Guild Wars 2

This will be short. Remove the fing aoe cap.

I’ll save you and Arena Net some time.

“How AoE works and interacts with our game is definitely something we are constantly discussing within our team. Unfortunately I cannot delve into more specifics, because while the AoE cap is definitely on our table, we haven’t sat down to look at it yet. Please remember though, that we are constantly monitoring the data we receive both from our players, but also our internal testing. If we feel that something needs to be done with the current AoE cap, then that is something we need to deal with at that point.”

Removing it alltogether would be a good move.

Removing it altogether would be a horrible move resulting in an AoE centric game. The good thing is I’m quite sure they are aware of this even if many players are not.

Oh and lets not forget the additional calculation load this would put on the server cluster.

Sureshot.6725:

Removing it altogether would be a horrible move resulting in an AoE centric game. The good thing is I’m quite sure they are aware of this even if many players are not.

And now its a Turtle centric game. So which evil is better ? I say no aoe cap. That would make ppl to give a fk about their position instead of turtling up. Couse now there is only 1 viable formation – that is turtle, couse it will make you more or less immune to aoe, no matter if that breaks every logics.

I’ll go turtle centric over aoe centric any day of the week and twice on Sunday especially if comes with a performance hit due to all the additional damage calculations that have to be processed server side.

I’m also not convinced removing the aoe cap will prevent turtling.

The AoE Cap is Too low…I don’t see how they can figure out of way to make it where it’s not about the more people you are fighting have the advantage. Removing the AoE cap is the Worst move possible. It WILL be all about AoE’s after that. I can only think about it scaling Dynamically…Thats for Anet to figure out tho. The AoE cap doesnt actually bother me. All they need to do is figure out a way to make Zerging less of a Priority and I bet noone will complain….untill then….

Removing it would be a great thing.

Zanydachico.7304:

The AoE Cap is Too low…I don’t see how they can figure out of way to make it where it’s not about the more people you are fighting have the advantage. Removing the AoE cap is the Worst move possible. It WILL be all about AoE’s after that. I can only think about it scaling Dynamically…Thats for Anet to figure out tho. The AoE cap doesnt actually bother me. All they need to do is figure out a way to make Zerging less of a Priority and I bet noone will complain….untill then….

Well increasing orange swords activation from 5 ppl to 25 is a first move. Oh w8 … it actually lets stealth cap things with 24 ppl instead of just 4. So much from my hopes to see small grps being viable.

Sureshot.6725:

I’ll go turtle centric over aoe centric any day of the week and twice on Sunday especially if comes with a performance hit due to all the additional damage calculations that have to be processed server side.

I’m also not convinced removing the aoe cap will prevent turtling.

Removing the aoe cap would have zero effect on small group battles of 5 or less, and a very marginal effect on larger groups. (Obviously scaling up with the amount of people, but linearly so)

I don’t see how you don’t consider the game to be AoE Centric as it is now, people are still using AoEs in zergs, they’re just having 10+ people all stack their AoEs to bypass the 5-man limit.

And I have absolutely no idea how you’ve come to the inane conclusion that turtling is, in any way, a tactic to prefer over something else. And even less idea how you’ve concluded that removing the aoe cap would not discourage turtling (Since pretty much the entire reason Turtling was started was to abuse the 5-man aoe cap)

[/quote]Well increasing orange swords activation from 5 ppl to 25 is a first move. Oh w8 … it actually lets stealth cap things with 24 ppl instead of just 4. So much from my hopes to see small grps being viable.[/quote]

I agree with you man. This helps the higher tiers but it doesn’t help lower tiers where zergs are about 20 or so people. Allowing Huge groups to Ninja Caps. I dislike it as much as you do. Tho, It proves they are trying to get things going….They just need to do something for lower tiers because that’s a really really bad move.

Straegen.2938:

Imagine popping a single AoE that hits 25 people, does a combined damage of 75k in a couple seconds and lights 25 players on fire. Then forces the server to calculate all that and send packets out to all the clients. The result is likely increased lag and a massive OP of AoE skills which are already considered too dominant in the game by ANet.

I think they would be better off eliminating AoE before making it more powerful not that I am advocating either.

That’s probably less network-intensive than 25 people all using single target projectiles on the same 25 opponents.

EnRohbi.2187:

Sureshot.6725:

I’ll go turtle centric over aoe centric any day of the week and twice on Sunday especially if comes with a performance hit due to all the additional damage calculations that have to be processed server side.

