Changelog 29/11/16

[wpc56]

It's interesting to see so many SH biased arguments that are factually untrue.

Range disarm and run away required a squig hit, it doesn't have to be spiked squig, gas squig would work too from range or god forbid, use a melee squig. Factually, the abilities are not tied to spike squig

When SH only uses the one squig then you know you have a balance issue (which has finally being looked at)

You have 4 squigs... use them... and you literally can always have one up at all time.

[Marsares]

Obviously one evening of RvR is not indicative, but I can only say that tonight has been the worst RvR I have had in quite some time. Granted, Caledor never helps as it is basically one big funnel for either side, but the zerging and blobbing was worse than ever.

The side that outnumbered and got hit with the wounds debuff and had to face a larger AOE cap basically blobbed together more and more to find safety in numbers, the lower populated side blobbed up equally more and more to make the most of the AAO buffs.

What was worse, the lower populated side often had equal numbers in actual fights as the larger realm had to spread out across the zone, yet still benefitted from all the buffs.

You cannot give such significant buffs based on a realm-wide population counter. It's the balance in actual fights that should matter and Aza's original proposal of friendly fire deals with that. I really don't get why we went down the AAO route.

Three hours of this and I'm logging off in disgust and I'm a total fan-boi of the game.

[Vandoles]

Well, whatever.

I tried this as a less damaging option rather than going straight onto changing AoE, because I thought modifying the AoE system would produce the bigger backlash.

Not only that, the idea of Wounds debuffing was proposed by another community member (one of my more fierce critics) back in the age when DR affected incoming/outgoing damage.

If removing it is the way forward, then fine, but expect me to go down the line of using the AoE system to spread people out more in a local area, then changing RvR mechanics further afterwards.

@Luuca: That will be indicated as favouring roaming 6 mans against PUG warbands and will go down like a lead balloon.

Sounds like you're doing what I do as pug WB leader - allow the loudest critic to lead, wait until he fails (as do I, but I know that's the natural order of pugs) and then quietly take back lead

Keep in mind, PUG WB's biggest problems are they can't stay in one place, it's desperately hard to coordinate. People don't have an incentive in following me when I lead. If you tweak the AOE system so it forces pugs to stay together more, it'd be a godsend to pugs as well. I have no idea how, but it's late and I've been at work for 12 hours so I might be able to produce a more productive post tomorrow.

Just please, when balancing things out, keep in mind there are ALWAYS a lot of afkers on the edge of the WC or in the keep. Or just afkers in general. Unless you make afk people not count towards pop when adjusting aao/dr you'll always have to work around that.

[Vandoles]

If the development team can base the Soul Essence and RF regen of a Book or Chalice upon the "local" population centered off the WP or DoK, why can't AAO also be centered off of the individual?

For instance, a 6-man is in the lake and they come across a group of 24 order. Our AAO would go up and their Wounds/AoE cap would be adjusted down based upon a .. what? 200 ft circumference from my character? In this way the ZONE would not blanket AAO every player from the underdog side, it would ONLY AAO when force meets force and at the appropriate levels. In this way, any small group facing a larger force would benefit.

At a Keep, both sides have a majority of the players at the keep and so it would be fairly even AAO, but open field, at the BOs, a 6-man with "localized AAO" facing a 12 man or even a 24 man (if a premade 6-man with skills) may have a fighting chance.

Edit: this "localized AAO" would be contingent upon 2+ players in a party - no SOLO AAO.

That leads to ALL sorts of balance issues. What's the incentive of grouping up as a WB then? A 6-man would be more effective in everything. How do you take BOs? What happens when 3 order 6-mans (since everything will be in 6-mans) show up at the same BO to fight 1 destro 6-man? 2 of them have to leave or all 3 get destroyed. It would lead to a massive zone-wide game of avoiding your allies and trying to catch bunched up enemies.

[Luuca]

If the development team can base the Soul Essence and RF regen of a Book or Chalice upon the "local" population centered off the WP or DoK, why can't AAO also be centered off of the individual?

For instance, a 6-man is in the lake and they come across a group of 24 order. Our AAO would go up and their Wounds/AoE cap would be adjusted down based upon a .. what? 200 ft circumference from my character? In this way the ZONE would not blanket AAO every player from the underdog side, it would ONLY AAO when force meets force and at the appropriate levels. In this way, any small group facing a larger force would benefit.

At a Keep, both sides have a majority of the players at the keep and so it would be fairly even AAO, but open field, at the BOs, a 6-man with "localized AAO" facing a 12 man or even a 24 man (if a premade 6-man with skills) may have a fighting chance.

Edit: this "localized AAO" would be contingent upon 2+ players in a party - no SOLO AAO.

That leads to ALL sorts of balance issues. What's the incentive of grouping up as a WB then? A 6-man would be more effective in everything. How do you take BOs? What happens when 3 order 6-mans (since everything will be in 6-mans) show up at the same BO to fight 1 destro 6-man? 2 of them have to leave or all 3 get destroyed. It would lead to a massive zone-wide game of avoiding your allies and trying to catch bunched up enemies.

