Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Damage escalation or Increased cap for AOE hit amount


Recommended Posts

Atm numbers count way more then they should when it comes to large scale fights, and most of zvz large group encounters are defined by who has more players and here is one of the biggest reasons why:

AOE damage has caps for the amount of enemies it can hit, and theyre usually lesser then healling caps for multiple allies.

What this does is that u can have a zerg (A) of 50 players facing a zerg of 65 (B) and being in an actuall big disadvantage: 15 dps players can hit up to 5 times their number for most of the AOE abilities which is 45, close to the amount of players zerg A has. So, what this does is that the total amount of damage per CD's in zerg B is basically 30% higher then zerg A, same as their numbers, even tough not all of those 15 players zerg B has would be DPSes, the amount of players zerg A has to hit is higher then the amount of the players zerg B has to hit. So basically this caps and give having more numbers a huge win condition above the smaller zergs.

This doesnt seem right. The skill sailing and strategy of a throne wars game goes to oblivion when numbers is the most optimal and most easy win condition. Clumping up isnt punishable. Positioning isnt as necessary. Flanks are almost pointless. 

When a zvz game like throne wars that crowfall is gives so much advantage for numbers this problem can hugely escales later with more population. The mega alliances will aways have advantage, forcing players to bring the most amount of numbers to the fights so they can win by not having any chance of losing, zone capping, killing content. 

To solve a problem like this in the future i suggest a couple possible solutions:

1 - Bringing AOE damage escalation (which is basically a increase amount of damage an AOE skill can do based on the amount of players it hits),

2 - Introduction of more AOE CC skills;

2.1 - Reduction of stamina regen based on the amount of players each zerg has (so when u have more numbers ure more punishable for bad positioning and decision making by CC's) which is basically a "disarray" debuff that can be implemented against zergs that wanna win by just having more numbers, independently of the skill and organization they might have, or lack. Increasing the skill sailing of large scale fights.

3 - Increasing the amount of players AOE damage skills can hit and increasing the amount of players AOE healling can heal by a scale of 3/2, 3x for damage and 2x for healls (just and example). What it does is that makes "clumping" and "turtleling" more punishable, but at the same time usefull for healling, creating a mechanic of spreading and clumping that makes large scales fights less stable and susceptible to both: capitalizing on enemy mistakes and being able to recovery from mistakes. 

I believe that at the moment those changes and suggestions might seem not that relevant but based on my experience on previous big zerg games and throne wars games the way that damage, cc and heals works in crowfall is fine for small scale and honestly really well designed. But it must have changes when it comes for large group fights, and have ways of smaller groups to fight while outnumbered

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I want them to start by just removing the caps. If an AOE hits 12 players in its radius, it hits 12 players. If it hits 1, it hits 1. If it hits 25, it hits 25. No more watering-down AoEs. Again, the

Atm numbers count way more then they should when it comes to large scale fights, and most of zvz large group encounters are defined by who has more players and here is one of the biggest reasons why:

@jtoddcoleman I know you are a busy man but this....dregs is just a number games now with no friendly fire and capped ae's. 

On 3/6/2021 at 1:59 AM, 1Vulp said:

Atm numbers count way more then they should when it comes to large scale fights, and most of zvz large group encounters are defined by who has more players and here is one of the biggest reasons why:

AOE damage has caps for the amount of enemies it can hit, and theyre usually lesser then healling caps for multiple allies.

What this does is that u can have a zerg (A) of 50 players facing a zerg of 65 (B) and being in an actuall big disadvantage: 15 dps players can hit up to 5 times their number for most of the AOE abilities which is 45, close to the amount of players zerg A has. So, what this does is that the total amount of damage per CD's in zerg B is basically 30% higher then zerg A, same as their numbers, even tough not all of those 15 players zerg B has would be DPSes, the amount of players zerg A has to hit is higher then the amount of the players zerg B has to hit. So basically this caps and give having more numbers a huge win condition above the smaller zergs.

This doesnt seem right. The skill sailing and strategy of a throne wars game goes to oblivion when numbers is the most optimal and most easy win condition. Clumping up isnt punishable. Positioning isnt as necessary. Flanks are almost pointless. 

When a zvz game like throne wars that crowfall is gives so much advantage for numbers this problem can hugely escales later with more population. The mega alliances will aways have advantage, forcing players to bring the most amount of numbers to the fights so they can win by not having any chance of losing, zone capping, killing content. 

