Target caps vs the numbers game

[Cyninja.2954]

5 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

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.

I have never made this claim. This is borderline slander by now.

I have not 1nce talked about dispersion of damage solely in this thread, nor have I based any benefit to clouds onto damage sharing effects.

The only mention I have made in this regard is the fact that a cloud will potentially keep a blob occupied longer than of running an inferior blob.

Notice too that you are not even answering the question you set out to answer, given dispersion effects alone can not do that, which I too have been repeating over and over to no avail.

5 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

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.  

Great, glad you finally get it and agree with me. This is what I have been saying from the beginning (with the addition of boon ranges, which also benefit a stack) while you have been off talking only about dispersion and target caps etc. 

FYI: clearly visible in my, from the get go, stance that clouding is not the "meta" game play option, literally in black and white in this thread.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[enkidu.5937]

11 hours ago, 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.

So, you are the TO, and you talked about increasing the target cap, to counter bigger groups, and that in such a scenario . . .

 

On 5/11/2023 at 12:29 AM, blp.3489 said:

It seems to me that playing in such a scenario would take more skill as there is incentive to position your group to avoid having attacks hit the full target cap, and therefore a disincentive to simply stack everyone in one place.  Separating your squad into 5-player parties that keep some distance will reduce total AOE damage taken, with the tradeoff of less AOE healing, cleansing, boon sharing, etc.

. . . you speculate that people would spread and play at distance to avoid getting hit by the full target cap.

->  I replied that this is already in the game, people cloud to exactly do that.

 

And you talked about disadvantage of spreading, because it might reduce the support efficiency of healing, cleansing, boon sharing.

->  Thats what we are also talking about. I dont see a problem, cause most support is 600 range (enough for a cloud) and lots of things are applied when needed. (still, constantly having 25 might in a blob is always nice^^)

 

So do you as TO want to draw a clear line for this thread and only talk about stacked groups, and not cloud?

(For me there is not such a clear line, cause cloud doesnt mean "a bunch of headless chicken without synergies and coordinated play".  And even a Com with a squad does clouding from time to time, while still calling bombs and such.)

 

17 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Yes, ideally a cloud will result in a perfect sphere.

No, the cloud also has depth, that allows players to fall back at range, to create a time gate for boon-up, heal-up, outlast heavy cooldowns etc.

 

So, cloud maximizes the two major aspects of group battles in WvW that the TO and also you mentioned:

(1) to avoid getting hit by full target cap and full ticks

-> simply by the nature of spread formation

(2) to efficiently use your defensive tools and support, at the right time and the right place when and where it is needed

-> by creating time gates due to depth on the battlefield

 

Simultaneously, Cloud minimizes both aspects for the enemy blob (compared to blob vs. blob) by encircling and constant bombing.

 

 Most of the really nice things in this game have a limited duration: skills, multiple stab stacks, superspeed, prot + dwarf rite + dolyak stance, dodges, invulns, gap openers etc. And in "blob vs. blob", Coms try to avoid red circle target caps and full ticks, and create the needed time gates, because they have depth on the battlefield. Switching between buff-up -> fake push -> engage -> bomb -> disengage -> heal-up -> outlast cooldowns -> repeat. Stack-on-tag blob is not designed to constantly out-sustain red circles and being max. buffed all the time, its not possible because of cooldowns. But, thats exactly what the Cloud forces on the blob.

 

I mean, the usual stack-on-tag blob setup is designed for "blob vs. blob", and thats what most Coms want to play. While Cloud is used as a counter to stack-on-tag blobs. So, simply by having this mind set, the design of Cloud comes close to what is usually referred as Meta:

min / maxing the counters to the prevalent standard tactic 🤗

 

No need to idealize here, I totally agree. In most situations, when "home bay 40 reds" is called, roamers / PvElers / casuals gather and cloud, to keep the blob busy and poke some single opponents out, not to win outnumbered, but to buy some time until reinforcements arrive and then win by outnumbering the blob. 🤡

Edited May 19, 2023 by enkidu.5937

[Mabi black.1824]

4 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

No need to idealize here, I totally agree. In most situations, when "home bay 40 reds" is called, roamers / PvElers / casuals gather and cloud, to keep the blob busy and poke some single opponents out, not to win outnumbered, but to buy some time until reinforcements arrive and then win by outnumbering the blob

Welcome to WWW 🤭

[blp.3489]

4 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

So do you as TO want to draw a clear line for this thread and only talk about stacked groups, and not cloud?

No, I find it all interesting.  It just seemed to me that the thread was getting unnecessarily heated due to, in my perception, people not being clear on which of two issues they were addressing.

[Swagger.1459]

On 5/10/2023 at 6:29 PM, blp.3489 said:

I've seen a lot of grumbling about WvW devolving into whoever has the larger zerg/blob wins, sometimes called the numbers game.  It seems to me that a logical way to address number imbalances is through target caps.  Using a simplified example, if you have five players fighting ten players and each side executes an AOE  attack that hits all the players on the opposing side, the larger the target cap the more "balanced" the damage will be.  With a target cap of 5 both sides would take damage against 5 players.  With a target cap of 10 the 10 player group would take damage against 10 players while the 5 player group would only take damage against 5 players.  Effectively the ten player group takes twice the damage of the five player group, making it into a more even fight.  Of course the ten player group will be able to, on average, make twice as many attacks as the five player group, and has on average twice as much health as the half size group, so it isn't totally skewed.

It seems to me that playing in such a scenario would take more skill as there is incentive to position your group to avoid having attacks hit the full target cap, and therefore a disincentive to simply stack everyone in one place.  Separating your squad into 5-player parties that keep some distance will reduce total AOE damage taken, with the tradeoff of less AOE healing, cleansing, boon sharing, etc.  Coordinating ten five player groups is clearly harder than, and requires more sophistication than coordinating a single 50 player group.

upping target caps still benefits the large group. larger group has more access to support skills, so your small group is still sol. as a tactical measure, nobody is going to ultra-coordinate their 50 person squad into 5 player groups. upping the aoe target cap will never incentivize players to not stack because the devs designed support skills to incentivize stacking. double the lag, no ty. upping the target cap in your scenario will cut out a bunch more professions, e-specs, and skills in favor of the aoe throwers, then we turn gw2 into even more of an aoe war.  

Edited May 19, 2023 by Swagger.1459