Originally posted by rungard whats the benefit of a 6 man group over a 3 man group?
for me? socialization
I've always preferred larger groups
it wasnt about the content, it was about the people
I agree but going too big such as Raids/Alliances made it worse than 3 man because in all of my gaming years,i have NEVER seen a random PUG type large raid group size communicate what so ever.There would be a few orders given out but nothing social.
I also believe that you can have just as good a social aspect fro ma 3 m,an as a 6 man group,maybe even better.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I agree but going too big such as Raids/Alliances made it worse than 3 man because in all of my gaming years,i have NEVER seen a random PUG type large raid group size communicate what so ever.There would be a few orders given out but nothing social.
I also believe that you can have just as good a social aspect fro ma 3 m,an as a 6 man group,maybe even better.
i agree 3 can be better because its more intimate
but i'd rather have the option to know more people in adventuring
i'm a huge fan of pickup groups -- the more the merrier
I remember being in EQ1 having a full group of 6, we were all having fun
but there would still be others in the zone needing a group
I was sad that couldn't invite them because we were already full at 6
these people that were LFG in the outdoor zone could be without a group for *hours*
sometimes my current EQ1 group would reform to accomodate more players
but it was awkward
some roles were needed and sometimes you didn't have enough roles for 2 groups
even when i could split my group up -- you had the added challenge of having to find a new hunting spot because 2 groups hunting together interfered with hunting mobs unless you had distance from each other.
EQ1 initially encouraged having a full group of 6 - you got an exp bonus if you had a full group
later, in PoP, EQ1 scaled back and gave groups the full group experience as long as you had 5 of the 6
all of my EQ1 PUG were social - the same group would be hunting for hours (both dungeon and outdoors)
i never did PUG for quests, it was all about mob grinding and dungeon delving
I agree but going too big such as Raids/Alliances made it worse than 3 man because in all of my gaming years,i have NEVER seen a random PUG type large raid group size communicate what so ever.There would be a few orders given out but nothing social.
I also believe that you can have just as good a social aspect fro ma 3 m,an as a 6 man group,maybe even better.
i agree 3 can be better because its more intimate
but i'd rather have the option to know more people in adventuring
i'm a huge fan of pickup groups -- the more the merrier
I remember being in EQ1 having a full group of 6, we were all having fun
but there would still be others in the zone needing a group
I was sad that couldn't invite them because we were already full at 6
these people that were LFG in the outdoor zone could be without a group for *hours*
sometimes my current EQ1 group would reform to accomodate more players
but it was awkward
some roles were needed and sometimes you didn't have enough roles for 2 groups
even when i could split my group up -- you had the added challenge of having to find a new hunting spot because 2 groups hunting together interfered with hunting mobs unless you had distance from each other.
EQ1 initially encouraged having a full group of 6 - you got an exp bonus if you had a full group
later, in PoP, EQ1 scaled back and gave groups the full group experience as long as you had 5 of the 6
all of my EQ1 PUG were social - the same group would be hunting for hours (both dungeon and outdoors)
i never did PUG for quests, it was all about mob grinding and dungeon delving
the 3 man actually prevents to many people being left behind because its a smaller multiple and anyone can do any of the roles needed. In your case if you had 6 and there were 3 more, it was too bad for them, whereas that could of easily been 3 units. Lets not forget that you could combine multiple units, and its way easier to combine multiples of 3 than 5 , 6 or 8.
im interested in seeing player behavior when levels are eliminated from the mix. Will people still grind at all?
the 3 man actually prevents to many people being left behind because its a smaller multiple and anyone can do any of the roles needed. In your case if you had 6 and there were 3 more, it was too bad for them, whereas that could of easily been 3 units. Lets not forget that you could combine multiple units, and its way easier to combine multiples of 3 than 5 , 6 or 8.
im interested in seeing player behavior when levels are eliminated from the mix. Will people still grind at all?
i did overlook that - wish we knew how the EQN experience system worked
im interested in seeing player behavior when levels are eliminated from the mix. Will people still grind at all?
I am also very interested to see what happens. Without levels, quest hubs, and general themepark elements, I think people might actually communicate with one another and enjoy the game. Instead of rushing off to reach max level in the quickest time possible, by-passing and ignoring all the content and lore made for them.
I imagine people on day one trying to figure out how to purchase land for a future home, how to go about discovering classes, participating in Rally Events, just going out and exploring, etc. Everyone will be able to focus on what they enjoy most instead of having some forced task that has to happen or they fall behind.
Unless killing mobs has a large benefit to progression, I doubt there will be much of a grind, at least not what many are used to. Still very curious how progression will work. I'm wondering if progress is linked to time-played or some other stat that can't really be sped up or rushed. Would make it very interesting if everyone progresses at the same speed regardless of "effort" as everyone's focus and effort differs.
IMO the more options the better, I do like 5 man dungeons but I also like the feel of 3 person groups for group questing and even running 5 man dungeons with 3 players.