AKA: Anti-Zerg mentality.

Look, the AAO bonuses would need to be refined. In no way should a 6-man caught at a BO be able to consistently murder-bot a warband. BUT - they SHOULD be able to take a few with them. As it stands now, the advantage is in large blobs schlepping around the lakes nearly insta-gibbing smaller groups. What you worry about is a 6-man insta-gibbing a warband or 12 man. If the AAO scaled with the immediate population around the player, and AAO was refined and balanced to the point that it made 6v12 a fair fight, but made 6v24 still pretty much a guaranteed wipe (with some casualties in the WB), I think my system could work. The problem with the current AAO system is that the side with AAO gathers the 30 to 50 players into a blob and ends up :| smaller BO groups trying to run the resources and runs away from the larger force. Even with a larger force, if you are working a zone correctly, you're going to want to split up (at least initially). If you make AAO "localized" to each situation, it deters the AAO side from Blobbing up.

Do I think this will be the end of guild warbands? Probably not. I will guarantee those guild wars bands that take on 10 players will have a damn hard fight. It provides an incentive for small groups against a larger force to try. It provides an incentive for larger groups to split up and find more balanced fights.. That's what everyone wants, right? more balanced fights and a fighting chance at winning - the two things the zerg denies.

If warband meets warband at the keep, even local numbers and no AAO. 6-man meets 8 players, very slight AAO. 6 man versus 12, slightly more AAO and more debuffing the 12 man, and so on. 2-man versus six would be a similar ratio as 6v12... and so on. If other players add on, AAO goes up along with the debuffs. Solo players would not benefit from AAO in my system. This is a group game and if you want to solo gank, you won't get extra rewards.

To me, even with 48 v 2 at a keep and massive AAO advantage, the 48 man still wins. It's simply a matter of if/how many players die besides the 2. The reality is there is strength in numbers. Forcing players to police themselves out of a zerg for more renown and better "odds" will help break that zerg mentality.

[petro3x]

True patch. All enemy ignore invize WH and WE

[roadkillrobin]

You cannot give such significant buffs based on a realm-wide population counter. It's the balance in actual fights that should matter and Aza's original proposal of friendly fire deals with that. I really don't get why we went down the AAO route.

Three hours of this and I'm logging off in disgust and I'm a total fan-boi of the game.

Coz that suggestion completly contradicts the tanks archetype. Tanks are designed to stay close to the dps to increase and sustain their dps. While the friendly fire AoE suggestion makes tanks into something that reduce your damage output by saoking friendly fire so you don't want em close anymore. They would need to redsign the whole tank mechanic to make that work tbh.

[dur3al]

You cannot give such significant buffs based on a realm-wide population counter. It's the balance in actual fights that should matter and Aza's original proposal of friendly fire deals with that. I really don't get why we went down the AAO route.

Three hours of this and I'm logging off in disgust and I'm a total fan-boi of the game.

Coz that suggestion completly contradicts the tanks archetype. Tanks are designed to stay close to the dps to increase and sustain their dps. While the friendly fire AoE suggestion makes tanks into something that reduce your damage output by saoking friendly fire so you don't want em close anymore. They would need to redsign the whole tank mechanic to make that work tbh.

Just remove AoE cap and reduce the damage from AoE, without the whole friendly-fire thing (which you cannot control, since you can't tell people where to go outside your group).

It'll still head in the direction of spreading out, or else face having everyone being hit by AoE. And it'll also be an discouragement for stacking together and blobing up.

@ Aza,

If you're heading in with the AoE changes, do not add something "random" that you cannot control like this friendly-fire thing, the backlash will be exactly the same you're having with DR, because people cannot tell where others have to go or where to run to (those outside their group). With my suggestion above you're still fulfilling the blob break since they risk all being hit by AoE and all of them take damage - not only 9 of them (mostly tanks). Keep this in mind.

Regarding the pet changes... did you consider (for example) the WL damage output vs Marauder's damage output balanced or unbalanced pre-change? (same apply for SH vs SW).

From my understanding from playing a WL, the class is 100% reliant on pet damage wise (also when you take into consideration that 2x 1H weapons are better considering the whole proc meta discussion which still is a thing here..), I usually run from 2 to 3 tactics which are related to the pet to achieve high damage, while in comparison with my marauder I got no such disadvantage, and now its damage got seriously reduced with the pet changes. How are you going to address this? Or you feel like the total damage output from WL vs Mara is where it should be now?

[Dresden]

Londo

- Fixed an issue allowing players to mount with the Howling Gorge bomb and the Serpent's Passage salvage.

Thank you.

[Yardy]

Spoiler:

65foot range to Spiked squig.....yeah lets not change stuff to suit 1v1....this cange is def in relation to 1v1

Asinine whine, warning issued - Torque