Guild Wars 2

Just because they have a different opinion? Grow up. This is a pretty objective discussion, actually. E.g. I understand Kaleban’s arguments, I just have a different opinion. We don’t know if a dev actually reads this, but if they do they’re probably interested in what people think about the AE limit. I guess they’d like to go with an DR approach, but it’s a server load problem. Like they would change the condition stack limit if they weren’t limited by server capacity.

Iruwen.3164:

but it’s a server load problem. Like they would change the condition stack limit if they weren’t limited by server capacity.

I would love for someone, anyone to point to proof of this statement.

Until then, stop citing server load/capacity as a reason for terrible game mechanics. Unless there’s actual proof of such, then you’re just spreading disinformation and de-railing the argument from its merits.

There are FPS games that use hit location, some upwards of a decade old or more, that would require more resources at the server and client side than any MMO. If GW2’s balance problems and game mechanics are the result of a hardware bottleneck, then its definitely time to upgrade.

Logic =
Punishing smaller groups.
Favoring larger groups who stack up together.

Kaleban.9834:

Iruwen.3164:

but it’s a server load problem. Like they would change the condition stack limit if they weren’t limited by server capacity.

I would love for someone, anyone to point to proof of this statement.

Until then, stop citing server load/capacity as a reason for terrible game mechanics. Unless there’s actual proof of such, then you’re just spreading disinformation and de-railing the argument from its merits.

There are FPS games that use hit location, some upwards of a decade old or more, that would require more resources at the server and client side than any MMO. If GW2’s balance problems and game mechanics are the result of a hardware bottleneck, then its definitely time to upgrade.

At least that’s what Colin said:

There’s a cap on condition stacks of 25. In a scenario where you have two thieves attacking a boss and one of them can achieve a stack of 25 by themselves, the other one essentially becomes useless because they’ve got nothing to stack on. Is anything being done to address that to make them less redundant?]

Colin: Currently no. Interesting statistic for you: every condition in the game costs server bandwidth. ‘Cause we have to track how often the condition is running, what the duration of that condition is and what the stack is. So the more stacks we allow, the more expensive it gets because we’re tracking every additional stack on there. And so we could say, you can have infinite stacks. Number one: that becomes really unbalanced. But number two: it’s actually extremely expensive for us, on a performance basis. That’s one of those weird, kind of back-end server issues that can help make game designer decisions regardless of what you want to do with it.

http://dragonseason.com/Front/tabid/124/EntryId/212/Lunch-with-Colin-Johanson-Part-III.aspx

Iruwen.3164:

Kaleban.9834:

Iruwen.3164:

but it’s a server load problem. Like they would change the condition stack limit if they weren’t limited by server capacity.

I would love for someone, anyone to point to proof of this statement.

Until then, stop citing server load/capacity as a reason for terrible game mechanics. Unless there’s actual proof of such, then you’re just spreading disinformation and de-railing the argument from its merits.

There are FPS games that use hit location, some upwards of a decade old or more, that would require more resources at the server and client side than any MMO. If GW2’s balance problems and game mechanics are the result of a hardware bottleneck, then its definitely time to upgrade.

At least that’s what Colin said:

There’s a cap on condition stacks of 25. In a scenario where you have two thieves attacking a boss and one of them can achieve a stack of 25 by themselves, the other one essentially becomes useless because they’ve got nothing to stack on. Is anything being done to address that to make them less redundant?]

Colin: Currently no. Interesting statistic for you: every condition in the game costs server bandwidth. ‘Cause we have to track how often the condition is running, what the duration of that condition is and what the stack is. So the more stacks we allow, the more expensive it gets because we’re tracking every additional stack on there. And so we could say, you can have infinite stacks. Number one: that becomes really unbalanced. But number two: it’s actually extremely expensive for us, on a performance basis. That’s one of those weird, kind of back-end server issues that can help make game designer decisions regardless of what you want to do with it.

http://dragonseason.com/Front/tabid/124/EntryId/212/Lunch-with-Colin-Johanson-Part-III.aspx

I’m not trying to be obstinate here, but that’s not really proof. EVERY action that requires a client-server interaction requires server bandwidth. Keeping track of a condition stack should require much less bandwidth/processing power than player positioning or positioning and impact of AoE skills.

Second, if that is really the case, then they’re not thinking laterally about the problem, but linearly, which for programmers is odd. Rather than have, say bleed capable of reaching infinite stacks, simply allow a separate 25 bleed stack per player. Each player only sees the damage ticks from their own skills, so that’s not a problem. Communication via the UI might need some changing (i.e. a player’s unique condition stacks might need to be purple or green to differentiate) but nothing too demanding, and allows condition specced professions to play with each other.

Usually, in programming there’s always a KISS method available, the condition issue of excluding player builds obviously doesn’t follow it, and the AoE issue we’ve been rambling on and on for 8 pages now is again “solved” by an artificial solution that doesn’t make logical or even common sense to anyone, given the gameplay inherent in the rest of the game.

And I hate to say it, but the idea that tracking conditions involves some sort of geometric scale increase on server load sounds like a really flaky excuse for poor game design.

Kaleban.9834:

I’m not trying to be obstinate here, but that’s not really proof. EVERY action that requires a client-server interaction requires server bandwidth. Keeping track of a condition stack should require much less bandwidth/processing power than player positioning or positioning and impact of AoE skills.

Second, if that is really the case, then they’re not thinking laterally about the problem, but linearly, which for programmers is odd. Rather than have, say bleed capable of reaching infinite stacks, simply allow a separate 25 bleed stack per player. Each player only sees the damage ticks from their own skills, so that’s not a problem. Communication via the UI might need some changing (i.e. a player’s unique condition stacks might need to be purple or green to differentiate) but nothing too demanding, and allows condition specced professions to play with each other.