Questing = 1 player
Group Questing = 3-5 players
"Adventuring" Instances = 1-3 players (Like dungeons but less combat focused)
Standard dungeons = 5 players
Raiding = 6-10 players
Other = 10+ (Massive battle instance or open world events that scale to player numbers)
I see no reason why there shouldn't be more options like that or even more grouping flavors, so many of us have different play styles.
Going with 3 for group is just insanely anti social.. Groups should be a minimum of 6, nothing less.. To hamstring a group to no more then 3 is just making the game more solo centric.. Any game can be designed for a variety of encounters.. Whether it be fixed strength such as mob groups of 1,2 ore more.. or use flexible mob strength like what GW2 has done.. If you only have a group of 3, then go fight areas that are tailored for 3, but why would anyone refuse to limit themselves to groups of 3.. Even WoW's group size of 5 was too limiting.. Personally I would like to see groups of 8 possible (which includes pets)..
Let groups have up to 10 people in them since they tend to design raids for 20 to 40 people. That way in the huge server events, we could form raid groups of 80 people. That way more people in a group keeps people from being left out.
I have 5 personal friends that will be playing this game and a 10 man group would mean that everyone could be in the same group with room to invite others if we want to or need to.
Originally posted by Rydeson Going with 3 for group is just insanely anti social.. Groups should be a minimum of 6, nothing less.. To hamstring a group to no more then 3 is just making the game more solo centric.. Any game can be designed for a variety of encounters.. Whether it be fixed strength such as mob groups of 1,2 ore more.. or use flexible mob strength like what GW2 has done.. If you only have a group of 3, then go fight areas that are tailored for 3, but why would anyone refuse to limit themselves to groups of 3.. Even WoW's group size of 5 was too limiting.. Personally I would like to see groups of 8 possible (which includes pets)..
I would argue and my experience has been that a smaller group of 3 is far more social and personal that larger groups.
games are already solocentric. Players have demanded it. You continue to fail to address the issue, which is standard for many ex EQ'ers. If people wanted to group they would. They don't, most of the time. How many more years do we have to deal with the complete failure of grouping before meaningful change can be made.
How can we get more people to group organically within the game? We make it easier and more fun for them. If you think smaller units you can achieve larger outcomes. 3 groups of 3 is 9. they will organically increment based off the challenge presented.
Start thinking in units because I think that's what will be necessary. Small units that can be formed on the fly with minimal downtime that can be linked together for larger encounters.
Let groups have up to 10 people in them since they tend to design raids for 20 to 40 people. That way in the huge server events, we could form raid groups of 80 people. That way more people in a group keeps people from being left out.
I have 5 personal friends that will be playing this game and a 10 man group would mean that everyone could be in the same group with room to invite others if we want to or need to.
I do not believe they will be "designing raids" as in the traditional sense. the bigger you think, the more difficult it is to achieve your goal. Its simple math. larger groups actually ensure that more people have to be left out.
keep the unit as small as possible and allow it to link for larger total groups.
I can argue that MMO's cater to the one man group. And the typical 4 and 5 man group content being made by todays easy mode developers can be run by any competent group of 3.
You already have your 3 man group content, its in every MMO being made today.
I want to see the return of the crowd control character. They where one of the things I now realize I miss so much in the genre. Everyone talks about the trinity (tank/healer/dps) but it use to be 4. I will admit I never played one but I played with them enough to respect the people that did and miss them now that its for the most part gone.
I am totally against building content for 3 member groups as it fosters no diversity or community.
I haven't read more than a few posts on this topic but I know somewhere someone has mentioned GW2 because its the latest success story. For me its a horrible game there is no heal no tank just dps, which ever class you play is in essence the exact same as every other person in the game. you do as much damage as you can while avoiding as much damage as you can only stopping to revive one of the other dps who didn't avoid enough.
Beyond convenience, groups don't make a lot of sense. GW2 is a great example how PVE can be done without "grouping", it was just done poorly and encouraged Zerg combat. You can still communicate with each other and support one another, without having to have 50 other player health bars splattered across the screen.
Many times, I would be running along, see a big named mob and would defeat it with a few other random people. We didn't have to invite each other, we simply defeated content together. If we chose to communicate or continue on together, all we had to do is say so and do it.
With no levels, everyone is essentially the same and content can be based on a single player's potential (within the tiers).
Make each mob have a suggested player requirement and reward players based on how close they come to it.
Ex: Hill Giant - 20 player suggested requirement.
If 10 kill it, give them a decent amount more of whatever reward the 20 receive. If 10 easily defeat it on a constant basis, adjust the player requirement to 10. Data is easy to track, devs track every single action in game.
If 40 players defeat it, give little to no reward.
If 3, 5, 20, 100 players "group" together and defeat content, reward them accordingly, but make it semi-realistic.
Have each camp or area have some sort of contribution system, believe WAR and GW2 have this in some way. Everyone does their part and is rewarded, but it it is Zerged, don't reward anyone and it won't continue. Players learn to avoid situations that don't reward them.
