Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

The case for the three man group experience as standard in EQN

rungardrungard st. john''s, NFPosts: 1,035Member

One thing I would really like to see is a standard 3 man group. Im not saying that there should only be 3 man grouping, there should also be 6's and 9's but most should be tailored for 3. Since everyone will be responsible for themselves similar to guild wars two, I believe that the gameplay would be far superior with a reduced group size for the following reasons:

1)  A three man unit will be much easier to "link" for 6 and 9 man adventures in ways you wouldn't expect. There could be a team working toward a  goal while another team works on a second goal, and they end up working together to defeat the final boss. Theoretically you could have 20 teams working together (but separate) to unlock levers that lead to some chamber. You could also do it with one unit though it would take longer.

2) Mob strength and defences are relative to group size. In a game where your responsible for yourself a smaller groupsize means this will be more viable to implement. Larger group sizes increase the requirement for dedicated tanks, healers and dps. I believe that encounters would be far more fluid  and fun if they used a 3 man structure, and the content is designed as such. It just reduces the fun when they have no choice but make the mobs hit extremely hard and have a billion hp just because you have 6 in your group.

3) A group of three is very easy to assemble. In my experience with older games such as eq and daoc ive always had the most fun in small 3 man groups. They are easy to form, easy to maintain, and easier to manage. You get a more personal experience this way with no dead weight players.

4) 3 man content is not out of the domain for either players who like to duo or solo, but it will increase the challenge providing more content overall for more players.  

«134

Comments

  • Four0SixFour0Six Missoula, MTPosts: 1,181Member Uncommon

    I like bigger groups.

    I also like defined roles.

     

  • xAPOCxxAPOCx Vineland, NJPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Four0Six

    I like bigger groups.

    I also like defined roles.

     

    I second this.

    image

  • BearKnightBearKnight Augusta, GAPosts: 461Member
    Originally posted by Four0Six

    I like bigger groups.

    I also like defined roles.

     

    People naturally navigate towards selective roles. Protector, Support, Damage, Control, etc etc.

     

    People have roles within society, and this is why roles have worked so well in MMORPG's because we identify so well with them from RL.

     

    That being said, everyone being damage dealers isn't a role that is defined well by large groups. Without defined roles, the community will have a hard time developing as well as they risk creating a zerg mentality for world events.

     

     

    I don't see EQ:N doing any better than GW2 despite having awesome sandbox mechanics attached. This shouldn't be news to anyone though that I feel EQ:N won't do well. Just my current thoughts on the matter :)!

     

     

    -Bigger groups are always better, but sometimes smaller groups are preferred for quick adventures without much attachment needed.

  • CirolleCirolle CopenhagenPosts: 10Member
    I too have two other friends that I like to play with......
  • SiugSiug TallinnPosts: 1,236Member Uncommon
    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. 
  • rungardrungard st. john''s, NFPosts: 1,035Member
    Originally posted by Four0Six

    I like bigger groups.

    I also like defined roles.

     

    Well defined rolls seems to be out the window so youll be in for a shock there. The "take care of yourself" mechanics doesn't work well when you scale up the groupsize.

    with a larger group youll end up with bosses that can kill you in 2 hits and have a million hp while you do 3 dmg per hit. It has to be this way because youll be having 6-8 times the dps of one player and thus the mob has to be stated accordingly to make it a fair fight.

    Its already been confirmed that there will be no dedicated healers or tanks in EQN so I believe they have to not make the mistake that GW2 made and reduce the groupsize to make the encounters more fun.

    If they don't do this they risk making all armor pointless and the tactics will be seen as too difficult for the average player.

  • rungardrungard st. john''s, NFPosts: 1,035Member
    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. 

    I don't want to deter you, but have you read anything about EQN? Combat will be like GW2. Class based weapons, evasion and movement based, no dedicated healers or tanks, everyone take care of themselves.

    I believe its important to critique GW2's combat system to improve on the direction they have already decided on.

  • Four0SixFour0Six Missoula, MTPosts: 1,181Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rungard
    Originally posted by Four0Six

    I like bigger groups.

    I also like defined roles.

