Current take on "zerg busting" on RoR

[roadkillrobin]

Didn't read the whole topic but i really like the idea of scaling AoE target cap with AAO/population differences

Though i believe AAO shouldn't be instantly updated, players that leave the zone should still be counted in AAO calculation for 5-10 minutes, that way it'll be harder to manipulate AAO and use it for your own benefits, although there are still some loopholes there...

AoE cap scaling with AAO is probobly the least exploiteble mechanic, but it's still rather easy to exploit. Just coz you're the minority realm doesn't mean you're outnumbered in every fight. Thats why progressive combat mechanics never gonna work. It's crucial that the combat numbers are static tbh.
The only thing you can really do is tweaking the rewards. Everything else creates a complex cascade of combat imballances.

[anarchypark]

problem of zerg bursting bomb WB is
it erases everything else.
for the game design's perspective,
1:1 bomb wb was balanced.

then one side get more number
1.5 vs 1 bomb.
sure that extra numbers won't go anywhere but join the battle.
then 1.5 vs 1.5 then 2wb vs 2wb bomb.
keep growing.
sounds like zerg isn't it ?

zerg haters run to other zone but same
routine start over.

That was the ultimate balance design of AoR.
everyone should spec for bomb and no one play others.
after 6months of bomb what's left to venture in that RvR ?

power creep. and pug, bottom of food chain who didn't follow AoR design were the last oxygen.
pug life cycle were even shorter, nobody likes 3sec erase.
so they jump into 6months AoR bomb design or quit.
eventually that oxygen ran out and game died.

IMO, that's why dev had tried to make weakness for bomb wb. good at zerg, weak at something. balanced.

It had failed so bomb still exist. but better do something than waiting same fate of AoR.

[Grock]

Didn't read the whole topic but i really like the idea of scaling AoE target cap with AAO/population differences

Though i believe AAO shouldn't be instantly updated, players that leave the zone should still be counted in AAO calculation for 5-10 minutes, that way it'll be harder to manipulate AAO and use it for your own benefits, although there are still some loopholes there...

AoE cap scaling with AAO is probobly the least exploiteble mechanic, but it's still rather easy to exploit. Just coz you're the minority realm doesn't mean you're outnumbered in every fight. Thats why progressive combat mechanics never gonna work. It's crucial that the combat numbers are static tbh.
The only thing you can really do is tweaking the rewards. Everything else creates a complex cascade of combat imballances.

Well yeah.

I think a system that tracks number of players engaged in a fight and then determines who's outnumbered and gives them increased AoE cap / morale gain could be pretty neat. Player tracking could be done via assist chains (damage/heal/buff) and maybe also by tracking players who are in proximity and a member of a group with engaged player/players
A bit complex and i fear that it could be costly to calculate all of that, but i think it could work pretty well.
Of course people will find some ways to exploit this to their advantage when not actually outnumbered, but it wouldn't be as crazy as old aoe damage patch.

[roadkillrobin]

Didn't read the whole topic but i really like the idea of scaling AoE target cap with AAO/population differences

Though i believe AAO shouldn't be instantly updated, players that leave the zone should still be counted in AAO calculation for 5-10 minutes, that way it'll be harder to manipulate AAO and use it for your own benefits, although there are still some loopholes there...

AoE cap scaling with AAO is probobly the least exploiteble mechanic, but it's still rather easy to exploit. Just coz you're the minority realm doesn't mean you're outnumbered in every fight. Thats why progressive combat mechanics never gonna work. It's crucial that the combat numbers are static tbh.
The only thing you can really do is tweaking the rewards. Everything else creates a complex cascade of combat imballances.

Well yeah.

I think a system that tracks number of players engaged in a fight and then determines who's outnumbered and gives them increased AoE cap / morale gain could be pretty neat. Player tracking could be done via assist chains (damage/heal/buff) and maybe also by tracking players who are in proximity and a member of a group with engaged player/players
A bit complex and i fear that it could be costly to calculate all of that, but i think it could work pretty well.
Of course people will find some ways to exploit this to their advantage when not actually outnumbered, but it wouldn't be as crazy as old aoe damage patch.

No it's actually worse. When dealing with open world mass pvp you don't have a choise on who engage in a fight on either side, other then your own warband/group.
It's completly bonkers and busted that a suprise attack by your allies in the enemy flank would boost your enemies fighting power for example.