So while I do agree that content should have a "x man group" in mind, it shouldn't be cut and dry. A whole zone shouldn't be catered to any particular amount of players. When players fall down into a dungeon, they shouldn't know beforehand if they need 3, 6, 9, 50 to win easily. Requiring or restricting content to a set number that doesn't allow any deviation isn't too open to player creativity.
4 friends shouldn't be limited because the game said 3 people can do a particular area. Nor should they have a large advantage or receive the same rewards for bringing an extra player either. There needs to be balance to everything.
Originally posted by Piiritus So you would like to water gameplay down even more? One of the worst ideas I've seen among tons of bad ideas floating around on this site. And please stop referring to that garbage called GW2, this should be EQ after all.
it should be EQ indeed, but sadly it is not. they are just using the name to generate more hype and get more people to play, nothing more.
it could turn out to be a fun game but make no mistake, this is not everquest by any means, its closer to GW2 than EQ without a doubt.
The only problem with 3 man groups is that 33% of your population needs to be a tank, which we know is very hard to accomplish.
5 man groups work a little better since you have 3 DPS , and lets face it , DPS is by far the most common choice .
if EQN would still use the old trinity maybe. But they don't. Classes will have roles yes. But through the multiclassing your anyway not be only DPS OR tank. you can switch to whatever is needed.
encounter dont works with 3 mages? switch to 2 rouges and a mage. Stil dont work, how about one warrior, one rogue,one mage. Still not working keep changing.
Beyond convenience, groups don't make a lot of sense. GW2 is a great example how PVE can be done without "grouping", it was just done poorly and encouraged Zerg combat. You can still communicate with each other and support one another, without having to have 50 other player health bars splattered across the screen. If you are going to have direct heals and buffs in the game you HAVE to have group members in the window.. If group member Bob needs a heal, press F4, and heal hotkey.. Without that option, you have to resort to what GW2 did was make healing a AOE effect.. Plus the fights are way to simple for grouping.. I can think of many fights in WoW for example that it would impossible without communication..
Many times, I would be running along, see a big named mob and would defeat it with a few other random people. We didn't have to invite each other, we simply defeated content together. If we chose to communicate or continue on together, all we had to do is say so and do it. That is because the encounter was dumbed down to a single mob that could be zerged.. Not rocket science.. Now take that same group and fight with 3 champion (elite) mobs with pets and I bet you need to tactically take them down, and this can only be done with a communication..
With no levels, everyone is essentially the same and content can be based on a single player's potential (within the tiers).
Make each mob have a suggested player requirement and reward players based on how close they come to it.
Ex: Hill Giant - 20 player suggested requirement.
If 10 kill it, give them a decent amount more of whatever reward the 20 receive. If 10 easily defeat it on a constant basis, adjust the player requirement to 10. Data is easy to track, devs track every single action in game.
If 40 players defeat it, give little to no reward. Horrendous idea.. just terrible.. so players can grief others by zerging mob encounters.. If we or I don't want you earning rewards, we can come aid you without your permission and grief you.. Also you assume that everyone is equally skilled and that is never the case.. I have played with friends that are not button masters, and it would be unfair that my team take a penalty because I'm being social and playing with friends that are less skilled then what a DEV allows..
If 3, 5, 20, 100 players "group" together and defeat content, reward them accordingly, but make it semi-realistic.
Have each camp or area have some sort of contribution system, believe WAR and GW2 have this in some way. Everyone does their part and is rewarded, but it it is Zerged, don't reward anyone and it won't continue. Players learn to avoid situations that don't reward them. Take no offense, but have you ever played a game such as EQ that has numerous roles to be played and requires communication between the players.. Heck even most WoW instancing when new required communication..
So while I do agree that content should have a "x man group" in mind, it shouldn't be cut and dry. A whole zone shouldn't be catered to any particular amount of players. When players fall down into a dungeon, they shouldn't know beforehand if they need 3, 6, 9, 50 to win easily. Requiring or restricting content to a set number that doesn't allow any deviation isn't too open to player creativity.
4 friends shouldn't be limited because the game said 3 people can do a particular area. Nor should they have a large advantage or receive the same rewards for bringing an extra player either. There needs to be balance to everything. Every game should have no win scenarios.. You contradict yourself here.. Above you said content should be designed for a certain group, and if you zerg it, you shouldn't be rewarded.. Now you say content shouldn't be limited and restricted.. Make up your mind please.. Sounds to me you want your cake and eat it too, and if you drop into a cave that is home for a Mountain Giant, he just might EAT YOUR LUNCH.. No exceptions.. You and your small group will end up in the graveyard as it should be..
I would like to point out the difference between a group and a fighting unit.