     

    Well defined rolls seems to be out the window so youll be in for a shock there. The "take care of yourself" mechanics doesn't work well when you scale up the groupsize.

    with a larger group youll end up with bosses that can kill you in 2 hits and have a million hp while you do 3 dmg per hit. It has to be this way because youll be having 6-8 times the dps of one player and thus the mob has to be stated accordingly to make it a fair fight.

    Its already been confirmed that there will be no dedicated healers or tanks in EQN so I believe they have to not make the mistake that GW2 made and reduce the groupsize to make the encounters more fun.

    If they don't do this they risk making all armor pointless and the tactics will be seen as too difficult for the average player.

    You are basically advocating co-op gameplay and not MMO gameplay.

     

  • ghorgosghorgos NirgendwoPosts: 190Member Uncommon

    Either decent grouping with at least 5 players or better 6 or no real grouping at all.

    I mean 3 is ok for quick cooperation, like killing a boss that is too difficult for a single person or simply because its better to team up than to fight independantly but content should not be designed around just 3 playergroups. 

  • rungardrungard st. john''s, NFPosts: 1,035Member
    im not advocating anything. This is from the features derived from the videos.
  • Four0SixFour0Six Missoula, MTPosts: 1,181Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rungard
    im not advocating anything. This is from the features derived from the videos.

    You titles your thread "The case for the three man group experience as standard in EQN".

     

    If you were merely explaining how EQN was going to work, you should have said something along the lines of "Here is how I believe EQN combat will work..."

  • rungardrungard st. john''s, NFPosts: 1,035Member
    I mean in regards to the GW2 like combat which seems to be a feature of EQN.
  • georgatos7georgatos7 RPosts: 54Member

    The Trinity was created as an excuse for shallow and simplified game mechanics and bad enemy AI.

    Its time to move forward. Let it die already.

    And the idea of a community being created around and based on combat roles only in a sandbox game is such a wrong concept.

  • MendelMendel Marietta, GAPosts: 924Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rungard

    One thing I would really like to see is a standard 3 man group. Im not saying that there should only be 3 man grouping, there should also be 6's and 9's but most should be tailored for 3. Since everyone will be responsible for themselves similar to guild wars two, I believe that the gameplay would be far superior with a reduced group size for the following reasons:

    1)  A three man unit will be much easier to "link" for 6 and 9 man adventures in ways you wouldn't expect. There could be a team working toward a  goal while another team works on a second goal, and they end up working together to defeat the final boss. Theoretically you could have 20 teams working together (but separate) to unlock levers that lead to some chamber. You could also do it with one unit though it would take longer.

    2) Mob strength and defences are relative to group size. In a game where your responsible for yourself a smaller groupsize means this will be more viable to implement. Larger group sizes increase the requirement for dedicated tanks, healers and dps. I believe that encounters would be far more fluid  and fun if they used a 3 man structure, and the content is designed as such. It just reduces the fun when they have no choice but make the mobs hit extremely hard and have a billion hp just because you have 6 in your group.

    3) A group of three is very easy to assemble. In my experience with older games such as eq and daoc ive always had the most fun in small 3 man groups. They are easy to form, easy to maintain, and easier to manage. You get a more personal experience this way with no dead weight players.

    4) 3 man content is not out of the domain for either players who like to duo or solo, but it will increase the challenge providing more content overall for more players.  

    An admirable goal.  I especially like the concept of concurrent actions to achieve a larger goal.

    There are already games where players are boxing full groups of 6 characters by themselves.   How would 3-man groups encourage socialization (grouping), if the player can either box the missing characters or solo the content in the first place?

    And group size doesn't drive the mudflation effect of mobs with massive offense and millions of HPs.  That's more a result of a progression curve somewhere and a developer without discipline enough to resist adding the new armor that makes everything else obsolete.

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • ghorgosghorgos NirgendwoPosts: 190Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rungard
    I mean in regards to the GW2 like combat which seems to be a feature of EQN.

    That is still unknown as we haven't seen any real combat. We have some hints but at the same time comments that EQN-combat won't be like GW2.

