3Form wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 3:00 pm
Don't like the scenario changes. But interested to see what the reduction in AoE cap does to the meta.
very simple: all the "meta "brainless aoe spec are meme now adn players must find alternatives instead of 1 button brainles aoe spam burst zerg like was now
for example yesterday evening the LOTD we had 4 BW with fireball barrage spec and 1 in charge to call melee focus and oterh call ranged focus. was very fun and satisfying rvr instead of same old monotonous 2 button blob.
sry to burst ur bubble but the brainless 12345 bw/sorc st boring crap is no better than brainless aoe.
hmm
I didn't think someone would post something like this here )))
I wanted to explain the reasoning for testing the 9-target cap a little bit further. We can start with the original reason the 24-target cap was introduced, which was to reduce zerging. Thus, the 24 cap should have allowed one warband to be able to beat larger numbers if they played well. So, the question is, is there actually less zerging with the 24-target cap than in the 9-target cap era? From my personal experience I would say the answer is no.
There are several disadvantages to the 24-target cap as opposed to the 9-target cap. The first aligns with some of the feedback given by the community that the time to kill (TTK) is too low in large scale fights. With a 24-target cap the total amount of damage you take as a warband is significantly higher. Note that in the case of one warband vs several, this is the case for both of them. With a 9-target limit incoming damage should be a lot more manageable, also if you are outnumbered.
This brings me to the second point. A 9-target limit allows tanks to actually tank the damage for your allies. With a 24-target limit, you as the tank want to take the least amount of damage. This means that ideally you play at the edge of guard range as far away from the enemy as possible, all to reduce the total amount of damage taken and allowing your healers to focus healing the dps. With tanks actually being able to tank with a 9-target limit, it introduces a whole new dimension lost with the 24-target limit.
Which leads to point three, which is to reduce the effectiveness of 'mindless' AoE spam and promoting good movement and good focus damage on certain areas. With the 24-target limit, you can in many case just overwhelm the enemy with damage, without even needing to properly focus the damage in one spot. With the 9-target limit, you have to move around frontlines and coordinate your damage on the mid and backline of the enemy.
Coming back to outnumbered fights, I believe one the reasons it is very difficult to beat larger numbers is because the incoming damage is just unmanageable. Allowing a well coordinated warband to be able to tank damage when outnumbered for at least some time, gives them the opportunity to create plays of their own. Of course it is a dubble-edged sword, for the outnumbered warband it also becomes more difficult to quickly wipe the enemy. But with movement and coordination becoming more important, there might be more outplaying opportunities than before. And that is why the test is important: To find out who actually benefits more from the 9-target limit.
And the reason for testing is because I don’t think you can fully theorycraft this. It will also require a playstyle shift from tanks, dps and to some extend from healers. Which is why it is good to give it some time so warbands can adept and properly test how the game plays with the 9-target limit.
Hopefully I did a decent job explaining why the 9-target limit could potentially function better than the 24-target limit. Ultimately, we will have to see in following weeks. If it doesn’t have the results we hope for, it can be swapped back to 24-targets.
Zumos - Member of Red Guard
Current Guilds: The Unlikely Plan - Deep and Dry - Dark Omen
zumos2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 10:24 am
I wanted to explain the reasoning for testing the 9-target cap a little bit further. We can start with the original reason the 24-target cap was introduced, which was to reduce zerging. Thus, the 24 cap should have allowed one warband to be able to beat larger numbers if they played well. So, the question is, is there actually less zerging with the 24-target cap than in the 9-target cap era? From my personal experience I would say the answer is no.
There are several disadvantages to the 24-target cap as opposed to the 9-target cap. The first aligns with some of the feedback given by the community that the time to kill (TTK) is too low in large scale fights. With a 24-target cap the total amount of damage you take as a warband is significantly higher. Note that in the case of one warband vs several, this is the case for both of them. With a 9-target limit incoming damage should be a lot more manageable, also if you are outnumbered.
This brings me to the second point. A 9-target limit allows tanks to actually tank the damage for your allies. With a 24-target limit, you as the tank want to take the least amount of damage. This means that ideally you play at the edge of guard range as far away from the enemy as possible, all to reduce the total amount of damage taken and allowing your healers to focus healing the dps. With tanks actually being able to tank with a 9-target limit, it introduces a whole new dimension lost with the 24-target limit.