A fighting unit is the minimum size unit which can sustain all the required roles for combat, which I believe to be three, putting aside the ability to solo for a moment. This encompasses tanking, healing/support and crowd control. I don't consider dps to be a role, but rather something all are responsible to contribute to.
so a group might have 1 or 2 or 3 or 20 fighting units as demanded by the content. Very easy to stack units.
if we try to do this with 6 the logistics begin to break down trying to properly fill groups and get everything organized, but if we stick to a small number like 3 it becomes more fluid and easy to manage.
If the 6 man group was working we would have a very different environment in these games than we have now. Its time to bite the bullet and redesign the entire grouping experience to something most people will be comfortable with.
It doesn't work, it hasent ever worked the way people say it has, and the end result has been massive demand for soloing.
I think we can go back the other way and get people to group, but in a smaller, more personalized way that fosters teamwork, fun and ease of use.
I also haven't heard one decent argument on why a 6 man is technically better other than that's the way eq had it or it somehow fosters community (of soloers) or its mystically somehow more diverse when every group has to be less diverse do to specialist classes being more required.
Beyond convenience, groups don't make a lot of sense. GW2 is a great example how PVE can be done without "grouping", it was just done poorly and encouraged Zerg combat. You can still communicate with each other and support one another, without having to have 50 other player health bars splattered across the screen. If you are going to have direct heals and buffs in the game you HAVE to have group members in the window.. If group member Bob needs a heal, press F4, and heal hotkey.. Without that option, you have to resort to what GW2 did was make healing a AOE effect.. Plus the fights are way to simple for grouping.. I can think of many fights in WoW for example that it would impossible without communication..
I just want to point out that Terra does non-tab target healing very well without dumbing down anything, in fact it has very good group fights.
I am not a fan of the entire game (or even most of that game) but at least on that aspect they did show it could be done.
Beyond convenience, groups don't make a lot of sense. GW2 is a great example how PVE can be done without "grouping", it was just done poorly and encouraged Zerg combat. You can still communicate with each other and support one another, without having to have 50 other player health bars splattered across the screen. If you are going to have direct heals and buffs in the game you HAVE to have group members in the window.. If group member Bob needs a heal, press F4, and heal hotkey.. Without that option, you have to resort to what GW2 did was make healing a AOE effect.. Plus the fights are way to simple for grouping.. I can think of many fights in WoW for example that it would impossible without communication..
I just want to point out that Terra does non-tab target healing very well without dumbing down anything, in fact it has very good group fights.
I am not a fan of the entire game (or even most of that game) but at least on that aspect they did show it could be done.
Beyond convenience, groups don't make a lot of sense. GW2 is a great example how PVE can be done without "grouping", it was just done poorly and encouraged Zerg combat. You can still communicate with each other and support one another, without having to have 50 other player health bars splattered across the screen. If you are going to have direct heals and buffs in the game you HAVE to have group members in the window.. If group member Bob needs a heal, press F4, and heal hotkey.. Without that option, you have to resort to what GW2 did was make healing a AOE effect.. Plus the fights are way to simple for grouping.. I can think of many fights in WoW for example that it would impossible without communication..
I disagree that you have to have member windows. It is a big plus, but for me it isn't a must, especially if the UI has any sort of visual indicator for health beyond group windows. Also, they are trying to get away from the heal/buff UI mini game. I love buffs/fluff spells, but dislike having to keep 20 temporary buffs up constantly to be effective. Rather have action based-reactive-preventative and AOE ones that GW2 has (not that they were perfect).
Communication is what you make of it. I've played with people that speak other languages and managed. Group chat is just one form. In WoW, for raiding we used vent almost exclusively and tried to not type at all to prevent confusion. EQN will have VOIP build-in, which could be terrible, we'll have to see. Still nothing stopping people from chatting with those in the immediate area, grouped or not. Or simply making a "Heal" bind.
Many times, I would be running along, see a big named mob and would defeat it with a few other random people. We didn't have to invite each other, we simply defeated content together. If we chose to communicate or continue on together, all we had to do is say so and do it. That is because the encounter was dumbed down to a single mob that could be zerged.. Not rocket science.. Now take that same group and fight with 3 champion (elite) mobs with pets and I bet you need to tactically take them down, and this can only be done with a communication..
Anything can be Zerged if the game allows and rewards it. Drop the hardest mob in the game in a field and let thousands attack it, it will die most likely, regardless of how good the AI is. If people are playing particular roles (which most do), then it is very easy to know your place and what to do, with or without communicating. If I see a "tank" beating on something and I'm DPS, I'm not going to run in and try to tank or if I'm a Melee class and see a healer getting chased, I'm going to stop the chase if possible. Obviously communication is the best bet, but it isn't mandatory.
With no levels, everyone is essentially the same and content can be based on a single player's potential (within the tiers).
Make each mob have a suggested player requirement and reward players based on how close they come to it.
Ex: Hill Giant - 20 player suggested requirement.
If 10 kill it, give them a decent amount more of whatever reward the 20 receive. If 10 easily defeat it on a constant basis, adjust the player requirement to 10. Data is easy to track, devs track every single action in game.