[lefze]

AoE cap scaling with AAO is probobly the least exploiteble mechanic, but it's still rather easy to exploit. Just coz you're the minority realm doesn't mean you're outnumbered in every fight. Thats why progressive combat mechanics never gonna work. It's crucial that the combat numbers are static tbh.
The only thing you can really do is tweaking the rewards. Everything else creates a complex cascade of combat imballances.

Well yeah.

I think a system that tracks number of players engaged in a fight and then determines who's outnumbered and gives them increased AoE cap / morale gain could be pretty neat. Player tracking could be done via assist chains (damage/heal/buff) and maybe also by tracking players who are in proximity and a member of a group with engaged player/players
A bit complex and i fear that it could be costly to calculate all of that, but i think it could work pretty well.
Of course people will find some ways to exploit this to their advantage when not actually outnumbered, but it wouldn't be as crazy as old aoe damage patch.

No it's actually worse. When dealing with open world mass pvp you don't have a choise on who engage in a fight on either side, other then your own warband/group.
It's completly bonkers and busted that a suprise attack by your allies in the enemy flank would boost your enemies fighting power for example.

I agree that cap based on proximity doesn't work. But neither does a static one, or a cap based on AAO. Only thing I can see working is a cap based on a % of enemies hit, with a minimum and maximum value. The only concern with this is that abilities with greater range would benefit more, but seeing as every class with 65ft+ effective range got nerfed to **** it doesn't really matter. Magus (and engy to a lesser degree) would benefit more than most other classes, but if the upper cap is well tweaked it wouldn't be an issue.

[roadkillrobin]

Well yeah.

I think a system that tracks number of players engaged in a fight and then determines who's outnumbered and gives them increased AoE cap / morale gain could be pretty neat. Player tracking could be done via assist chains (damage/heal/buff) and maybe also by tracking players who are in proximity and a member of a group with engaged player/players
A bit complex and i fear that it could be costly to calculate all of that, but i think it could work pretty well.
Of course people will find some ways to exploit this to their advantage when not actually outnumbered, but it wouldn't be as crazy as old aoe damage patch.

No it's actually worse. When dealing with open world mass pvp you don't have a choise on who engage in a fight on either side, other then your own warband/group.
It's completly bonkers and busted that a suprise attack by your allies in the enemy flank would boost your enemies fighting power for example.

I agree that cap based on proximity doesn't work. But neither does a static one, or a cap based on AAO. Only thing I can see working is a cap based on a % of enemies hit, with a minimum and maximum value. The only concern with this is that abilities with greater range would benefit more, but seeing as every class with 65ft+ effective range got nerfed to **** it doesn't really matter. Magus (and engy to a lesser degree) would benefit more than most other classes, but if the upper cap is well tweaked it wouldn't be an issue.

My suggestion would be to remove AoE hitcap limits all together, increase AoE damage all together. Remove AoE morale damage on anything less then a M4 and replace M2-3 with really SHORT duration buffs/debuffs. And as for looking at what can be done about mass blobs of warbands I would actually handle that by tweaking collition rather then dmg calculations. Possibly a proximity check that increase friendly collition range (I belive it's 5 feet now) by 5 feet for every 6th player above 24 and starting the count at 24+1, within a 65 feet range, up to a max of 15 feet cap collition radius.

[Grock]

AoE cap scaling with AAO is probobly the least exploiteble mechanic, but it's still rather easy to exploit. Just coz you're the minority realm doesn't mean you're outnumbered in every fight. Thats why progressive combat mechanics never gonna work. It's crucial that the combat numbers are static tbh.
The only thing you can really do is tweaking the rewards. Everything else creates a complex cascade of combat imballances.

Well yeah.

I think a system that tracks number of players engaged in a fight and then determines who's outnumbered and gives them increased AoE cap / morale gain could be pretty neat. Player tracking could be done via assist chains (damage/heal/buff) and maybe also by tracking players who are in proximity and a member of a group with engaged player/players
A bit complex and i fear that it could be costly to calculate all of that, but i think it could work pretty well.
Of course people will find some ways to exploit this to their advantage when not actually outnumbered, but it wouldn't be as crazy as old aoe damage patch.

No it's actually worse. When dealing with open world mass pvp you don't have a choise on who engage in a fight on either side, other then your own warband/group.
It's completly bonkers and busted that a suprise attack by your allies in the enemy flank would boost your enemies fighting power for example.

"Completely bonkers and busted" that smaller group of enemies attacked from two sides by larger force will hit slightly more targets with aoe or get morale a bit faster? What?
How is it worse than bigger group getting AAO advantage on their side or one person 3-shotting bunch of enemies with regular aoe attack alone?

