New LOTD balance system - proposal

[Ninjagon]

This suggestion would not cover the issues that has happend in the past, that realm1 are losing or the pugplayers are not enjoying their time and leave and if there are not enough in queue to fill their opened spot, that would lead realm2 to have numbers advantage.

Example:
Order and Destro both have 3 warbands queueing, Order start winning and destro have 20 players leave but because there are not 20players in the queue, order will already have players inside and now an advantage of 20 players.
(just as I personally speculate the assumed population advantages have been created, if they even exsist. Because there are not enough to fill the "leavers" spots and not because one side is filling initially and the others dont)

Yes that can happen. And you cannot prevent people when they decide to left the zone. But from the start, there will be theoretical equal chances because of the population balance.
And that is all I have ever wanted. Fair enough for both factions.

[Detangler]

LotD already has way better balancing than the Orvr campaign that gives smaller groups and sub warbands to full warbands something to do besides zerg v zerg fights. Penalties in damage for having too many people in one zone, multiple BOs with large distances between them, the ability to back cap the enemy and disrupt supply lines, roaming NPCs that neutralize BOs and encourage players to split off.

All this and no PvDoor. Its honestly more fun than the normal campaign and one of the few times I enjoy leading a pug warband.

[rejndjer]

This suggestion would not cover the issues that has happend in the past, that realm1 are losing or the pugplayers are not enjoying their time and leave and if there are not enough in queue to fill their opened spot, that would lead realm2 to have numbers advantage.

Example:
Order and Destro both have 3 warbands queueing, Order start winning and destro have 20 players leave but because there are not 20players in the queue, order will already have players inside and now an advantage of 20 players.
(just as I personally speculate the assumed population advantages have been created, if they even exsist. Because there are not enough to fill the "leavers" spots and not because one side is filling initially and the others dont)

Yes that can happen. And you cannot prevent people when they decide to left the zone. But from the start, there will be theoretical equal chances because of the population balance.
And that is all I have ever wanted. Fair enough for both factions.

dude you have same number of players on both factions on start, that's what he's saying. after first 10 minutes of clashes people of losing team start to afk/leave etc.

[normanis]

why not add lotd ''anti zerg'' debufs in rvr? maby ppl stop zerg so much or reduce aoe from 24 to 6-9.
p.s lowering aoe is making ppl assist. (forcing assist main assist)

[rejndjer]

how would reducing aoe from 24 to 6-9 be anti-zerg measure? people would zerg even more then.

idk maybe im stupid, but if my wb is outnumbered, i'd rather have ability to hit 24 enemies than 6-9, because if 24 of us are hitting 6-9, against 48, who are hitting 12-18, then how is that an anti-zerg measure? where now we have better chance, because we hit half of their forces, and they're still hitting all of us as they would've if aoe was limited to only 6-9 targets. also a lot of aoe skills already have limited targets to less than 24 by design.

[Sinisterror]

how would reducing aoe from 24 to 6-9 be anti-zerg measure? people would zerg even more then.

idk maybe im stupid, but if my wb is outnumbered, i'd rather have ability to hit 24 enemies than 6-9, because if 24 of us are hitting 6-9, against 48, who are hitting 12-18, then how is that an anti-zerg measure? where now we have better chance, because we hit half of their forces, and they're still hitting all of us as they would've if aoe was limited to only 6-9 targets. also a lot of aoe skills already have limited targets to less than 24 by design.

Limited to less than 24 by design : D By design it was 6-9. And it definetely would help smaller side players who know how to play. You used to need 3 dps to even hit 24 people, now 1 is enough. Some of the nerfed CC is needed and 0,5s ICD on procs instead of 1s or 2s. When Aoe cap is 9 and you have 12 players on your side, they can win against 24-36 but that is now impossible because 3x more aoe dmg flying around than WAR ever intented makes anything with bigger force automatik win. You cant kite with wb's anymore... Also we need 66 Dps wpns, now max is 58. When WAR had Sove and rr80 cap highest dps wpns were 66dps. This change and ICD on procs to 0-0,5s makes single target dmg more powerful and needed. I dont remember what was 2h dps max amount rr80 cap but it would be changed to match as well ofc.

9 sec aoe staggers were ALOT but 3 sec is TOO LITTLE so make it 6 seconds, and you can coordinate srs lossess to 24-36 with 12 people, and with 24 ae cap stagger is LOL anyway. You need strong CC and UNIQUE skills to make RVR something else than no tactic ae spam bullshieeet that it is atm. And pets ABSOLUTELY should get ALL grp buffs and heals except guard. I cant understand why this is not reverted because WL pounce has been nerfed so it cant pounce to Oil and kill people... IMO WL should be able to do that, you know that uniqueness? and im pretty sure this was most of the reason they removed grp heals/buffs from pets. Remove getting inside keep door ability from all except WH/WE. Lifetapping/Melee healing from keep door should be a thing again. These are all things we once had and game was better, alot better.