Which leads to point three, which is to reduce the effectiveness of 'mindless' AoE spam and promoting good movement and good focus damage on certain areas. With the 24-target limit, you can in many case just overwhelm the enemy with damage, without even needing to properly focus the damage in one spot. With the 9-target limit, you have to move around frontlines and coordinate your damage on the mid and backline of the enemy.
Coming back to outnumbered fights, I believe one the reasons it is very difficult to beat larger numbers is because the incoming damage is just unmanageable. Allowing a well coordinated warband to be able to tank damage when outnumbered for at least some time, gives them the opportunity to create plays of their own. Of course it is a dubble-edged sword, for the outnumbered warband it also becomes more difficult to quickly wipe the enemy. But with movement and coordination becoming more important, there might be more outplaying opportunities than before. And that is why the test is important: To find out who actually benefits more from the 9-target limit.
And the reason for testing is because I don’t think you can fully theorycraft this. It will also require a playstyle shift from tanks, dps and to some extend from healers. Which is why it is good to give it some time so warbands can adept and properly test how the game plays with the 9-target limit.
Hopefully I did a decent job explaining why the 9-target limit could potentially function better than the 24-target limit. Ultimately, we will have to see in following weeks. If it doesn’t have the results we hope for, it can be swapped back to 24-targets.
Thats very good explanation of why it was introduced. I regret only that info couldnt be included in a patch notes to cut of cries in thread.
Could you tell us Zumos now, why the barrriers are placed? Why we cant shoot cannons from sc WCs? Is it a test too?
I wanted to explain the reasoning for testing the 9-target cap a little bit further. We can start with the original reason the 24-target cap was introduced, which was to reduce zerging. Thus, the 24 cap should have allowed one warband to be able to beat larger numbers if they played well. So, the question is, is there actually less zerging with the 24-target cap than in the 9-target cap era? From my personal experience I would say the answer is no.
There are several disadvantages to the 24-target cap as opposed to the 9-target cap. The first aligns with some of the feedback given by the community that the time to kill (TTK) is too low in large scale fights. With a 24-target cap the total amount of damage you take as a warband is significantly higher. Note that in the case of one warband vs several, this is the case for both of them. With a 9-target limit incoming damage should be a lot more manageable, also if you are outnumbered.
This brings me to the second point. A 9-target limit allows tanks to actually tank the damage for your allies. With a 24-target limit, you as the tank want to take the least amount of damage. This means that ideally you play at the edge of guard range as far away from the enemy as possible, all to reduce the total amount of damage taken and allowing your healers to focus healing the dps. With tanks actually being able to tank with a 9-target limit, it introduces a whole new dimension lost with the 24-target limit.
Which leads to point three, which is to reduce the effectiveness of 'mindless' AoE spam and promoting good movement and good focus damage on certain areas. With the 24-target limit, you can in many case just overwhelm the enemy with damage, without even needing to properly focus the damage in one spot. With the 9-target limit, you have to move around frontlines and coordinate your damage on the mid and backline of the enemy.
Coming back to outnumbered fights, I believe one the reasons it is very difficult to beat larger numbers is because the incoming damage is just unmanageable. Allowing a well coordinated warband to be able to tank damage when outnumbered for at least some time, gives them the opportunity to create plays of their own. Of course it is a dubble-edged sword, for the outnumbered warband it also becomes more difficult to quickly wipe the enemy. But with movement and coordination becoming more important, there might be more outplaying opportunities than before. And that is why the test is important: To find out who actually benefits more from the 9-target limit.
And the reason for testing is because I don’t think you can fully theorycraft this. It will also require a playstyle shift from tanks, dps and to some extend from healers. Which is why it is good to give it some time so warbands can adept and properly test how the game plays with the 9-target limit.
Hopefully I did a decent job explaining why the 9-target limit could potentially function better than the 24-target limit. Ultimately, we will have to see in following weeks. If it doesn’t have the results we hope for, it can be swapped back to 24-targets.
Thank you for the explanation Zumos.
Unfortunately the reasoning is faulty, as anything trying to protect organized warbands also protects disorganized/PUG Warbadns.
With most AoEs being PBAOE, just having a few Enemy tanks stand next to your Main Assists will drastically diminish your chances to kill anything. In the meantime, the Enemy will deal damage to everyone, because theyre simply MORE DPS.
But all of the sudden, your Challenges (which magically need to not hit the tanks and pets standing next to your tanks) rarely hit all the dps punching your warband.