I’m also not convinced removing the aoe cap will prevent turtling.

Removing the aoe cap would have zero effect on small group battles of 5 or less, and a very marginal effect on larger groups. (Obviously scaling up with the amount of people, but linearly so)

I don’t see how you don’t consider the game to be AoE Centric as it is now, people are still using AoEs in zergs, they’re just having 10+ people all stack their AoEs to bypass the 5-man limit.

And I have absolutely no idea how you’ve come to the inane conclusion that turtling is, in any way, a tactic to prefer over something else. And even less idea how you’ve concluded that removing the aoe cap would not discourage turtling (Since pretty much the entire reason Turtling was started was to abuse the 5-man aoe cap)

There are many advantages to turtling and AoE cap is just one of them which is why I’m not convinced removing the cap will solve turtling.

However, I do know for a fact that removing the AoE cap will force the server cluster to process more damage calculations and cause a performance hit this game can ill afford.

I also know for a fact that this would make the game even more AoE centric than it already is.

Sureshot.6725:

However, I do know for a fact that removing the AoE cap will force the server cluster to process more damage calculations and cause a performance hit this game can ill afford.

I know for a fact that your knowledge of networking is not as much as you like to pretend it is. (See how annoying it is when people state “facts” that they have no way of proving?)

Some amount of more damage numbers is not going to put a significant amount more drain on a server than is already there (And let’s be clear, the server would only be sending the results of the calculations back. Bandwidth is unrelated to the speed in which the server can calculate damage, only to the speed in which the server can tell the client how much damage it calculated.)

EnRohbi.2187:

Sureshot.6725:

However, I do know for a fact that removing the AoE cap will force the server cluster to process more damage calculations and cause a performance hit this game can ill afford.

I know for a fact that your knowledge of networking is not as much as you like to pretend it is. (See how annoying it is when people state “facts” that they have no way of proving?)

Some amount of more damage numbers is not going to put a significant amount more drain on a server than is already there (And let’s be clear, the server would only be sending the results of the calculations back. Bandwidth is unrelated to the speed in which the server can calculate damage, only to the speed in which the server can tell the client how much damage it calculated.)

LOL….you really don’t understand how an increase AoE caps will not result in more damage calculations server side?

The server still has to process additional damage calculations as well as send and process additional packets across the wire to the clients. You can’t get around basic math and their are no free rides.

Edit: I’m quite sure my knowledge of networking is superior to yours. I’m betting you don’t even know the difference between packet latency and bandwidth given your statement.

Sureshot.6725:

EnRohbi.2187:

Sureshot.6725:

However, I do know for a fact that removing the AoE cap will force the server cluster to process more damage calculations and cause a performance hit this game can ill afford.

I know for a fact that your knowledge of networking is not as much as you like to pretend it is. (See how annoying it is when people state “facts” that they have no way of proving?)

Some amount of more damage numbers is not going to put a significant amount more drain on a server than is already there (And let’s be clear, the server would only be sending the results of the calculations back. Bandwidth is unrelated to the speed in which the server can calculate damage, only to the speed in which the server can tell the client how much damage it calculated.)

LOL….you really don’t understand how increase AoE caps will not result in more damage calculations server side?

The server still has to process additional damage calculations as well as send and process additional packets across the wire to the clients. You can’t get around basic math and their are no free rides.

And you are not very good at reading.
I said it wouldn’t put significantly more drain on the server, not that there would be no extra calculations.

Sureshot.6725:

EnRohbi.2187:

Sureshot.6725:

However, I do know for a fact that removing the AoE cap will force the server cluster to process more damage calculations and cause a performance hit this game can ill afford.

I know for a fact that your knowledge of networking is not as much as you like to pretend it is. (See how annoying it is when people state “facts” that they have no way of proving?)

Some amount of more damage numbers is not going to put a significant amount more drain on a server than is already there (And let’s be clear, the server would only be sending the results of the calculations back. Bandwidth is unrelated to the speed in which the server can calculate damage, only to the speed in which the server can tell the client how much damage it calculated.)

LOL….you really don’t understand how an increase AoE caps will not result in more damage calculations server side?

The server still has to process additional damage calculations as well as send and process additional packets across the wire to the clients. You can’t get around basic math and their are no free rides.

Edit: I’m quite sure my knowledge of networking is superior to yours. I’m betting you don’t even know the difference between packet latency and bandwidth given your statement.

it’s a disgrace that in a game you gave to pay for, the server infrastructure is such a pile of dung in the first place.

