setup, the uptime would be worse as would the support be). Also as player skill improves in the blob, so does tightness of reduction in snaking, which leads to less stragglers and better support uptime.

Also no in regards to if blob players actually adapted to fighting a cloud. Imagine every single dps in a blob actually utilizing pulls (aka having players swap their usual setup to incorporate skills which allow better focusing down of multiple targets against a cloud setup). This almost never happens unfortunately but is not some theoretical impossibility.

Finally as I had mentioned, the ideal setup is not a singular blob but rather multiple squads of specific sizes (around 15-20 players each) which still allow maximization of specialization effects but allow enough mobility to not be pinned down to 1 specific region of the map. This obviously means the cloud now either has to focus down 1 squad, which they can overpower, but lose ground to the other squads. Or disperse essentially leading to smaller clouds facing smaller blobs, increasing the map wide blob vs cloud kill amount.

That's without taking into account any organizational benefits derived from being unified as a squad (aka having 1 commander call the shots and everybody listening).

The main downside here being: actually having 2-3 squads up and running with commanders and players willing to follow as well as coordinate on 1 map.

It's like you didn't read or understand the math at all, and learned nothing from last time.

This is what seems to typically happen : Person demands math. Math is presented in contradiction to said persons beliefs. Said person uses anecdotes and special situations to reaffirm their personal beliefs.

The way this math that is done is independent of player skill or player skills. Meaning you can run such simulations with any skills or any player skill in the game you want. The overall behavior is an effective theory of what goes on in the game, and with that in mind, it's purpose is for players to decide what strategies are and are not effective for n cases. And that is useful for finding deeper relationships in these mechanics

To draw an analogy to the kind of argument you are making; this is like you saying gravity doesn't exist, because you can throw an apple up in the air... and coming up with all types of different objects you can throw in the air as a way to justify that obviously wrong worldview.

The  advantage zergs gain from grouping together in tight balls through dispersion is a non-linear, specifically asymptotic relationship for target cap, that equalizes at infinity...meaning that when the target cap is dropped (where there is an infinite number of targets for a skill), the two strategies (grouping and not grouping) become equivalent.

Unironically, the effects we are talking about here are kinda like gravity, and a Zerg is a big fat black hole where light cant escape, which is OP in physics. Can't "throw" objects up anymore because all trajectories point downward...so in the limit of more players,  the exponential relationship grows faster in it's capacity to negate damage through dispersion and you can no longer justify these one off things like boon uptime, pulls or whatever personal story that happened to work one time in a fight.

Quote

In short: dropping target caps would benefit solo individuals (aka cloud) because their higher uptime, but smaller damage, would multiply better resulting in potentially more damage total on a singular point if enough targets are present, while their clouded nature would not allow for a similar effect against them.

Specifically about this because if there is one thing I dislike its people spreading misinformation... again because you don't seem to understand or even looked at the mathematics at all which you asked for don't forget... target caps EQUALIZE between grouping and non-grouping AT INFINITY (where at infinite target cap, the two strategies for finite number of n players [all cases] becomes equal).

Phrased in another way, again to make sure you aren't spreading misinformation, and to just copy paste this (again) from the exact comment in the thread that I linked : 

if you have a group of infinite size in a finite area, and you use a spell that targets a finite number of them (5)…you will hit 5 people. Use the spell again and you can ask what the probability is that you will hit the same people again….at infinity the answer is 0 probability. In other words : if you had infinite players, using no skills at all, they would be unkillable because enemy attacks will never hit them more than once.

Edited May 18, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Cyninja.2954]

4 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

It's like you didn't read or understand the math at all, and learned nothing from last time.

I understood your math perfectly fine. What I didn't bring was your condescending attitude (while breaking down what you said to relatable scenarios and adding aspects which are of relevance to my actual question).

4 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

This is what seems to typically happen : Person demands math. Math is presented in contradiction to said persons beliefs. Said person uses anecdotes and special situations to reaffirm their personal beliefs.

The way this math that is done is independent of player skill or player skills.

Math and actual game play will differ though if your math does not account for player skill issues. You can math out ideal scenarios, which you enjoy doing, but never account for difference in player skill level.