To solve a problem like this in the future i suggest a couple possible solutions:

1 - Bringing AOE damage escalation (which is basically a increase amount of damage an AOE skill can do based on the amount of players it hits),

2 - Introduction of more AOE CC skills;

2.1 - Reduction of stamina regen based on the amount of players each zerg has (so when u have more numbers ure more punishable for bad positioning and decision making by CC's) which is basically a "disarray" debuff that can be implemented against zergs that wanna win by just having more numbers, independently of the skill and organization they might have, or lack. Increasing the skill sailing of large scale fights.

3 - Increasing the amount of players AOE damage skills can hit and increasing the amount of players AOE healling can heal by a scale of 3/2, 3x for damage and 2x for healls (just and example). What it does is that makes "clumping" and "turtleling" more punishable, but at the same time usefull for healling, creating a mechanic of spreading and clumping that makes large scales fights less stable and susceptible to both: capitalizing on enemy mistakes and being able to recovery from mistakes. 

I believe that at the moment those changes and suggestions might seem not that relevant but based on my experience on previous big zerg games and throne wars games the way that damage, cc and heals works in crowfall is fine for small scale and honestly really well designed. But it must have changes when it comes for large group fights, and have ways of smaller groups to fight while outnumbered

1. - This affects which classes are desired in large fights. If 'AoE damage escalation' is a thing, players will want to mostly bring AoE classes like Frostweaver to siege and not bring single-target damagers. No one will want to play a single-target Archer when they could be doing 5-10x as much damage on an aoe Stormcaller or Archmage.

2, 2.1 - Sure? I definitely feel that between stamina and ultimates, it's too easy to just ignore CC most of the time. I'd prefer if the existing CC we have actually worked rather than adding more though. I still think players would clump up even with a stamina penalty. Thus far the *only* thing I've ever seen in this game that made players split up in combat was the old Gaea sentinel. It was direct negative feedback for being too close to an ally.
 

3. - Similar to 1. Increasing cap by 2-3x makes those AoE classes 2-3x more effective than their single-target counterparts in a siege. I personally prefer a game with a nice mix of classes in all fights rather than everyone hopping on AoE for siege and switching back to single-target for roaming.

Edited by nihilsupernum
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nihilsupernum said:

1. - This affects which classes are desired in large fights. If 'AoE damage escalation' is a thing, players will want to mostly bring AoE classes like Frostweaver to siege and not bring single-target damagers. No one will want to play a single-target Archer when they could be doing 5-10x as much damage on an aoe Stormcaller or Archmage.

Thats not a negative thing. Makes total sense AOEs beign better at large scale, the same way theyre good for killing mobs. Its just not the meta u have beign used to.
High single target (expecially ranged) damage will aways be usefull, small or large scale fights. If ure only thinking about doing the most damage possible to have a good looking parser u probably wont play archers in zvz; if u want to kill called and key targets in the micro meta of zvzs you will. 

There is aways room to be creative on the meta when u have a game that provides more available options. Single target ranged high damage will never be useless in group fights. But at the moment i think the meta is more single target focus that it should and this is bad for outnumbered/medium scale fights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want them to start by just removing the caps. If an AOE hits 12 players in its radius, it hits 12 players. If it hits 1, it hits 1. If it hits 25, it hits 25. No more watering-down AoEs. Again, the problem is, the more people you jam together, the larger a pool of hit points the AoEs get spread among, limiting their effectiveness for absolutely no reason.

It should be: You all clumped on the fort circle, so get destroyed by AoEs unless properly built to defend it (also make friendly AoEs uncapped).

It is: You all clumped on the fort circle, so are better protected from AoEs, which do not smart target. You are also better protected from DD.

Uncapped AoEs will force people to spread out more. When people spread out, DD gets much more value because an actual target can be converged upon by single-target builds.

This is not rocket science.

Edited by McTan
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, McTan said:

It should be: You all clumped on the fort circle, so get destroyed by AoEs unless properly built to defend it (also make friendly AoEs uncapped).

I actually agree, i think is more fair to just have no caps for max ppl aoes can hit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, McTan said:

I want them to start by just removing the caps. If an AOE hits 12 players in its radius, it hits 12 players. If it hits 1, it hits 1. If it hits 25, it hits 25. No more watering-down AoEs. Again, the problem is, the more people you jam together, the larger a pool of hit points the AoEs get spread among, limiting their effectiveness for absolutely no reason.

It should be: You all clumped on the fort circle, so get destroyed by AoEs unless properly built to defend it (also make friendly AoEs uncapped).

It is: You all clumped on the fort circle, so are better protected from AoEs, which do not smart target. You are also better protected from DD.

Uncapped AoEs will force people to spread out more. When people spread out, DD gets much more value because an actual target can be converged upon by single-target builds.