I play mostly AOE based classes so I am a little biased but I believe that removing the AOE cap or at least increasing to 10-15 players will greatly improve WvW. Obviously the cap cant simply be removed without AOE becoming really OP, but changing the way that the damage is calculated so that full damage is dealt at the center and damage degrades the farther from the center the target is would in my opinion work well.

Currently in WvW most victories are decided by number of players and not the skill of the players I think that if 10 people are not paying attention and standing inside a big red circle they should be punished for it and take damage. The AOE cap promotes large groups stacking on top of each other and mass healing to avoid the majority of damage which really limits the strategies that you can use in WvW

EnRohbi.2187:

And you are not very good at reading.
I said it wouldn’t put significantly more drain on the server, not that there would be no extra calculations.

Sorry, but I ignored your qualified statement because it is based on faulty speculation.

To even contemplate that thousands of players across the server cluster requiring additional damage calculations would not place ‘significantly more drain’ on the cluster is laughable.

The game already has performance issues server side with regard to culling and you really want to place additional burden on the processing capacity….really??

I’m done with this conversation but feel free to continue beating a dead horse. I’m just glad I bought their game and not yours =)

Sureshot.6725:

EnRohbi.2187:

And you are not very good at reading.
I said it wouldn’t put significantly more drain on the server, not that there would be no extra calculations.

Sorry, but I ignored your qualified statement because it is based on faulty speculation.

To even contemplate that thousands of players across the server cluster requiring additional damage calculations would not place ‘significantly more drain’ on the cluster is laughable.

The game already has performance issues server side with regard to culling and you really want to place additional burden on the processing capacity….really??

I’m done with this conversation but feel free to continue beating a dead horse. I’m juts glad I bought their game and not yours =)

Your condescension is cute, but your ignorance about networking is not.
So yeah, this conversation isn’t going to go anywhere.

Sureshot.6725:

The game already has performance issues server side with regard to culling and you really want to place additional burden on the processing capacity….really??

you find it acceptable that there is culling and all this other abyssmal server infrastructure related issues in the first place ?

Straegen.2938:

EnRohbi.2187:

And you are not very good at reading.
I said it wouldn’t put significantly more drain on the server, not that there would be no extra calculations.

There is simply no way of knowing this without seeing their architecture. However it is pretty likely that there will be a noticeable performance price from upping the limit when the server is loaded. For example during a big SM attack, it is likely additional AoE targets will cause more lag and reach saturation much quicker. If the server isn’t being taxed already, you are correct it probably won’t have any effect.

I am sure they use some queue system for updating clients and the more damage going into that stack means more aggregation in the queue and more registers being hit on the server. As transactions per second increase server I/O pays a price likely in memory for buffering, CPU for calculating, disk for storing the data, etc.

I work in n-tier transactional systems using a proprietary network protocol that do thousands of transactions per second in near TB sized databases. CXPacket waits (CPU) in SQL are my current life.

Agreed on just about all points.

At least in upper tiers (Not sure where you are), three way sieges in SM do tend to cause quite a bit of skill lag and are clearly more than the servers are able to handle. This is a problem that needs to be fixed regardless of AoE limits.

But there’s also the idea that, without an AoE cap, even if it put extra strain on the servers, the large zerg v zerg battles could be over much quicker instead of being 6 hour attrition turtle fights that don’t end until one server logs off or goes to bed. Which could arguably reduce the overall strain on the server, even if it spiked a little more for a short while.

Edit: I use “server” a lot in this post referring to both the group of people in wvw with you and the actual server boxes that we’re connected to. I hope it is not too confusing.

Straegen.2938:

EnRohbi.2187:

And you are not very good at reading.
I said it wouldn’t put significantly more drain on the server, not that there would be no extra calculations.

There is simply no way of knowing this without seeing their architecture. However it is pretty likely that there will be a noticeable performance price from upping the limit when the server is loaded. For example during a big SM attack, it is likely additional AoE targets will cause more lag and reach saturation much quicker. If the server isn’t being taxed already, you are correct it probably won’t have any effect.

I am sure they use some queue system for updating clients and the more damage going into that stack means more aggregation in the queue and more registers being hit on the server. As transactions per second increase server I/O pays a price likely in memory for buffering, CPU for calculating, disk for storing the data, etc.