Usually, in programming there’s always a KISS method available, the condition issue of excluding player builds obviously doesn’t follow it, and the AoE issue we’ve been rambling on and on for 8 pages now is again “solved” by an artificial solution that doesn’t make logical or even common sense to anyone, given the gameplay inherent in the rest of the game.

And I hate to say it, but the idea that tracking conditions involves some sort of geometric scale increase on server load sounds like a really flaky excuse for poor game design.

the problem is that some skill depend on condition being present. Each player have to interact with every condition present in the enemies. Its not a simple UI issue. Its a complex tracking issue. Judging from Anet’s response, removing conditions from the game can actually may solve most of the server lag problems

iwarden mesmer does more damage per unique conditon or a d/d ele fire grab does more damage to burning foes.

Sorry, MMORPG abandons all KISS principles by combining all problems in computer science in to a game

Only servet to fear increased aoe limit is Jade Quarry, because they’re just kittening zergy everywhere everytime. :P

Kaleban.9834:

I’m not trying to be obstinate here, but that’s not really proof. EVERY action that requires a client-server interaction requires server bandwidth. Keeping track of a condition stack should require much less bandwidth/processing power than player positioning or positioning and impact of AoE skills.

Well, it’s a clear statement from a core developer. I’m not allowed to hack and reverse engineer their servers I guess, so that’s the best we have :p
I also think AE requires more processing power, hence the theorey that they’re not doing a more advanced approach (i.e., DR) than a hard limit because of performance limitations. We already have heavy skill lag in bigger WvW fights where the servers are completely overloaded.

loseridoit.2756:

Sorry, MMORPG abandons all KISS principles by combining all problems in computer science in to a game

Problems can be avoided by following that principle though. If there’s a full stack of 25 conditions on an enemy and they’re having performance problems because they’re tracking each unique condition, including its duration, owner and damage (because it dynamically changes with your current condition damage, boons running out and so), then there would eventually have been a better approach to this (theoretically).

But this thread was about AE limits, so we should stick with that topic. Just wanted to say that they’re probably (also) limited by server capacity.

Kaleban.9834:

I’m not trying to be obstinate here, but that’s not really proof. EVERY action that requires a client-server interaction requires server bandwidth. Keeping track of a condition stack should require much less bandwidth/processing power than player positioning or positioning and impact of AoE skills.

Second, if that is really the case, then they’re not thinking laterally about the problem, but linearly, which for programmers is odd. Rather than have, say bleed capable of reaching infinite stacks, simply allow a separate 25 bleed stack per player. Each player only sees the damage ticks from their own skills, so that’s not a problem. Communication via the UI might need some changing (i.e. a player’s unique condition stacks might need to be purple or green to differentiate) but nothing too demanding, and allows condition specced professions to play with each other.

Usually, in programming there’s always a KISS method available, the condition issue of excluding player builds obviously doesn’t follow it, and the AoE issue we’ve been rambling on and on for 8 pages now is again “solved” by an artificial solution that doesn’t make logical or even common sense to anyone, given the gameplay inherent in the rest of the game.

And I hate to say it, but the idea that tracking conditions involves some sort of geometric scale increase on server load sounds like a really flaky excuse for poor game design.

I think the reason conditions work differently than direct damage is that conditions track who applied it over a period of time such that any changes made by that player must have the corresponding change to the condition applied. (kinda how applying conditions then getting might suddenly increases the applied condition’s damage). So until the condition duration is over, there is that connection between the applier and the applyee(?). When you multiply multiple conditions applied by multiple people to multiple targets with differing condition duration and condition damage, I think it piles up. With direct damage, I think there’s only 1 single exchange instance for each damage dealt. there is no need to form that connection between the damager and the damagee.

Iruwen.3164:

loseridoit.2756:

Sorry, MMORPG abandons all KISS principles by combining all problems in computer science in to a game

Problems can be avoided by following that principle though. If there’s a full stack of 25 conditions on an enemy and they’re having performance problems because they’re tracking each unique condition, including its duration, owner and damage (because it dynamically changes with your current condition damage, boons running out and so), then there would eventually have been a better approach to this (theoretically).

But this thread was about AE limits, so we should stick with that topic. Just wanted to say that they’re probably (also) limited by server capacity.

then they have to rework the skills. Lots of skill depends on condition being present to have an extra effect. The problem is not just client to server but in server communication too. The server have to look at all condition at other player to know what to do.

i do not believe in uncap aoe. the problem is that wvwvw will turn into a neco and staff ele war and a few mesmer for portals

Some posted a video for BWE 1 with the power of a small group. Errr, the group was full of staff eles only. Everyone will soon copy that class make up.

Do not think there wont be staff ele zerg. There will be a zerg that will make a 1200 radius area denial zone.

a small group is possible to kill a zerg.

Manage choke points better

They might raise it but never take it off… They love anti farming things like this.
Its like in Gw1 when they made it so if you try to mass aoe Mobs would simply run out.
Tbh imo it is over the top; because they already have the pain in the kitten DR, I dont care how it helps with bots like they say or help them keep balance on economy lol; they already did that with their TH set up alone. No point in punishing people who farm. With that said in that relation a cap on mobs being hit does seem reasonable. Even if one likes to farm. Plus the zerg thing many above point out.

AOE didn’t hurt the zerg in DAoC. It’s kitten that it only affects limited targets, to the point it is one of the many many reasons why I quit.

After seeing the divided oppinions on the Arrow cart changes, i guess we should find a middle ground between “overnukes” vs “lacking area control by dps”…
Instead of capping # of players affected by a skill.
Cap max incoming effects/dps affecting a player in a given timeframe.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Solution-to-Blob-AoE-paradox/first#post1959364