There would be no useless classess in RvR with 6-9 cap. WH/WE has tactic that make em hit 6 people. Make small changes to Assault SW so there is spammable ae, and give things like shoot thru ya back to SH.

[rejndjer]

how would reducing aoe from 24 to 6-9 be anti-zerg measure? people would zerg even more then.

idk maybe im stupid, but if my wb is outnumbered, i'd rather have ability to hit 24 enemies than 6-9, because if 24 of us are hitting 6-9, against 48, who are hitting 12-18, then how is that an anti-zerg measure? where now we have better chance, because we hit half of their forces, and they're still hitting all of us as they would've if aoe was limited to only 6-9 targets. also a lot of aoe skills already have limited targets to less than 24 by design.

Limited to less than 24 by design : D By design it was 6-9. And it definetely would help smaller side players who know how to play. You used to need 3 dps to even hit 24 people, now 1 is enough. Some of the nerfed CC is needed and 0,5s ICD on procs instead of 1s or 2s. When Aoe cap is 9 and you have 12 players on your side, they can win against 24-36 but that is now impossible because 3x more aoe dmg flying around than WAR ever intented makes anything with bigger force automatik win. You cant kite with wb's anymore... Also we need 66 Dps wpns, now max is 58. When WAR had Sove and rr80 cap highest dps wpns were 66dps. This change and ICD on procs to 0-0,5s makes single target dmg more powerful and needed. I dont remember what was 2h dps max amount rr80 cap but it would be changed to match as well ofc.

9 sec aoe staggers were ALOT but 3 sec is TOO LITTLE so make it 6 seconds, and you can coordinate srs lossess to 24-36 with 12 people, and with 24 ae cap stagger is LOL anyway. You need strong CC and UNIQUE skills to make RVR something else than no tactic ae spam bullshieeet that it is atm. (,,,)

nice refuting of my arguments.

i still don't understand how limiting aoe to 9 targets instead of 24 would help you in 12vs24/36 fight. currently your dps can (in theory ofcourse) hit all 24 of them or 2/3 of enemies if against 36. with aoe limited to 9 you cant hit even half of enemy warband, let alone two thirds of 36 enemies. while all of YOUR team can still get hit because enemy has numerical advantage. now. maybe im retarded and dont know basic math. but can you again explain how limited aoe to 9 targets would be anti-zerg?

P.S. how can here be 3x more dmg flying around if you are 12? if all 12 of you are in same place, you would all get hit, 24 targets doesn't impact anything if there are no more than 12 targets to hit. reducing aoe to 9 would enable you to stick together and for each enemy dps to hit only 75% of your team. they would still have more dps and heal to out-sustain you then.

[Lileldys]

Problem with 24 man cap, you can take a 6 man, all take 1600+ damage AoE morales, and pump&dump them, 9.6k aoe 24 targets.....balanced...


Reduction in AoE cap will mean that zergs cannot aoe cleave your 24wb instantly.
A choppa hitting for 500dmg x24 or 500dmg x9, whats more manageable?


More AoE cap should equal More Zerg.

[Sinisterror]

how would reducing aoe from 24 to 6-9 be anti-zerg measure? people would zerg even more then.

idk maybe im stupid, but if my wb is outnumbered, i'd rather have ability to hit 24 enemies than 6-9, because if 24 of us are hitting 6-9, against 48, who are hitting 12-18, then how is that an anti-zerg measure? where now we have better chance, because we hit half of their forces, and they're still hitting all of us as they would've if aoe was limited to only 6-9 targets. also a lot of aoe skills already have limited targets to less than 24 by design.

Limited to less than 24 by design : D By design it was 6-9. And it definetely would help smaller side players who know how to play. You used to need 3 dps to even hit 24 people, now 1 is enough. Some of the nerfed CC is needed and 0,5s ICD on procs instead of 1s or 2s. When Aoe cap is 9 and you have 12 players on your side, they can win against 24-36 but that is now impossible because 3x more aoe dmg flying around than WAR ever intented makes anything with bigger force automatik win. You cant kite with wb's anymore... Also we need 66 Dps wpns, now max is 58. When WAR had Sove and rr80 cap highest dps wpns were 66dps. This change and ICD on procs to 0-0,5s makes single target dmg more powerful and needed. I dont remember what was 2h dps max amount rr80 cap but it would be changed to match as well ofc.