If more skilled players are able to come closer to ideal movement, aka behaving closer to what the math shows, less ideal movement will result in deviation from the theory and while the theory will remain valid, the extrapolation for in game approach can wildly differ.

Yes, ideally in a blob players will be on 1 singular point. Yes, ideally a cloud will result in a perfect sphere. Players coming close to those ideal positions are thus represented well while players not close will lead to deviations. Clearly visible in the behavior of experienced versus inexperienced blobs versus experienced and inexperienced clouds.

What already is not represented is the actual measurable effect on loss of boons, which we know will happen in a cloud because we know boon ranges. Congratulations, your math already is not account for huge multipliers in output.

4 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

The  advantage zergs gain from grouping together in tight balls through dispersion is a non-linear, specifically asymptotic relationship for target cap, that equalizes at infinity...meaning that when the target cap is dropped (where there is an infinite number of targets for a skill), the two strategies (grouping and not grouping) become equivalent.

Except they do not because you are not accounting for any math related to synergistic effects or taking into account for example support ranges (unless you mean target capped dropped on all skills and every skill has infinite range, which was certainly outside the scope of TCs idea).

As such your math does NOT account for the fact that, while minimizing hits to target are less in a perfect sphere, so is boon distribution and support. Unless you do not consider these factors relevant, which makes your entire math exercise rather pointless or surface level at best.

4 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Specifically about this because if there is one thing I dislike its people spreading misinformation... again because you don't seem to understand or even looked at the mathematics at all which you asked for don't forget... target caps EQUALIZE between grouping and non-grouping AT INFINITY (where at infinite target cap, the two strategies for finite number of n players [all cases] becomes equal).

That is not what I asked for. That is what you provided assuming it is what I asked for. I asked for math which shows that clouding groups are superior to squads at current target caps, and that is not derived from mere positioning math or at least not shown.

Positioning math can show what the ideal structures are and how target caps will affect this shape. That is NOT sufficient to substantiate the claim that cloud game play is superior to squads at current target caps.

4 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Phrased in another way, again to make sure you aren't spreading misinformation, and to just copy paste this (again) from the exact comment in the thread that I linked : 

if you have a group of infinite size in a finite area, and you use a spell that targets a finite number of them (5)…you will hit 5 people. Use the spell again and you can ask what the probability is that you will hit the same people again….at infinity the answer is 0 probability. In other words : if you had infinite players, using no skills at all, they would be unkillable because enemy attacks will never hit them more than once.

Going to skip this because besides you continually condescending attitude (while missing the point) you are arguing past the point of this thread.

TL;DR: if you are not accounting for boon uptime and build limits (and both of these can be mathed out or at least approximated), without even getting into player ability to execute, your math is insufficient to describe actual in game scenarios to the degree that you can make any claims as to which is better.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

Actually, it seems to me that you are both going off topic, or at least we are making it too complicated. The question of this post (if I understand correctly) is whether the Targhet limit affects the game of small team vs big team (5 vs 10). Not if it is better the cloud vs snowball.

My simple consideration on this (for what it's worth) is that the 5 attacks the 10 will hit only five enemies. If you double the limit, the 5 attacks the 10 will hit the entire enemy group. If the 10 attacks the 5 will always hit the whole enemy group, whether you keep the limit or double it. So increasing the limit actually helps the lower team.

So the smaller group will suddenly become a superhero? No, because as the author of the post suggested, this "advantage" would be matched by a double ability to attack and defend the larger group. in theory compensating for everything. Could it make the game more fun? I'm not sure but it might as well beacon.

Modifying these things is rather "delicate", if Anet ever considers it, better to do it through trial periods. and check how things are going. just my personal opinion.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

TL;DR: if you are not accounting for boon uptime and build limits (and both of these can be mathed out or at least approximated), without even getting into player ability to execute, your math is insufficient to describe actual in game scenarios to the degree that you can make any claims as to which is better.

You simply do not understand it. It sounds condescending but it's not...its just a fact.

You asked for math, it was provided now you are saying it ain't sufficient enough...typical...the funny part? Is that this kind of proof is one of the strongest forms of proof you can make.