One of the key reasons why organized warbands are more stable than pug warbands and have higher sustain: positioning and utilization of tools like EoV/FodG, have become much less reliable because they brainlessly hit the nearest 9 targets to whatever you target. So even random other friendly players adding into the fight cause the healing to become awkward.
IF you want to keep the AOE to 9 targets, at least consider QUICKLY (and not in a year or two) rebalancing and or revamping aoe healing and aoe dmg mitigation to actually allow them to be tools on a warband level.
Or move the aoe back to 24 until you have simultaneous changes to mitigation, healing, as well as the damage numbers themselves, to not have happen, what happened with a lot of the recent changes: a horrible and unenjoyable mid state that pushes players away from the game.
And I agree with the previous post: Now put in the same effort explaining the barriers.
zumos2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 10:24 am
I wanted to explain the reasoning for testing the 9-target cap a little bit further. We can start with the original reason the 24-target cap was introduced, which was to reduce zerging. Thus, the 24 cap should have allowed one warband to be able to beat larger numbers if they played well. So, the question is, is there actually less zerging with the 24-target cap than in the 9-target cap era? From my personal experience I would say the answer is no.
There are several disadvantages to the 24-target cap as opposed to the 9-target cap. The first aligns with some of the feedback given by the community that the time to kill (TTK) is too low in large scale fights. With a 24-target cap the total amount of damage you take as a warband is significantly higher. Note that in the case of one warband vs several, this is the case for both of them. With a 9-target limit incoming damage should be a lot more manageable, also if you are outnumbered.
This brings me to the second point. A 9-target limit allows tanks to actually tank the damage for your allies. With a 24-target limit, you as the tank want to take the least amount of damage. This means that ideally you play at the edge of guard range as far away from the enemy as possible, all to reduce the total amount of damage taken and allowing your healers to focus healing the dps. With tanks actually being able to tank with a 9-target limit, it introduces a whole new dimension lost with the 24-target limit.
Which leads to point three, which is to reduce the effectiveness of 'mindless' AoE spam and promoting good movement and good focus damage on certain areas. With the 24-target limit, you can in many case just overwhelm the enemy with damage, without even needing to properly focus the damage in one spot. With the 9-target limit, you have to move around frontlines and coordinate your damage on the mid and backline of the enemy.
Coming back to outnumbered fights, I believe one the reasons it is very difficult to beat larger numbers is because the incoming damage is just unmanageable. Allowing a well coordinated warband to be able to tank damage when outnumbered for at least some time, gives them the opportunity to create plays of their own. Of course it is a dubble-edged sword, for the outnumbered warband it also becomes more difficult to quickly wipe the enemy. But with movement and coordination becoming more important, there might be more outplaying opportunities than before. And that is why the test is important: To find out who actually benefits more from the 9-target limit.
And the reason for testing is because I don’t think you can fully theorycraft this. It will also require a playstyle shift from tanks, dps and to some extend from healers. Which is why it is good to give it some time so warbands can adept and properly test how the game plays with the 9-target limit.
Hopefully I did a decent job explaining why the 9-target limit could potentially function better than the 24-target limit. Ultimately, we will have to see in following weeks. If it doesn’t have the results we hope for, it can be swapped back to 24-targets.
Thats very good explanation of why it was introduced. I regret only that info couldnt be included in a patch notes to cut of cries in thread.
Could you tell us Zumos now, why the barrriers are placed? Why we cant shoot cannons from sc WCs? Is it a test too?
Scenario barriers is not a balance group decision.
Zumos - Member of Red Guard
Current Guilds: The Unlikely Plan - Deep and Dry - Dark Omen
zumos2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 10:24 am
I wanted to explain the reasoning for testing the 9-target cap a little bit further. We can start with the original reason the 24-target cap was introduced, which was to reduce zerging. Thus, the 24 cap should have allowed one warband to be able to beat larger numbers if they played well. So, the question is, is there actually less zerging with the 24-target cap than in the 9-target cap era? From my personal experience I would say the answer is no.
There are several disadvantages to the 24-target cap as opposed to the 9-target cap. The first aligns with some of the feedback given by the community that the time to kill (TTK) is too low in large scale fights. With a 24-target cap the total amount of damage you take as a warband is significantly higher. Note that in the case of one warband vs several, this is the case for both of them. With a 9-target limit incoming damage should be a lot more manageable, also if you are outnumbered.