If 40 players defeat it, give little to no reward. Horrendous idea.. just terrible.. so players can grief others by zerging mob encounters.. If we or I don't want you earning rewards, we can come aid you without your permission and grief you.. Also you assume that everyone is equally skilled and that is never the case.. I have played with friends that are not button masters, and it would be unfair that my team take a penalty because I'm being social and playing with friends that are less skilled then what a DEV allows..
Why people would want to Zerg everything (Zerg is a very vague term btw) without a reward. I could see a guild of ____ wanting to grief people (which could be reported most likely), but I don't believe we would see GW2 style Zergs if people weren't being rewarded for their mindless effort. Again, mobs won't be static, so a Zerg would have to go out of its way to find you and whatever you are doing.
You are saying dumb everything down then? But then complain because everything is dumbed down? Sorry, I'd rather have a large scale of difficulty. Not design the entire game around bad players. Life and gaming aren't fair. Some people are good, some not so much. There should be content for both.
Games fail when catering only to the low end and can be successful without doing so (See WoW Vanilla vs WoW today). Bringing a friend or 5 along that aren't so good isn't the same as bringing 20 along. If you have a group of 20 poor playing friends, maybe stick to the easier content until they get better?
If 3, 5, 20, 100 players "group" together and defeat content, reward them accordingly, but make it semi-realistic.
Have each camp or area have some sort of contribution system, believe WAR and GW2 have this in some way. Everyone does their part and is rewarded, but it it is Zerged, don't reward anyone and it won't continue. Players learn to avoid situations that don't reward them. Take no offense, but have you ever played a game such as EQ that has numerous roles to be played and requires communication between the players.. Heck even most WoW instancing when new required communication..
Played EQ from 1999-2003 or so I think. WoW for several years as well. Plus many more. Not sure where I suggested no communication or roles? Devs have mentioned they want to have hard content be more like epic battles (think LOTR) not just one big mob in a room. If 50 players are killing 400 Orcs, everyone is going to be doing effort and should be rated on a scale to some extent (fairly). I could talk to no one and kill the most Orcs, doesn't mean I should get no reward or the most based on being in group. Same goes if my group of 5 does the most killing, we shouldn't get all the reward. Everyone is part of the battle, groups are just an added convenience layer. This system works fairly well in WAR/GW2, but again, I think there should be a scale. If 1000 players come in and sweep the Orcs away in heartbeat, the reward should be reduced and people will notice. Next time, maybe they will come with fewer and actually be challenged.
So while I do agree that content should have a "x man group" in mind, it shouldn't be cut and dry. A whole zone shouldn't be catered to any particular amount of players. When players fall down into a dungeon, they shouldn't know beforehand if they need 3, 6, 9, 50 to win easily. Requiring or restricting content to a set number that doesn't allow any deviation isn't too open to player creativity.
4 friends shouldn't be limited because the game said 3 people can do a particular area. Nor should they have a large advantage or receive the same rewards for bringing an extra player either. There needs to be balance to everything. Every game should have no win scenarios.. You contradict yourself here.. Above you said content should be designed for a certain group, and if you zerg it, you shouldn't be rewarded.. Now you say content shouldn't be limited and restricted.. Make up your mind please.. Sounds to me you want your cake and eat it too, and if you drop into a cave that is home for a Mountain Giant, he just might EAT YOUR LUNCH.. No exceptions.. You and your small group will end up in the graveyard as it should be..
I want unknown challenges. If the game is designed around 3/5/10 player groups, you'll basically know that if you bring that number you have a high chance at success. I want one cave to be good for 2 players and one 100 yards away to be good for 50 players. Death should be a big part of playing, not a rare occurrence.
I'm probably not being clear in my rambling. I think mobs or areas should have a suggested player requirements. But you are still free to try and then adjust depending on the outcome (risk vs reward).
At the same time, I don't believe the game should focus solely on a group size, like how instances work. Look at WoW, 5/10/20/40 or whatever it is now. You can't bring 6 into a 5 man or 3 into a 40 man raid. It is cut and dry no exception. They have "heroic" or different difficulty settings, but there isn't any altering the group numbers too much (haven't played in a long time so don't quote me on this). Guess I'm saying I don't want instances or anything highly structured where there is zero room for experimenting.
Leave it to players to decide how large or small a group should be and then let them go out into the world. If they run across a rat, they shouldn't all get rewarded for one person killing it in one kick. At the same time, if 100 people kill a giant that 10 "average" players were able to kill with decent effort, the 100 shouldn't be patted on the back for doing the same.
I'm guessing EQN will have the same old system that we've all come to enjoy so much, but it would be fun to try something new.