 

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Actually, it seems to me that you are both going off topic, or at least we are making it too complicated. The question of this post (if I understand correctly) is whether the Targhet limit affects the game of small team vs big team (5 vs 10). Not if it is better the cloud vs snowball.

So the smaller group will suddenly become a superhero? No, because as the author of the post suggested, this "advantage" would be matched by a double ability to attack and defend the larger group. in theory compensating for everything. Could it make the game more fun? I'm not sure but it might as well beacon.

Hey Mabi, it's not off-topic. This is exactly what the conversation is about...is the nature of target cap, and how it effects grouping. You're right in that the discussion of clouding is just a tad tangential but not totally unrelated as it is a similiar configuration like zerging in a 0d ball. My whole thing is, that there are mathematical proofs (which I did a while ago) that shows the relationship of target cap, to number of players in possible configurations... and what the OP stated in this thread, is the correct intuition to have in addressing the question. My comments show proofs that are this, just in extension.

Just to break down all the information said in those threads I linked.

1) 0d ball configuration (stacking in a zerg) is the most optimal configuration due to the effect of dispersal of damage. As the number of players in a zerg increases, the probability you get hit by the same spell (with a finite target cap) more than once, decreases asymptotically, scaling with the number of players in n. At n+1 for any finite target capped spell, the probability you get hit by any spell more than once is 0.

2) damage dispersal gives zergs a non-linear increase in effectiveness; lowering the probability attacks hit the same targets, and this is based on how many players there are, and what the target cap is. Due to it's exponential relationship This effectiveness equalizes at infinite target cap. meaning that in order for their to be no advantage to a particular grouping of n players, means that target caps must be infinite.

To sum up the information a bit more with some examples:

Example 1) Under the assumption of stochastic movement of players: Zerg A contains 80 people, Zerb B contains 5 people. A player from Zerg A and Zerg B use the same spell X that has a target cap of 5. You can ask then series of questions based on that setup, about the effectiveness of using spell X like how often would spell X hit the same people in order to kill them.

Player from Zerg A uses the spell first time and it hits all 5 people in zerg B. He uses it again...so ask what's the probability he will hit the same people again? it's 1. (100%--5/5--1/1) 

Player from Zerg B uses the spell the first time and it hits 5 people in zerg A. He uses it again...so ask what's the probability he will hit the same people again? it's 5/80 (6.25%--1/16--0.0625/1)

You can give reasonable properties to spell X...like it does 5000 damage per use or something, and ask how many times does Zerg B have to use the spell to kill someone, in comparison to Zerg A. If players have 20,000 health, then for the player in Zerg A using  spell X, they need only use it 4 times (20000/(1)5000 = 4) before getting a kill. Zerg B however needs to use that same spell 64 times (20,000/(.0625)5000) = 64) before getting their kill.

You can change the number of people in each zerg, to show how this effect changes with the number of people:

Zerg C has 40 people. Asking the same questions again, what is the contribution of dispersion on this number of players? For spell X, the probability that the same player gets hit by that spell more than once is 5/40 (12.5%--1/8--.125/1).

How much more effective is Zerg A which has 80 people to Zerg C with 40 people just due to dispersion alone? They are twice as effective... (as you would expect.)

You can kind of go on and on asking these kinds questions, posing different scenario's, describing spells, different configurations and ultimately describing them at infinity (for all n) to make proof statements and so on... to get perspective on the impact of this dispersal effect on things in the game, where it comes from, how to avoid it, how to exploit it (something some people here pretend they understand how that works, but here I am much obliged, at ones service, folks need only ask and I can show.)

Long story short Mobi, it eventually boils down into this: 

Quote

So the smaller group will suddenly become a superhero? No, because as the author of the post suggested, this "advantage" would be matched by a double ability to attack and defend the larger group. 

