Aoe Cap feedback after playing with it

[what63]

How does it target one person? Two people? Three people?

Every person potentially hit is likely already stored to a list and ordered based on range and other variables, then list pruned to specific cap, this list is your final output of people damaged. So if this is the case it would just be that if the amount of people in that list is larger than X (a minimum AoE cap, so abilities would always hit at least 9 people) then do fractional pruning on entries exceeding cap, rounded down, so the amount of actual hits going through is dynamic.

[Ninjagon]

+ Back to 24.
Adjust abilities, if needed.

[Delerium69]

as per previous comments in this thread. I am not a big fan of the 9 player cap. It impacts so many aspects of the game in a negative way. oRvR has also become less fun.

[Uchoo]

Totally agree with most of what you said in the Oversights section.

[Akalukz]

Base it on group make up,

24 = 9 AOE
18 = 12 AOE
12 = 15 AOE
6= 18 AOE

Less than 6 = 9

[BluIzLucky]

Thanks Bombling for your high quality post

I would like to suggest for the next test iteration:
- No AOE cap
- 2-3x INCREASED AoE Area (could be tied to a 15p tactic in AOE tree)

This will, in theory, let small groups/warbands deal disproportionate damage to much greater numbers. This should kill any benefits to zerging.
And lead to a meta of ST parties chasing AoE parties and warbands chasing ST parties.

So have no downside on PvE, but would certainly change dynamics in sieges.
Would be bad in cities as it would likely be AoE spam, but I'm sure that a solution could be found to that.

[Aethilmar]

Thanks Bombling for your high quality post

I would like to suggest for the next test iteration:
- No AOE cap
- 2-3x INCREASED AoE Area (could be tied to a 15p tactic in AOE tree)

This will, in theory, let small groups/warbands deal disproportionate damage to much greater numbers. This should kill any benefits to zerging.
And lead to a meta of ST parties chasing AoE parties and warbands chasing ST parties.

So have no downside on PvE, but would certainly change dynamics in sieges.
Would be bad in cities as it would likely be AoE spam, but I'm sure that a solution could be found to that.

I'm curious why you think the math of having larger AOEs benefits smaller groups. Seems like it should go in the opposite direction which is uncapped AOE plus smaller AOE areas. Larger AOEs rewards sloppy play where smaller AOEs would allow a tight group to annihilate anything in an confined space and then move on to the next space with the obvious counter being to spread out a bit.

Either way the unlimited cap AOE removes the uncertainty of what you are and are not going to hit even if in my particular scenario what you are hitting is smaller.

[normanis]

bombling just whant more numbers with bw tactic - fan of flames. and spread more wildfire.
now atleast ppl protect keeps/forts instead dump tham. (maby better remove keeps/forts and make all t3/4 zones as t1?) just 1 big lotd. i see 24 aoe maked ppl too much lazy. also noone touched rampage when aoe cap was 9. byt when rampage buffed u hit 24 targets its get nerfed.
ror team reduced amount of mobs in dungeons, previously they where more with 9aoe.
p.s pve become less popular not because of aoe changes byt because u cant get your sentinel souls byt instead u get pve crests.

[BluIzLucky]

Spoiler:

Thanks Bombling for your high quality post

I would like to suggest for the next test iteration:
- No AOE cap
- 2-3x INCREASED AoE Area (could be tied to a 15p tactic in AOE tree)

This will, in theory, let small groups/warbands deal disproportionate damage to much greater numbers. This should kill any benefits to zerging.
And lead to a meta of ST parties chasing AoE parties and warbands chasing ST parties.

So have no downside on PvE, but would certainly change dynamics in sieges.
Would be bad in cities as it would likely be AoE spam, but I'm sure that a solution could be found to that.

I'm curious why you think the math of having larger AOEs benefits smaller groups. Seems like it should go in the opposite direction which is uncapped AOE plus smaller AOE areas. Larger AOEs rewards sloppy play where smaller AOEs would allow a tight group to annihilate anything in an confined space and then move on to the next space with the obvious counter being to spread out a bit.

Either way the unlimited cap AOE removes the uncertainty of what you are and are not going to hit even if in my particular scenario what you are hitting is smaller.

Yes it could be more sloppy, especially on equal engagements.

But the idea is, if your organized 6/12/24 man can flank the zerg, they can now kill way beyond their size, thanks to the extended reach and no cap.
This would make the zerg a renown ball rather than a death ball.
The smaller AoE area is just another form of lower target cap (which I think we agree benefits the zerg most of the time).

Another option is adding zerg killer specific abilities, that scales their damage per target hit, but are bad outside hitting +36 targets.

Personally did not have a problem with the current meta (neither the meta change), but don't see how the current change does what it meant to.

[normanis]

unlimited target cap - muhahaha i am good spaming 1 abilitie (chart dont have so much numbers to show it)
24aoe cap - look at chart numbers and something even die
9 aoe cap - i spam abilities noone die, why?
wh/witch spam 2aoe cap abilitie - gys is something wrong?