This is not rocket science.

Completely agree, worked in daoc and eso now has no area caps as they dropped caps to try and put a stop on zerg balls. The only problem is that most healing heals out of group and that would need to change unless it's a targetted healing spell such as tend wounds, chain heal etc. Daoc mainly had group or single target oriented healing so that's why it worked well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, McTan said:

I want them to start by just removing the caps. If an AOE hits 12 players in its radius, it hits 12 players. If it hits 1, it hits 1. If it hits 25, it hits 25. No more watering-down AoEs. Again, the problem is, the more people you jam together, the larger a pool of hit points the AoEs get spread among, limiting their effectiveness for absolutely no reason.

It should be: You all clumped on the fort circle, so get destroyed by AoEs unless properly built to defend it (also make friendly AoEs uncapped).

It is: You all clumped on the fort circle, so are better protected from AoEs, which do not smart target. You are also better protected from DD.

Uncapped AoEs will force people to spread out more. When people spread out, DD gets much more value because an actual target can be converged upon by single-target builds.

This is not rocket science.

@jtoddcoleman I know you are a busy man but this....dregs is just a number games now with no friendly fire and capped ae's. 

Hammers High !!  Master Brewer of the Dwarven Hold Mithril Warhammers

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, McTan said:

I want them to start by just removing the caps. If an AOE hits 12 players in its radius, it hits 12 players. If it hits 1, it hits 1. If it hits 25, it hits 25. No more watering-down AoEs. Again, the problem is, the more people you jam together, the larger a pool of hit points the AoEs get spread among, limiting their effectiveness for absolutely no reason.

It should be: You all clumped on the fort circle, so get destroyed by AoEs unless properly built to defend it (also make friendly AoEs uncapped).

It is: You all clumped on the fort circle, so are better protected from AoEs, which do not smart target. You are also better protected from DD.

Uncapped AoEs will force people to spread out more. When people spread out, DD gets much more value because an actual target can be converged upon by single-target builds.

This is not rocket science.

Absolutely agree. Simply uncapping AoE and keeping healing as it is could change the blob ball-meta that we are in right now. If people are forced to spread out, it leaves melee classes more space to catch their targets or differentiate them from the zerg ball. 

Shadowbane style advantage / disadvantage disciplines when? ~Yianni 1/21/21

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, McTan said:

I want them to start by just removing the caps. If an AOE hits 12 players in its radius, it hits 12 players. If it hits 1, it hits 1. If it hits 25, it hits 25

I definitely see the appeal, but again, it means AoE attacks scale with the number of opponents and single-target attacks don't.

It means an Archmage using Volatile Ice and hitting 25 people is 25 times more effective than an Archmage using Volatile Ice on one person. What does this imply for the game? A few options:

1. The devs try to balance AoE with single target

  • They bring single-target damage up to match the output of AoE at some chosen # of opponents (eg. 25). Now single target damagers are extremely effective snipers and can delete targets quickly. Overall TTK goes way down.
  • They bring AoE damage down to match the output of single-target at some chosen # of opponents (eg. 25). Now to do the same amount of damage as single target skills but with AoE, you need to be hitting at least 25 players. You could actually do double the damage with AoE but you'd need to hit 50 players. Overall TTK remains about the same, but AoE classes fall behind outside of large engagements because they can't hit enough players to make the AoE skills 'pay off'.

2. The devs DO NOT try and balance AoE with single target

  • Single target and AoE skills are balanced for small scale (~5v5). AoE skills are allowed to do much more damage in larger fights.
    .. but then if single target and AoE both do about the same amount of damage in a small fight, but AoE scales up and single does not, then AoE is strictly better than single target. You should always choose the AoE option. It's all upside and no downside.

 

The failure mode of option 1 is that the game plays more like a team-shooter (eg. Overwatch, TF2) than an MMO, with players constantly swapping out for a more effective class rather than sticking with the one they like playing.

The failure mode of option 2 is that some classes are just worse than others by virtue of not having AoE and thus don't get played outside of really dedicated RP-ers that really really wanted to be an Archer or whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, McTan said:

Uncapped AoEs will force people to spread out more. When people spread out, DD gets much more value because an actual target can be converged upon by single-target builds.

From experience in other games, players will not spread out more.

They'll remain clumped up, then complain that those AoE skills are too strong. They'll try and dodge them together or mitigate them as a coordinated squad rather than sacrifice cohesion and scatter their formation.

Again, the only effect in this game I've seen that *has* encouraged players to split up is the Gaea's Glee / Aurora Emitter effect where players pulse damage to friendly targets around them. I think this works because it's such a personal imperative. It's like "Hey, pay attention and move away. You are hurting your team and yourself. You need to do something about that".