  • Four0SixFour0Six Missoula, MTPosts: 1,181Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by georgatos7

    The Trinity was created as an excuse for shallow and simplified game mechanics and bad enemy AI.

    Its time to move forward.

    Let it die already.

    Who said "trinity"?

    I actually prefer a bigger group with more than 3 defined roles........5, 6, or even 7 defined roles seems to be better to me than 3.

  • EnrifEnrif PforzheimPosts: 151Member Uncommon

    three sounds good for me for an adventuring group out in the wilds. 

    six sounds good for a dungeon run.

    nine/twelve/fifteen sounds good for real hard and complex content, like raids.

     

    I can see how a 3 member group can work smoother then a 5 man group for your regular stuff. For dungeons you met another group, and like mentiont this can add new stuff to dungeons that you normaly only saw in big sized raids(splitting to do different tasks). 

  • georgatos7georgatos7 RPosts: 54Member
    Originally posted by Four0Six

    Who said "trinity"?

    I actually prefer a bigger group with more than 3 defined roles........5, 6, or even 7 defined roles seems to be better to me than 3.

     

    When i'm saying trinity i don't refer to a 3 ppl group. Of course i agree with the OP saying that 3 ppl groups should be more than viable.

    I was refering to the bad concept of the 3 defined roles (tank, dps, healer). That is based on bad, simplified enemy AI and bad game mechanics design.

    Lets face it taunting an enemy to attack you and only you is a silly concept that feels so artificial and fake.

  • CirolleCirolle CopenhagenPosts: 10Member
    Originally posted by Enrif

    three sounds good for me for an adventuring group out in the wilds. 

    six sounds good for a dungeon run.

    nine/twelve/fifteen sounds good for real hard and complex content, like raids.

     

    I can see how a 3 member group can work smoother then a 5 man group for your regular stuff. For dungeons you met another group, and like mentiont this can add new stuff to dungeons that you normaly only saw in big sized raids(splitting to do different tasks). 

    100 or 200 sounds good for a fight against a thousand orcs

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,436Member Uncommon

    I will try to make a point as to why the 6 man group has been a staple for a long time.

    First off i believe in roles,they are more organized and this is a role playing genre so all makes sense.

    With a basic Tank design "ROLE" yo ucan create tougher battles because the Tank can take the added dmg that others cannot.That added dmg also puts others at risk if the entire group does not play well.Healers over heal ,dps over nukes they steal hate and die.

    Ok now onto the 6 man versus 3.

    If you only have 3 therefor a tank healer and one dps that  pretty much means the mob is too easy,otherwise the fight would last too long with only 1 dps.So back to the challenging more difficult foe,with the Tank able to take high dmg and having more than 1 dps,perhaps 3 everything works in an orderly fashion.You have the challenging fight as well as enough dps to make sure it doesn't last 10 minutes for a simple mob.

    I also did not touch on having SPECIFIC roles in a group such as buffers,debuffers and enfeebles.Now of course yo ucan give the Healer tons of abilities and spells but you can't overdo it or they run out of mp and that is another area that makes for challenging and good playing by monitoring your mp use.

    I do not believe in going over board with all these RAID fights,they are not needed,you have every ROLE filled in a 6 man group,all you are doing after that is creating massive HP fights and tons of adds.Adds don't make fights more skillful,they simply create the need for more players,again not needed to attain the goal of creating a challenging fight.

    Simply put 3 is not enough and  12+ is  not needed. to accomplish good combat.

     

     


    Samoan Diamond

  • georgatos7georgatos7 RPosts: 54Member
    Originally posted by Enrif

    three sounds good for me for an adventuring group out in the wilds. 

    six sounds good for a dungeon run.

    nine/twelve/fifteen sounds good for real hard and complex content, like raids.

     

    I can see how a 3 member group can work smoother then a 5 man group for your regular stuff. For dungeons you met another group, and like mentiont this can add new stuff to dungeons that you normaly only saw in big sized raids(splitting to do different tasks). 

     

    I disagree with this static concept with a passion!

    Content in a sandbox should not be based on static pre-made decisions. It should be a matter of being in the right place at the right time.