I work in n-tier transactional systems using a proprietary network protocol that do thousands of transactions per second in near TB sized databases. CXPacket waits (CPU) in SQL are my current life.

muylaetrix.2096:

it’s a disgrace that in a game you gave to pay for, the server infrastructure is such a pile of dung in the first place.

Not many games can process large scale real time warfare on this scale. There are a handful but most suffer from issues like these. It should be better but ultimately there are limits to hardware and resources.

Finally someone knowledgeable and realizes this isn’t just about networking.

Straegen.2938:

EnRohbi.2187:

And you are not very good at reading.
I said it wouldn’t put significantly more drain on the server, not that there would be no extra calculations.

There is simply no way of knowing this without seeing their architecture. However it is pretty likely that there will be a noticeable performance price from upping the limit when the server is loaded. For example during a big SM attack, it is likely additional AoE targets will cause more lag and reach saturation much quicker. If the server isn’t being taxed already, you are correct it probably won’t have any effect.

I am sure they use some queue system for updating clients and the more damage going into that stack means more aggregation in the queue and more registers being hit on the server. As transactions per second increase server I/O pays a price likely in memory for buffering, CPU for calculating, disk for storing the data, etc.

I work in n-tier transactional systems using a proprietary network protocol that do thousands of transactions per second in near TB sized databases. CXPacket waits (CPU) in SQL are my current life.

muylaetrix.2096:

it’s a disgrace that in a game you gave to pay for, the server infrastructure is such a pile of dung in the first place.

Not many games can process large scale real time warfare on this scale. There are a handful but most suffer from issues like these. It should be better but ultimately there are limits to hardware and resources.

some games did way better already 11 years ago. unacceptable

Sureshot.6725:

Straegen.2938:

EnRohbi.2187:

And you are not very good at reading.
I said it wouldn’t put significantly more drain on the server, not that there would be no extra calculations.

There is simply no way of knowing this without seeing their architecture. However it is pretty likely that there will be a noticeable performance price from upping the limit when the server is loaded. For example during a big SM attack, it is likely additional AoE targets will cause more lag and reach saturation much quicker. If the server isn’t being taxed already, you are correct it probably won’t have any effect.

I am sure they use some queue system for updating clients and the more damage going into that stack means more aggregation in the queue and more registers being hit on the server. As transactions per second increase server I/O pays a price likely in memory for buffering, CPU for calculating, disk for storing the data, etc.

I work in n-tier transactional systems using a proprietary network protocol that do thousands of transactions per second in near TB sized databases. CXPacket waits (CPU) in SQL are my current life.

muylaetrix.2096:

it’s a disgrace that in a game you gave to pay for, the server infrastructure is such a pile of dung in the first place.

Not many games can process large scale real time warfare on this scale. There are a handful but most suffer from issues like these. It should be better but ultimately there are limits to hardware and resources.

Finally someone knowledgeable and realizes this isn’t just about networking.

You mean,
Like how you brought up Networking as a major argument against removing the Aoe Cap and how I said that the networking load isn’t as big as you imply?

“Finally someone knowledgeable” was exactly what I thought when I read his post, which is why he got so much more respect out of my reply.

- Ele nerfs
Ride the Lightning: This ability’s recharge has been increased to 20 seconds.
Stoning: This ability’s projectile speed has been increased by 22%.
Evasive Arcana: The spell cast while in water attunement has been split between PvE and PvP. This spell’s effectiveness with the healing attribute has been reduced by 50% while in PvP.

/aoe nerf

Removing it would balance out small man groups vs large man groups, leading to zerg busting squads (people that flank and punish the zerglings too durrrrpy to notice their flanks), leading to less but more effective zergs, leading to SUPER FUN IN WVW. AOE is balanced out by being able to dodge.

EnRohbi.2187:

Sureshot.6725:

Straegen.2938:

EnRohbi.2187:

And you are not very good at reading.
I said it wouldn’t put significantly more drain on the server, not that there would be no extra calculations.

There is simply no way of knowing this without seeing their architecture. However it is pretty likely that there will be a noticeable performance price from upping the limit when the server is loaded. For example during a big SM attack, it is likely additional AoE targets will cause more lag and reach saturation much quicker. If the server isn’t being taxed already, you are correct it probably won’t have any effect.

I am sure they use some queue system for updating clients and the more damage going into that stack means more aggregation in the queue and more registers being hit on the server. As transactions per second increase server I/O pays a price likely in memory for buffering, CPU for calculating, disk for storing the data, etc.