So Allein.. which is it.. ? You want small groups or do you want epic battles like LoTRO and want to be BLIND to your group or raid team? Personally I like to see the health bars of my group/raid.. Without it you are blind and just left to zerging like GW2.. I'll pass
Originally posted by Rydeson So Allein.. which is it.. ? You want small groups or do you want epic battles like LoTRO and want to be BLIND to your group or raid team? Personally I like to see the health bars of my group/raid.. Without it you are blind and just left to zerging like GW2.. I'll pass
Battle size wise, I want it all! I do not believe that is has to be all or nothing, this way or that, big or small. Content can be designed to cater to all skill levels and group sizes. From the one man army to the 100 man "first day" squad.
Personally, I don't feel all content should be "easily" accessible to everyone. Regardless of gear, time played, or whatever other game driven statistic or requirement. I prefer to have challenging content and not to puff my chest too much, I think I can handle pretty hard AI and encounters (obviously to a point). Doesn't mean I want "end game" type stuff that only a select few can access like Vanilla WoW. I'm sure it sucks to be locked out of all the fun stuff.
Just reward based on the risk. If me and 10 friends take down a giant, reward us well. If you and 40 of your friends do the same, the reward should be scaled down to counter Zerging. Everyone can still have the pleasure and accomplishment of killing the meany giant, but it should be harder to brag about it the more people you bring along. Go take that same 50 and kill a camp of Drakes or something a little more challenging and reap the rewards.
I hope Crush Bone takes many many players to do any serious damage. Not a single elite group of 5 players, but 100's of players of multiple skill levels, each doing what they can. The world (if is actually as big as they say) can easily fit in enough for everyone. I liked the OP idea of having multiple groups working together in their own section towards a end goal for everyone. Just don't limit it to groups of 3 unless people can only find 2 others to be with.
Standard grouping or not, no biggie to me. I'm assuming it will be the regular health bars all over the place as usual, hopefully the UI is very customizeable and I can make them as non-immersion breaking as possible. That is one reason I dislike the standard group mechanic and UI. It is in your face and gives way too much info. I don't want to "have" to know that your 10 buffs all have 33 seconds left (turning them off puts me at a pointless disadvantage).
I prefer using my eyes and judgment without the game holding my hand every step of the way, but I know it is hard to design it to work well and for the average player in mind. I believe my last UI in WoW allowed me to see player HP in a small bar above their head only when they were down to 75%. So unless people were taking some decent damage, would I even notice. Instead of having bars and windows all over the place all of the time.
Don't have to play blind, but also don't have to be blinded by the UI.
That's why I some what like GW2's approach, while I really missed real buffs and heals, I did get where they were going with all the AOEs and Combos. I think a mix of the two would be great.
Basically, after playing a year, I don't want to be forced to gather up 30+ other players to do hard content or be limited to 5-10. Hopefully they are some what flexible (like the class/roles being changeable on the fly) to allow players to actually play the game and not spend all their time trying to form the perfect group.
Let me and 9 people try to kill a Dragon. If we die, we'll call in for help. We'll continue doing so until we take the beast down. Instead of getting to the Dragon's lair and having some magic force field that will only allow exactly 40 players grouped together to pass, because obviously 34 have no chance and 47 is just crazy talk...
Comments
I agree but going too big such as Raids/Alliances made it worse than 3 man because in all of my gaming years,i have NEVER seen a random PUG type large raid group size communicate what so ever.There would be a few orders given out but nothing social.
I also believe that you can have just as good a social aspect fro ma 3 m,an as a 6 man group,maybe even better.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
i agree 3 can be better because its more intimate
but i'd rather have the option to know more people in adventuring
i'm a huge fan of pickup groups -- the more the merrier
I remember being in EQ1 having a full group of 6, we were all having fun
but there would still be others in the zone needing a group
I was sad that couldn't invite them because we were already full at 6
these people that were LFG in the outdoor zone could be without a group for *hours*
sometimes my current EQ1 group would reform to accomodate more players
but it was awkward
some roles were needed and sometimes you didn't have enough roles for 2 groups
even when i could split my group up -- you had the added challenge of having to find a new hunting spot because 2 groups hunting together interfered with hunting mobs unless you had distance from each other.
EQ1 initially encouraged having a full group of 6 - you got an exp bonus if you had a full group
later, in PoP, EQ1 scaled back and gave groups the full group experience as long as you had 5 of the 6
all of my EQ1 PUG were social - the same group would be hunting for hours (both dungeon and outdoors)
i never did PUG for quests, it was all about mob grinding and dungeon delving
EQ2 fan sites
the 3 man actually prevents to many people being left behind because its a smaller multiple and anyone can do any of the roles needed. In your case if you had 6 and there were 3 more, it was too bad for them, whereas that could of easily been 3 units. Lets not forget that you could combine multiple units, and its way easier to combine multiples of 3 than 5 , 6 or 8.
im interested in seeing player behavior when levels are eliminated from the mix. Will people still grind at all?
i did overlook that - wish we knew how the EQN experience system worked
EQ2 fan sites
I am also very interested to see what happens. Without levels, quest hubs, and general themepark elements, I think people might actually communicate with one another and enjoy the game. Instead of rushing off to reach max level in the quickest time possible, by-passing and ignoring all the content and lore made for them.