    Of course knowing that a dungeon has hundereds of orcs and trying to confront them with a 3 man group should not work but also discovering a new dungeon shouldn't mean that it's not viable for a small group. So for example it might have some bigger threats that can crash a large group but a small group or an individual can just sneak by.

    A sandbox means dynamic features and dynamic means that there is not knowing what might lie a few steps ahead.

  • rungardrungard st. john''s, NFPosts: 1,035Member
    Originally posted by georgatos7
    Originally posted by Enrif

    three sounds good for me for an adventuring group out in the wilds. 

    six sounds good for a dungeon run.

    nine/twelve/fifteen sounds good for real hard and complex content, like raids.

     

    I can see how a 3 member group can work smoother then a 5 man group for your regular stuff. For dungeons you met another group, and like mentiont this can add new stuff to dungeons that you normaly only saw in big sized raids(splitting to do different tasks). 

     

    I disagree with this static concept with a passion!

    Content in a sandbox should not be based on static pre-made decisions. It should be a matter of being in the right place at the right time.

    Of course knowing that a dungeon has hundereds of orcs and trying to confront them with a 3 man group should not work but also discovering a new dungeon shouldn't mean that it's not viable for a small group. So for example it might have some bigger threats that can crash a large group but a small group or an individual can just sneak by.

    A sandbox means dynamic features and dynamic means that there is not knowing what might lie a few steps ahead.

    I agree with some of that but if you think of a trio as a "unit" and that "units" can be added together for 6,9, or whatever. You might need 2 or 5 or 10 units for some content, but the unit is still the easiest to assemble easiest to manage and is more personal than a larger unit.

    you have to have some assembly and I think that when you add in voice communication, ease of forming, shared roles and multiple roles per player the number three is the correct choice. That doesn't mean that you cant have 6 or 9 or 12. It means that the default fighting unit is three.

    people like to solo for a reason. To reduce the variables like bad players, downtime and short play sessions. I think three is a decent compromise from 1 and 6 in a modern mmo. Remember anyone can do anything and its not unlikely that you will have to do everything in combat.

  • TheocritusTheocritus Gary, INPosts: 3,734Member Uncommon
    Not going to happen...The reason why: They had grouping in EQ1....How'd that hold up?.....Oh yeah the players complained..... Now go play EQ1 in 2013 and see how many group.....Oh sure maybe by level 95 or so you might see one or two LFG but 98% of the game is soloed now......Even if EQN started off as a grouping game, SOE will immediately make it a solo friendly game to appease the masses.
  • MarkusrindMarkusrind CrawleyPosts: 359Member

    If there is 1 mob you might be able to take then on alone...but they might be a tough mob so you might have to run away and bring a friend.

    If there is a small group you might be able to take them all on alone...but they might fight well together so you might get lucky and get away and only return when you have brought a few friends.

    That small group might have sent someone out to get help so that when you return with your friends they might be down 1 in numbers so will be easy to take out...or they might have had help arrive and are now a large group.

    Essentially, while things are static and you can, through trial and error eventually overcome said static encounter, there will never really be that much excitement in any conflict.

    So by introducing non static situations, nut just in where a fight takes place but also in numbers involved, motivations for fighting, varying tactics employed from running to getting help you can never have a static group membership. Well you can but that essentially means you are limiting your options.

     

    I love comments made by Dave about needing a small army to attack the Orc stronghold or a large group to take on a dragon.

    I also love the idea that you might not have the ideal group with you when you meet that Dragon.

     

    The thing I really, really, really hope for most of all...is that a raid is actually a raid...and by that I mean that a raid is when the Orcs choose to invade your town/city or when the players or NPC's decide to go out and destroy the local Orc menace.

    A raid should be a mass of people rampaging across land to meet up with another mass and for all out war to take place. Not some 4 hours a night "must have 2 tanks, 4 healers, 2 off tanks and the dest DPS lets get the boss down to 15% tonight people if everyone does their job right" kind of thing.

  • grimfallgrimfall Missouri City, TXPosts: 1,155Member Uncommon
    OP: 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

    Grimfall: Why?

    OP: 'Cause you're fuckin' fired!

«134
Sign In or Register to comment.