This brings me to the second point. A 9-target limit allows tanks to actually tank the damage for your allies. With a 24-target limit, you as the tank want to take the least amount of damage. This means that ideally you play at the edge of guard range as far away from the enemy as possible, all to reduce the total amount of damage taken and allowing your healers to focus healing the dps. With tanks actually being able to tank with a 9-target limit, it introduces a whole new dimension lost with the 24-target limit.
Which leads to point three, which is to reduce the effectiveness of 'mindless' AoE spam and promoting good movement and good focus damage on certain areas. With the 24-target limit, you can in many case just overwhelm the enemy with damage, without even needing to properly focus the damage in one spot. With the 9-target limit, you have to move around frontlines and coordinate your damage on the mid and backline of the enemy.
Coming back to outnumbered fights, I believe one the reasons it is very difficult to beat larger numbers is because the incoming damage is just unmanageable. Allowing a well coordinated warband to be able to tank damage when outnumbered for at least some time, gives them the opportunity to create plays of their own. Of course it is a dubble-edged sword, for the outnumbered warband it also becomes more difficult to quickly wipe the enemy. But with movement and coordination becoming more important, there might be more outplaying opportunities than before. And that is why the test is important: To find out who actually benefits more from the 9-target limit.
And the reason for testing is because I don’t think you can fully theorycraft this. It will also require a playstyle shift from tanks, dps and to some extend from healers. Which is why it is good to give it some time so warbands can adept and properly test how the game plays with the 9-target limit.
Hopefully I did a decent job explaining why the 9-target limit could potentially function better than the 24-target limit. Ultimately, we will have to see in following weeks. If it doesn’t have the results we hope for, it can be swapped back to 24-targets.
If this is the intended goal then you need to make an asymmetrical change that gives tools more often used by org bands more power then mindless spam. To that end if you want to try a 9 target limit on dps that is fine so long as we allow moral and challenge to hit the full 24. This would allow an org band the ability to try to sustain against the greater numbers and then make a coordinated play to break the pug band's line. If you limit these tools then the zerg will always win since they can simply pile more players into your aoe circle and gum up your concentrated damage.
zumos2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 10:24 am
I wanted to explain the reasoning for testing the 9-target cap a little bit further. We can start with the original reason the 24-target cap was introduced, which was to reduce zerging. Thus, the 24 cap should have allowed one warband to be able to beat larger numbers if they played well. So, the question is, is there actually less zerging with the 24-target cap than in the 9-target cap era? From my personal experience I would say the answer is no.
There are several disadvantages to the 24-target cap as opposed to the 9-target cap. The first aligns with some of the feedback given by the community that the time to kill (TTK) is too low in large scale fights. With a 24-target cap the total amount of damage you take as a warband is significantly higher. Note that in the case of one warband vs several, this is the case for both of them. With a 9-target limit incoming damage should be a lot more manageable, also if you are outnumbered.
This brings me to the second point. A 9-target limit allows tanks to actually tank the damage for your allies. With a 24-target limit, you as the tank want to take the least amount of damage. This means that ideally you play at the edge of guard range as far away from the enemy as possible, all to reduce the total amount of damage taken and allowing your healers to focus healing the dps. With tanks actually being able to tank with a 9-target limit, it introduces a whole new dimension lost with the 24-target limit.
Which leads to point three, which is to reduce the effectiveness of 'mindless' AoE spam and promoting good movement and good focus damage on certain areas. With the 24-target limit, you can in many case just overwhelm the enemy with damage, without even needing to properly focus the damage in one spot. With the 9-target limit, you have to move around frontlines and coordinate your damage on the mid and backline of the enemy.
Coming back to outnumbered fights, I believe one the reasons it is very difficult to beat larger numbers is because the incoming damage is just unmanageable. Allowing a well coordinated warband to be able to tank damage when outnumbered for at least some time, gives them the opportunity to create plays of their own. Of course it is a dubble-edged sword, for the outnumbered warband it also becomes more difficult to quickly wipe the enemy. But with movement and coordination becoming more important, there might be more outplaying opportunities than before. And that is why the test is important: To find out who actually benefits more from the 9-target limit.
And the reason for testing is because I don’t think you can fully theorycraft this. It will also require a playstyle shift from tanks, dps and to some extend from healers. Which is why it is good to give it some time so warbands can adept and properly test how the game plays with the 9-target limit.