9 sec aoe staggers were ALOT but 3 sec is TOO LITTLE so make it 6 seconds, and you can coordinate srs lossess to 24-36 with 12 people, and with 24 ae cap stagger is LOL anyway. You need strong CC and UNIQUE skills to make RVR something else than no tactic ae spam bullshieeet that it is atm. (,,,)

nice refuting of my arguments.

i still don't understand how limiting aoe to 9 targets instead of 24 would help you in 12vs24/36 fight. currently your dps can (in theory ofcourse) hit all 24 of them or 2/3 of enemies if against 36. with aoe limited to 9 you cant hit even half of enemy warband, let alone two thirds of 36 enemies. while all of YOUR team can still get hit because enemy has numerical advantage. now. maybe im retarded and dont know basic math. but can you again explain how limited aoe to 9 targets would be anti-zerg?

P.S. how can here be 3x more dmg flying around if you are 12? if all 12 of you are in same place, you would all get hit, 24 targets doesn't impact anything if there are no more than 12 targets to hit. reducing aoe to 9 would enable you to stick together and for each enemy dps to hit only 75% of your team. they would still have more dps and heal to out-sustain you then.

I used 12 as just an example. 3x more aoe dmg was about that 24 ae cap in general. But lets say its 24v48. 8 of your 24 would be tanks so with good positioning and 9cap aoe is hitting those 8 tanks + 1. Healers wouldnt even be close to any aoe dmg done to their WB. Second aoe dps also hits most of those tanks and some of their guardees. It doesnt really matter if it 12v36 or 24v48 it is about who soakes up the dmg and with 24 ae dmg cap your tanks cant take the pressure, and add dmg from guard to that as well... Insane pressure that healers cant do anything about.

It is much easier to control situation with 9 ae cap compared to 24 and there is no grp healing that goes beyond 6 people. Aoe Heal Debuff should be brought back when/if dmg cap is reduced back to original.

[wonshot]

People seem to forget that prior to aoe cap increase, there was still zerging. Main difference was that players had safety in numbers, as they could hide inside nearby allies and therefor enemy aoe would have a chance to spread out to random 9 players if the aoe cap was reached, instead of now where you cant hide inside allied numbers for "aoe protection by aoe cap"

Personally I believe there doesnt need to be an aoe cap, in a game which actually has a natural aoe limmit in the Collision making it for a hard limmit on how many players you can even fit into a 30ft areas Theres only so many blackorcs you can fit into that area, and that, is the natural aao limmit.

Aoe cap increased provided a chance to punish players for stacking, compared to before where players got rewarded for hiding in bigger groups to spread the incoming aoe out on more targets and therefor lowering the criticalmass. The issue right now, is that there are pretty much no zergbusting tools or abilities as they have all been nerfed or removed. Morale bombing, aoe healdebuff on DPS runie/zealot etc.

The reason aoe stacking is the meta, and not full 24man singletarget mainassist warbands, is how the original game was developed. Look how fast is it to ress a single guy and how much crosshealing can flow around unto the targeted guy against an assist train, one way to break this is by pressuring healer by making their entire groups take damage so they have to stop and groupheal which roots them in place for then to be punished instead of bunny jumping around flashhealing.
This was showing alot in the launch days of Citysieges on RoR, before the Stake was added to WH/WE these classes didnt see as much play because of how they struggle shaking off Challenge stacks without Aoe, and because any target they would kill could just get ressed back up as fast as it took to confirm a kill. (90min perma fights instance1 spring to mind from that era)
Basicly the aoe is needed, as a result of how potent ressing is and that is by design of original Mythic when you look at Resssickness, instantress tactics, and casttime on ressurect, this game was meant to have casualties and momentumswings back and forth.
That being said the aoe pressure is not what carries in a 3aoe1st composition, its the ST that carries, the aoe is just needed to keep the enemy healers busy and to confirm the snowball when it starts rolling.

As for the Anti-zerg debuff in orvr, im not sure i see the point. I dont think the playerbase is adapting to this at all. First time it was implimented in lotd Order's first response to it, was to stack several warbands on same discord and blob up. Then it got increased from 50 to 65% and the response? continue blobbing and rushing mid BOs.

If the anti-zerg debuff can function in lotd, i wonder if the same code could be used to create local aao so solo roamers are not getting punished for what the warbands are doing in a zone, and if a tryhard warband is winning a 24v48 fight somewhere they get rewarded for the local aao instead of based on what the rest of their realm is doing somewhere else in the zone. Reward players, dont punish approach to promote good and fun pvp.