The math shows, that this effectiveness from dispersion exists due to finite target caps and the disparity between players in different sized groups. Upon removal of target caps, this inherent advantage towards a 0d point stacking as many bodies as possible disappears, and as a result, a mix of two things will happen: players disperse themselves into clouds (to avoid giving enemy players value in their skills) and grouping together against individuals (to take advantage of putting more damage onto an opponent through skill usage). This kind of undecidability will cause dynamic fluctuation between the two groupings, and will result in novel "fun" behavior. It's not uncommon to see similiar systems in nature, constantly coupling and decoupling between grouping and non-grouping for similiar reasons.

Something to mention is that you won't see infinite target cap because of Anets very rational and reasonable excuse about computational complexity (that the computation scales exponentially, kind of exactly like the math here in describing dispersal of damage) and this is a problem that causes lag. I have an opinion on this, but it's not really worth talking about...by and large, we're not gonna see any changes to target cap for this reason, and there will always be balance problems because of it. Sad reality, but my whole perspective is; learn this stuff and exploit the mathematics here that the game has to offer. Cheers.

Edited May 18, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

You simply do not understand it. It sounds condescending but it's not...its just a fact.

You asked for math, it was provided now you are saying it ain't sufficient enough...typical...the funny part? Is that this kind of proof is one of the strongest forms of proof you can make.

It is condascending because what you are proving is not what I asked for, nor what this thread is solely about.

It's related to this threads topic only in regards to targets hit or not hit, which while relevant is not the only, nor the most deciding factor, in how this games combat is designed.

I've tried to expand on this twice now, but you are either unable to understand or unwilling. 

For example, you make reference to dispersal of damage due to player numbers but completely ignore damage reduction based around defensive boon uptime as well as offensive boon uptime or healing, even though we know from damage calculations that these can have a far greater effect, especially against limited target caps, than number increases. Effects as high as increasing effective player numbers (or lets rather call it effective total health in squad) by 100% or more. Treating this issue as though it where identical accross all players, which it is not when comparing clouding versus stacking.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[blp.3489]

It seems that there are two different topics here, 1) the effect of dispersion and target caps, and 2) whether stacking or clouding is superior.  There is some overlap as dispersion acts differently in stacks and clouds.  If I've got that right then maybe we need to be clearer as to which topic we are addressing to avoid confusion leading to conflict leading to the moderators stepping in.

 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

Just now, blp.3489 said:

It seems that there are two different topics here, 1) the effect of dispersion and target caps, and 2) whether stacking or clouding is superior.  There is some overlap as dispersion acts differently in stacks and clouds.  If I've got that right then maybe we need to be clearer as to which topic we are addressing to avoid confusion leading to conflict leading to the moderators stepping in.

 

I can easily clear that up, and you are correct:

1) Dispersion of damage has no effect in a cloud. Dispersion is caused by people sharing probability distributions when spells land onto a group of players. If those players are sufficiently spread out they do not benefit from a dispersion effect.

This is why Cyninja's mentioning that clouds have an advantage against zergs is straight up misinformation and total nonsense. Zergs always have an advantage from this mechanic (Dispersion) when they stack so long as a target cap exist...and this is just a solid fact from the maths, no matter what the skills are, no matter what skill level players are playing at. There are a few interesting cases and configurations clouders can take to boost their own defense (the shell configuration mentioned a couple comments ago) but this has not much to do with dispersion and operates under somewhat different constraints related to a spawn point and wasting a zergs time under the assumption that they only charge at an enemy and that clouders can move independently, where zerglings can not.  

2) Like mentioned above, Stacking is superior strategy as of right now, and will remain so, as long as target caps exist. The effect (of dispersion) is also dependent the number of players fighting one another. in a 40 v 40, 80 v 80, 20 v 20 and so on, the effects of dispersion between both groups is the same (they both are dealing with the same amount of dispersion of damage) and this is  when fights are actually balanced. When the two forces are not balanced (80 v 20, 60 v 30, 20 v 10 and so on...) there is an exponentially disproportionate advantage towards the larger group due to that effect of dispersion, as mentioned before in the previous comment. That effect sits on top of the disadvantage one has already from just straight up having less people. So instead of a 40 v 80 being only 1/2 as effective due to less numbers, they are 1/2 x 1/2 (1/4) as effective because of less numbers AND their damage is getting dispersed twice as much.

Cheers,