[roadkillrobin]

Well yeah.

I think a system that tracks number of players engaged in a fight and then determines who's outnumbered and gives them increased AoE cap / morale gain could be pretty neat. Player tracking could be done via assist chains (damage/heal/buff) and maybe also by tracking players who are in proximity and a member of a group with engaged player/players
A bit complex and i fear that it could be costly to calculate all of that, but i think it could work pretty well.
Of course people will find some ways to exploit this to their advantage when not actually outnumbered, but it wouldn't be as crazy as old aoe damage patch.

No it's actually worse. When dealing with open world mass pvp you don't have a choise on who engage in a fight on either side, other then your own warband/group.
It's completly bonkers and busted that a suprise attack by your allies in the enemy flank would boost your enemies fighting power for example.

"Completely bonkers and busted" that smaller group of enemies attacked from two sides by larger force will hit slightly more targets with aoe or get morale a bit faster? What?
How is it worse than bigger group getting AAO advantage on their side or one person 3-shotting bunch of enemies with regular aoe attack alone?

Coz with a hypotetical AAO buff you know what you have to work with and doesn't personally screwed by allies showing up from nowere and possible get you wiped just coz the smaller force got buffed by their pressence.
Both are bad ideas and rely to much on RNG for the outcome of the engagement. I mean it makes no sence that an aly warband wouldn't engage a battle coz it would risk boosting the enemy.

[lefze]

No it's actually worse. When dealing with open world mass pvp you don't have a choise on who engage in a fight on either side, other then your own warband/group.
It's completly bonkers and busted that a suprise attack by your allies in the enemy flank would boost your enemies fighting power for example.

I agree that cap based on proximity doesn't work. But neither does a static one, or a cap based on AAO. Only thing I can see working is a cap based on a % of enemies hit, with a minimum and maximum value. The only concern with this is that abilities with greater range would benefit more, but seeing as every class with 65ft+ effective range got nerfed to **** it doesn't really matter. Magus (and engy to a lesser degree) would benefit more than most other classes, but if the upper cap is well tweaked it wouldn't be an issue.

My suggestion would be to remove AoE hitcap limits all together, increase AoE damage all together. Remove AoE morale damage on anything less then a M4 and replace M2-3 with really SHORT duration buffs/debuffs. And as for looking at what can be done about mass blobs of warbands I would actually handle that by tweaking collition rather then dmg calculations. Possibly a proximity check that increase friendly collition range (I belive it's 5 feet now) by 5 feet for every 6th player above 24 and starting the count at 24+1, within a 65 feet range, up to a max of 15 feet cap collition radius.

It would probably be an improvement to remove the cap allotogether, but at that point the underdog still gets ****. AoE damage is fine as it is right now. Morales are cancer, so I do agree 100% with that.

As for collition, don't think it's gonna make sense to have it like that, if anything I would rather have a drastic decrease in guard range when seriously blobbed up, combined with some tweak to AoE caps.

[Grock]

No it's actually worse. When dealing with open world mass pvp you don't have a choise on who engage in a fight on either side, other then your own warband/group.
It's completly bonkers and busted that a suprise attack by your allies in the enemy flank would boost your enemies fighting power for example.

"Completely bonkers and busted" that smaller group of enemies attacked from two sides by larger force will hit slightly more targets with aoe or get morale a bit faster? What?
How is it worse than bigger group getting AAO advantage on their side or one person 3-shotting bunch of enemies with regular aoe attack alone?

Coz with a hypotetical AAO buff you know what you have to work with and doesn't personally screwed by allies showing up from nowere and possible get you wiped just coz the smaller force got buffed by their pressence.
Both are bad ideas and rely to much on RNG for the outcome of the engagement. I mean it makes no sence that an aly warband wouldn't engage a battle coz it would risk boosting the enemy.

You overreact to the very concept while failing to acknowledge the potential positive changes to tactics and player psychology and the fact that the entire thing would first be tweaked and balanced around actual numbers.

People play competitive Hearthstone and you say potential turn of battle from roughly the same conditions to something like "more people vs longer sticks" is "too much randomness" and entirely broken without even having any concept of how much longer their sticks would actually be.
If you didn't get that here's an example: hitting 1 more target with your AoE abilities when there are twice more enemies than allies engaged in a fight judging by assist chains - is this "completely bonkers and busted"?

There is no more randomness than in the enemy PUG blob suddenly popping up when you fight organized warband and just steamrolling over you because they have x3 more people.

fyi RNG is short for Random Number Generator