Edit: Even when emitter was strong, the response was usually "purge it" rather than "split up". That's why Gaea's Glee worked so well. There was nothing anyone could do to prevent it. See the linked video above.

Edited by nihilsupernum
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nihilsupernum said:

I definitely see the appeal, but again, it means AoE attacks scale with the number of opponents and single-target attacks don't.

Its becomes a compounded issue with zerging. They could improve collision detection and effective force players to spread out physically ingame or they could modify how healing/buffs are handled to try and nullify some advantages the zerg ball has. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One possibility is to give a handful of domains an AOE ultimate that hits an uncapped number of players, so to function as a stack busting tool, while keeping other AOE capped at 5. Also possibly uncapping AOE debuffs.

Siege Weapon rework might also be used to give some anti-blob tools.

It's likely not technically feasible, but I would rather see abilities to deny LOS, movement, or affect the battlefield in other ways (like wall spells) that provide well coordinates smaller groups with a chance to win fights against larger forces.

Other solutions that have been floated are stacking damage/heal mitigation (like that knight passive, whatever it's called...) that resets or ticks down relatively fast. So that incoming damage and healing per second is kind of soft-capped. Meaning if 100 people alpha strike one guy the damage would have some roll off. This is a kind of fudge mechanic to make up for lack of ally LOS blocking, collision, etc.

But ya... it's generally known that numbers advantages don't give a strictly linear power increase to a side as the advantage accelerates as the smaller side starts dying. I don't think I've ever seen a good solution implemented in any game.

Edited by Pystkeebler
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 1Vulp said:

There is aways room to be creative on the meta when u have a game that provides more available options. Single target ranged high damage will never be useless in group fights. But at the moment i think the meta is more single target focus that it should and this is bad for outnumbered/medium scale fights.

As I discussed this with you yesterday, skilled gameplay and coordinated groups meant people could punch up far more effectively in the single target era of the game than is currently possible.  Uncapped AoE would require all AoE skills to have massive cooldowns and very few AoE DOTs for it not to be horrendous.

I personally think this game took a turn for the worst when they gave every single class access to a load of AoE skills.  This would only serve to lower the skill floor even further.

As was evidenced with the recent wreckoning bomb experiment, coordinated gameplay can smash larger forces, however people don't like AoE alpha strike and the people considering this as a positive direction for the game in this thread really haven't thought about how uncapped AoE would serve to exacerbate this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wilbur said:

As I discussed this with you yesterday, skilled gameplay and coordinated groups meant people could punch up far more effectively in the single target era of the game than is currently possible.  Uncapped AoE would require all AoE skills to have massive cooldowns and very few AoE DOTs for it not to be horrendous.

I personally think this game took a turn for the worst when they gave every single class access to a load of AoE skills.  This would only serve to lower the skill floor even further.

As was evidenced with the recent wreckoning bomb experiment, coordinated gameplay can smash larger forces, however people don't like AoE alpha strike and the people considering this as a positive direction for the game in this thread really haven't thought about how uncapped AoE would serve to exacerbate this.

Nothing in your post is an argument that states hard AOE caps are superior. You've identified that:

  1. There are too many AoEs. Okay, take some out, make some DD, lessen the damage or effects, or only selectively lift the hard cap (something like radical cleave obviously can stay at 5 targets).
  2. AoEs could have higher cooldowns.
  3. Wreckoning was flawed, but it has nothing to do with the concept of AoE Caps (Wreckoning has a cap...). It was flawed because of ult barriers, then how barriers were calculated, then the damage type. It's a great idea and adds something great to the game (dive barrier timing).

Coordinated gameplay smashing larger forces is precisely what uncapped AoE would exacerbate, and that is what we are asking for. 

Your claim that advocates of uncapped AoE in this thread (me) haven't thought about your points is foolish and incorrect. 

Get rid of hard AoE caps on radius based abilities. Lower radius of super strong AoEs. Raise some cooldowns. Introduce some counters.

It is worth stating that I agree that another approach is to up single-target damage, but then the meta likely becomes Rangefall/Stealthfall again, which has its own problems. A little of both is probably appropriate to increasing the punch-up ability of organized, smaller groups.

Beyond combat, we need reasons for smaller groups to exist still, though.

Edited by McTan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could've sworn the reason for the caps was because of network reasons..

 

Regardless, I'd like to see the caps increased if not out right removed. CF is way too numbers intensive. For things like templars, I feel caps might not necessarily be a bad thing, everything else should be free game.

Edited by Helix
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...