Hopefully I did a decent job explaining why the 9-target limit could potentially function better than the 24-target limit. Ultimately, we will have to see in following weeks. If it doesn’t have the results we hope for, it can be swapped back to 24-targets.
Thats very good explanation of why it was introduced. I regret only that info couldnt be included in a patch notes to cut of cries in thread.
Could you tell us Zumos now, why the barrriers are placed? Why we cant shoot cannons from sc WCs? Is it a test too?
Scenario barriers is not a balance group decision.
Thanks for the clarification regardless target cap.
May i ask then who is responsible for barriers change? I haven’t seen yet any feedback thread asking for them nor any petition backed up with full pages of agreement?
zumos2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 10:24 am
I wanted to explain the reasoning for testing the 9-target cap a little bit further. We can start with the original reason the 24-target cap was introduced, which was to reduce zerging. Thus, the 24 cap should have allowed one warband to be able to beat larger numbers if they played well. So, the question is, is there actually less zerging with the 24-target cap than in the 9-target cap era? From my personal experience I would say the answer is no.
There are several disadvantages to the 24-target cap as opposed to the 9-target cap. The first aligns with some of the feedback given by the community that the time to kill (TTK) is too low in large scale fights. With a 24-target cap the total amount of damage you take as a warband is significantly higher. Note that in the case of one warband vs several, this is the case for both of them. With a 9-target limit incoming damage should be a lot more manageable, also if you are outnumbered.
This brings me to the second point. A 9-target limit allows tanks to actually tank the damage for your allies. With a 24-target limit, you as the tank want to take the least amount of damage. This means that ideally you play at the edge of guard range as far away from the enemy as possible, all to reduce the total amount of damage taken and allowing your healers to focus healing the dps. With tanks actually being able to tank with a 9-target limit, it introduces a whole new dimension lost with the 24-target limit.
Which leads to point three, which is to reduce the effectiveness of 'mindless' AoE spam and promoting good movement and good focus damage on certain areas. With the 24-target limit, you can in many case just overwhelm the enemy with damage, without even needing to properly focus the damage in one spot. With the 9-target limit, you have to move around frontlines and coordinate your damage on the mid and backline of the enemy.
Coming back to outnumbered fights, I believe one the reasons it is very difficult to beat larger numbers is because the incoming damage is just unmanageable. Allowing a well coordinated warband to be able to tank damage when outnumbered for at least some time, gives them the opportunity to create plays of their own. Of course it is a dubble-edged sword, for the outnumbered warband it also becomes more difficult to quickly wipe the enemy. But with movement and coordination becoming more important, there might be more outplaying opportunities than before. And that is why the test is important: To find out who actually benefits more from the 9-target limit.
And the reason for testing is because I don’t think you can fully theorycraft this. It will also require a playstyle shift from tanks, dps and to some extend from healers. Which is why it is good to give it some time so warbands can adept and properly test how the game plays with the 9-target limit.
Hopefully I did a decent job explaining why the 9-target limit could potentially function better than the 24-target limit. Ultimately, we will have to see in following weeks. If it doesn’t have the results we hope for, it can be swapped back to 24-targets.
If this is the intended goal then you need to make an asymmetrical change that gives tools more often used by org bands more power then mindless spam. To that end if you want to try a 9 target limit on dps that is fine so long as we allow moral and challenge to hit the full 24. This would allow an org band the ability to try to sustain against the greater numbers and then make a coordinated play to break the pug band's line. If you limit these tools then the zerg will always win since they can simply pile more players into your aoe circle and gum up your concentrated damage.
Good point, I think you need to introduce some ability synergy that will allow an organzied group the chance to wipe the unorganized zerg. Be that based on local AAO or zone wide AAO, or even sacrificial builds such as bringing back AoE heal debuffs or uncapped morale damage
1. Fights tend to be much slower as tanks can hold a position. So long as you don't allow dps an avenue to approach your backline, your team is relatively safe. This adds a lot of gameplay for Tanks just through movement and positioning. Overall, I would say this is a big plus.
2. Ranged Single Target groups can do a lot. In a situation where both the Tanks and Melee for both sides aren't making a lot of moves easily, Ranged getting pick after pick on Backline can be huge. Stealthers could probably do the same.
This in addition to what has already been mentioned by others.
)))