I work in n-tier transactional systems using a proprietary network protocol that do thousands of transactions per second in near TB sized databases. CXPacket waits (CPU) in SQL are my current life.

muylaetrix.2096:

it’s a disgrace that in a game you gave to pay for, the server infrastructure is such a pile of dung in the first place.

Not many games can process large scale real time warfare on this scale. There are a handful but most suffer from issues like these. It should be better but ultimately there are limits to hardware and resources.

Finally someone knowledgeable and realizes this isn’t just about networking.

You mean,
Like how you brought up Networking as a major argument against removing the Aoe Cap and how I said that the networking load isn’t as big as you imply?

Straegen made that argument.

My posts were all about server side load increases. Perhaps there is some confusion. Hell I didn’t even consider additional network load (which I agree would be nominal ) until you brought it up.

How about instead of the engine trying to determine who gets hit with the aoe, and who doesn’t…just let it hit everyone? Seems like an easier calculation to me.

Personally I’ve never liked how "set this area on fire" was made into "well only a few arbitrarily-picked targets" instead. Game balance is a son of a kitten.

Sureshot.6725:

EnRohbi.2187:

Sureshot.6725:

Straegen.2938:

EnRohbi.2187:

And you are not very good at reading.
I said it wouldn’t put significantly more drain on the server, not that there would be no extra calculations.

There is simply no way of knowing this without seeing their architecture. However it is pretty likely that there will be a noticeable performance price from upping the limit when the server is loaded. For example during a big SM attack, it is likely additional AoE targets will cause more lag and reach saturation much quicker. If the server isn’t being taxed already, you are correct it probably won’t have any effect.

I am sure they use some queue system for updating clients and the more damage going into that stack means more aggregation in the queue and more registers being hit on the server. As transactions per second increase server I/O pays a price likely in memory for buffering, CPU for calculating, disk for storing the data, etc.

I work in n-tier transactional systems using a proprietary network protocol that do thousands of transactions per second in near TB sized databases. CXPacket waits (CPU) in SQL are my current life.

muylaetrix.2096:

it’s a disgrace that in a game you gave to pay for, the server infrastructure is such a pile of dung in the first place.

Not many games can process large scale real time warfare on this scale. There are a handful but most suffer from issues like these. It should be better but ultimately there are limits to hardware and resources.

Finally someone knowledgeable and realizes this isn’t just about networking.

You mean,
Like how you brought up Networking as a major argument against removing the Aoe Cap and how I said that the networking load isn’t as big as you imply?

Straegen made that argument.

My posts were all about server side load increases. Perhaps there is some confusion. Hell I didn’t even consider additional network load (which I agree would be nominal ) until you brought it up.

I admittedly took on more forum arguments than I’m used to while I was waiting for the patch to download and, admittedly, got distracted from them once I got back in game.

I’m not necessarily for or against aoe caps (While I would personally enjoy the game more without them, they have far more implications on game mechanics than I’m qualified to really argue about), I just don’t think that any part of the extra technical load imposed by more damage calculations would have enough of an effect to actually be a reason to keep the cap.

The 5 man aoe cap is far, far more likely to be in place for balance issues and not to reduce either network load or server calculations.

remove AE cap and place AE-drop-off (reduce damage the further away from center of the AE) instead. it would break the nonsensical ‘ball’ formations without creating a complete slaughterfest.

Gab Superstar.4059:

I’ll save you and Arena Net some time.

“How AoE works and interacts with our game is definitely something we are constantly discussing within our team. Unfortunately I cannot delve into more specifics, because while the AoE cap is definitely on our table, we haven’t sat down to look at it yet. Please remember though, that we are constantly monitoring the data we receive both from our players, but also our internal testing. If we feel that something needs to be done with the current AoE cap, then that is something we need to deal with at that point.”

I just lol’ed here…..freaking funny:)

Gab Superstar.4059:

I’ll save you and Arena Net some time.

“How AoE works and interacts with our game is definitely something we are constantly discussing within our team. Unfortunately I cannot delve into more specifics, because while the AoE cap is definitely on our table, we haven’t sat down to look at it yet. Please remember though, that we are constantly monitoring the data we receive both from our players, but also our internal testing. If we feel that something needs to be done with the current AoE cap, then that is something we need to deal with at that point.”

When did they say this? Would even a small increase cause balance issues or are they afraid of enraging the TMNT when there are many for a increase? Did they really intend large scale battles to look so silly, make some people somehow almost invincible and hard to see?