I imagine people on day one trying to figure out how to purchase land for a future home, how to go about discovering classes, participating in Rally Events, just going out and exploring, etc. Everyone will be able to focus on what they enjoy most instead of having some forced task that has to happen or they fall behind.
Unless killing mobs has a large benefit to progression, I doubt there will be much of a grind, at least not what many are used to. Still very curious how progression will work. I'm wondering if progress is linked to time-played or some other stat that can't really be sped up or rushed. Would make it very interesting if everyone progresses at the same speed regardless of "effort" as everyone's focus and effort differs.
IMO the more options the better, I do like 5 man dungeons but I also like the feel of 3 person groups for group questing and even running 5 man dungeons with 3 players.
Questing = 1 player
Group Questing = 3-5 players
"Adventuring" Instances = 1-3 players (Like dungeons but less combat focused)
Standard dungeons = 5 players
Raiding = 6-10 players
Other = 10+ (Massive battle instance or open world events that scale to player numbers)
I see no reason why there shouldn't be more options like that or even more grouping flavors, so many of us have different play styles.
Let groups have up to 10 people in them since they tend to design raids for 20 to 40 people. That way in the huge server events, we could form raid groups of 80 people. That way more people in a group keeps people from being left out.
I have 5 personal friends that will be playing this game and a 10 man group would mean that everyone could be in the same group with room to invite others if we want to or need to.
I would argue and my experience has been that a smaller group of 3 is far more social and personal that larger groups.
games are already solocentric. Players have demanded it. You continue to fail to address the issue, which is standard for many ex EQ'ers. If people wanted to group they would. They don't, most of the time. How many more years do we have to deal with the complete failure of grouping before meaningful change can be made.
How can we get more people to group organically within the game? We make it easier and more fun for them. If you think smaller units you can achieve larger outcomes. 3 groups of 3 is 9. they will organically increment based off the challenge presented.
Start thinking in units because I think that's what will be necessary. Small units that can be formed on the fly with minimal downtime that can be linked together for larger encounters.
I do not believe they will be "designing raids" as in the traditional sense. the bigger you think, the more difficult it is to achieve your goal. Its simple math. larger groups actually ensure that more people have to be left out.
keep the unit as small as possible and allow it to link for larger total groups.
I can argue that MMO's cater to the one man group. And the typical 4 and 5 man group content being made by todays easy mode developers can be run by any competent group of 3.
You already have your 3 man group content, its in every MMO being made today.
I want to see the return of the crowd control character. They where one of the things I now realize I miss so much in the genre. Everyone talks about the trinity (tank/healer/dps) but it use to be 4. I will admit I never played one but I played with them enough to respect the people that did and miss them now that its for the most part gone.
I am totally against building content for 3 member groups as it fosters no diversity or community.
I haven't read more than a few posts on this topic but I know somewhere someone has mentioned GW2 because its the latest success story. For me its a horrible game there is no heal no tank just dps, which ever class you play is in essence the exact same as every other person in the game. you do as much damage as you can while avoiding as much damage as you can only stopping to revive one of the other dps who didn't avoid enough.
Beyond convenience, groups don't make a lot of sense. GW2 is a great example how PVE can be done without "grouping", it was just done poorly and encouraged Zerg combat. You can still communicate with each other and support one another, without having to have 50 other player health bars splattered across the screen.
Many times, I would be running along, see a big named mob and would defeat it with a few other random people. We didn't have to invite each other, we simply defeated content together. If we chose to communicate or continue on together, all we had to do is say so and do it.
With no levels, everyone is essentially the same and content can be based on a single player's potential (within the tiers).
Make each mob have a suggested player requirement and reward players based on how close they come to it.
Ex: Hill Giant - 20 player suggested requirement.
If 10 kill it, give them a decent amount more of whatever reward the 20 receive. If 10 easily defeat it on a constant basis, adjust the player requirement to 10. Data is easy to track, devs track every single action in game.
If 40 players defeat it, give little to no reward.
If 3, 5, 20, 100 players "group" together and defeat content, reward them accordingly, but make it semi-realistic.
Have each camp or area have some sort of contribution system, believe WAR and GW2 have this in some way. Everyone does their part and is rewarded, but it it is Zerged, don't reward anyone and it won't continue. Players learn to avoid situations that don't reward them.
So while I do agree that content should have a "x man group" in mind, it shouldn't be cut and dry. A whole zone shouldn't be catered to any particular amount of players. When players fall down into a dungeon, they shouldn't know beforehand if they need 3, 6, 9, 50 to win easily. Requiring or restricting content to a set number that doesn't allow any deviation isn't too open to player creativity.
4 friends shouldn't be limited because the game said 3 people can do a particular area. Nor should they have a large advantage or receive the same rewards for bringing an extra player either. There needs to be balance to everything.
it should be EQ indeed, but sadly it is not. they are just using the name to generate more hype and get more people to play, nothing more.
it could turn out to be a fun game but make no mistake, this is not everquest by any means, its closer to GW2 than EQ without a doubt.
The only problem with 3 man groups is that 33% of your population needs to be a tank, which we know is very hard to accomplish.
5 man groups work a little better since you have 3 DPS , and lets face it , DPS is by far the most common choice .
if EQN would still use the old trinity maybe. But they don't. Classes will have roles yes. But through the multiclassing your anyway not be only DPS OR tank. you can switch to whatever is needed.
encounter dont works with 3 mages? switch to 2 rouges and a mage. Stil dont work, how about one warrior, one rogue,one mage. Still not working keep changing.
I would like to point out the difference between a group and a fighting unit.
A fighting unit is the minimum size unit which can sustain all the required roles for combat, which I believe to be three, putting aside the ability to solo for a moment. This encompasses tanking, healing/support and crowd control. I don't consider dps to be a role, but rather something all are responsible to contribute to.
so a group might have 1 or 2 or 3 or 20 fighting units as demanded by the content. Very easy to stack units.
if we try to do this with 6 the logistics begin to break down trying to properly fill groups and get everything organized, but if we stick to a small number like 3 it becomes more fluid and easy to manage.
If the 6 man group was working we would have a very different environment in these games than we have now. Its time to bite the bullet and redesign the entire grouping experience to something most people will be comfortable with.
It doesn't work, it hasent ever worked the way people say it has, and the end result has been massive demand for soloing.
I think we can go back the other way and get people to group, but in a smaller, more personalized way that fosters teamwork, fun and ease of use.
I also haven't heard one decent argument on why a 6 man is technically better other than that's the way eq had it or it somehow fosters community (of soloers) or its mystically somehow more diverse when every group has to be less diverse do to specialist classes being more required.
that does not matter
EQ2 was closer to WOW than EQ1
many EQ1 players were turned off by EQ2 because they were expecting a similar game to EQ1
just because a game doesnt seem like EQ1 doesnt make it "not EQ"
EQ2 fan sites
I just want to point out that Terra does non-tab target healing very well without dumbing down anything, in fact it has very good group fights.
I am not a fan of the entire game (or even most of that game) but at least on that aspect they did show it could be done.
In your opinion and to your liking..
Battle size wise, I want it all! I do not believe that is has to be all or nothing, this way or that, big or small. Content can be designed to cater to all skill levels and group sizes. From the one man army to the 100 man "first day" squad.
Personally, I don't feel all content should be "easily" accessible to everyone. Regardless of gear, time played, or whatever other game driven statistic or requirement. I prefer to have challenging content and not to puff my chest too much, I think I can handle pretty hard AI and encounters (obviously to a point). Doesn't mean I want "end game" type stuff that only a select few can access like Vanilla WoW. I'm sure it sucks to be locked out of all the fun stuff.
Just reward based on the risk. If me and 10 friends take down a giant, reward us well. If you and 40 of your friends do the same, the reward should be scaled down to counter Zerging. Everyone can still have the pleasure and accomplishment of killing the meany giant, but it should be harder to brag about it the more people you bring along. Go take that same 50 and kill a camp of Drakes or something a little more challenging and reap the rewards.
I hope Crush Bone takes many many players to do any serious damage. Not a single elite group of 5 players, but 100's of players of multiple skill levels, each doing what they can. The world (if is actually as big as they say) can easily fit in enough for everyone. I liked the OP idea of having multiple groups working together in their own section towards a end goal for everyone. Just don't limit it to groups of 3 unless people can only find 2 others to be with.
Standard grouping or not, no biggie to me. I'm assuming it will be the regular health bars all over the place as usual, hopefully the UI is very customizeable and I can make them as non-immersion breaking as possible. That is one reason I dislike the standard group mechanic and UI. It is in your face and gives way too much info. I don't want to "have" to know that your 10 buffs all have 33 seconds left (turning them off puts me at a pointless disadvantage).
I prefer using my eyes and judgment without the game holding my hand every step of the way, but I know it is hard to design it to work well and for the average player in mind. I believe my last UI in WoW allowed me to see player HP in a small bar above their head only when they were down to 75%. So unless people were taking some decent damage, would I even notice. Instead of having bars and windows all over the place all of the time.
Don't have to play blind, but also don't have to be blinded by the UI.
That's why I some what like GW2's approach, while I really missed real buffs and heals, I did get where they were going with all the AOEs and Combos. I think a mix of the two would be great.
Basically, after playing a year, I don't want to be forced to gather up 30+ other players to do hard content or be limited to 5-10. Hopefully they are some what flexible (like the class/roles being changeable on the fly) to allow players to actually play the game and not spend all their time trying to form the perfect group.
Let me and 9 people try to kill a Dragon. If we die, we'll call in for help. We'll continue doing so until we take the beast down. Instead of getting to the Dragon's lair and having some magic force field that will only allow exactly 40 players grouped together to pass, because obviously 34 have no chance and 47 is just crazy talk...