Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Large Scale Raid Encounters

Am I seriously the only person who misses this? Player coordination on a large scale, politics amongst a community, etc. I've always felt that  70+ was about right, and that 40 was on the low end. Today, everything is 20/10man, and I haven't raided in any MMORPG since Naxxramas (40).

 

To me, raiding amongst a large number of people is a unique experience, it offers something unexplainable that 10 or 20 man raiding just doesn't. Sure, 10 and 20 man offer something 70 or 40 doesn't, but I do recall a golden age where we had 5, 10, 20, and 40man raids all in the same game.

 

Does anyone else yern for a game that pushes the number of people you play with, rather than reduces?

Comments

  • gummy52gummy52 Member Posts: 31

    Also, does anyone know of active/fresh MMORPGs with raiding that involves at least 40 people?

  • RobokappRobokapp Member RarePosts: 6,208

    with you, op.

     

    the sad, unfortunate thing is i get my 'large scale' fix from...eve. it's not PvE, its not raiding but its large-scale and its such that people try to stay alive rather than the typical pvp style of faceroll-aoe. so in a sad sad way eve pvp has a fragment of the atmosphere of a large-scale pve game.

     

    if anyone know a bigger-than-25man raiding game please let me know. f2p p2p b2p z2p idc. :)

    image

  • AcidDKAcidDK Member Posts: 82

    From my experience the more people involved the more the encounters are dumbed down, and this is not a good thing. It might be harder to coordinate 40 people compared to 20, but if it's just tank and spank no coordination has to be done. But I guess if it was done right it could be fun, espeically if roles were divided so not everyone are focussing on the same objective (i.e. 40 vs 1 boss would be boring).

  • gummy52gummy52 Member Posts: 31

    Originally posted by AcidDK

    From my experience the more people involved the more the encounters are dumbed down, and this is not a good thing. It might be harder to coordinate 40 people compared to 20, but if it's just tank and spank no coordination has to be done. But I guess if it was done right it could be fun, espeically if roles were divided so not everyone are focussing on the same objective (i.e. 40 vs 1 boss would be boring).

    You're logically contradicting yourself. Something can not be "dumbed down" yet "harder" at the same time.

  • RobokappRobokapp Member RarePosts: 6,208

    it's...hardly the point. here's the counter-evidence: doing this with 40 people in harmony is quite impressive.

     

    image

  • gummy52gummy52 Member Posts: 31

    I'd just like to say that if there are blatant fallacies in an arguement, it is hardly "besides the point". What he was saying was literally nonsense, there is no need to present evidence against it.

  • AcidDKAcidDK Member Posts: 82

    Originally posted by gummy52

    Originally posted by AcidDK

    From my experience the more people involved the more the encounters are dumbed down, and this is not a good thing. It might be harder to coordinate 40 people compared to 20, but if it's just tank and spank no coordination has to be done. But I guess if it was done right it could be fun, espeically if roles were divided so not everyone are focussing on the same objective (i.e. 40 vs 1 boss would be boring).

    You're logically contradicting yourself. Something can not be "dumbed down" yet "harder" at the same time.

    Sure it can. Boss mechanics are dumbed down and coordination is harder because of the amount of people involved. The difficulty on the encounter might be the same as an encounter with a harder boss but less people involved, but the level of fun is less imo since you move the difficulty away from the invidual over to the coordinators (raid/group leaders).

    And I think you're just playing stupid now, you know exactly what I meant even if I didn't exactly write it like that. I'm even supporting your idea so I don't get why you bring that attitude, I'm simply stating what issues might be involved with large scale raid encounters from my experience with such. I have even come up with a suggestion to how to avoid dumbed down mechanics, but to be more specific than "more than a single objective" I could give an example:

    Raid #1's objectives: Infiltrate control room -> Open gate for raid #2-3 -> Hold control room

    Raid #2's objectives: Make a diversion -> Wait for gate to open -> Infiltrate building

    Raid #3's objectives: Protect #1 while they infiltrate the control room -> Wait for gate to open -> Infiltrate building

     

    And it could go on until finally an amount of bosses appear where each group will take care of at least 1 boss... And that's a simple example on how to make huge raids fun without dumbing down mechanics. Each objective would be difficult and scaled to the individual raid so less coordination is needed yet it feels huge and epic, because even though each raid technically are working independent of the other raids they are still working together and depend on the outcome of the encounters the other raids are doing.

  • gummy52gummy52 Member Posts: 31

    You're still contradicting yourself. The only way to make that sesspool above me valid, would be to redefine "mechanics" beforehand. Also, I obviously know "what you meant", but it is also obvious (as you continue to prove) that "what you meant" is a fallacious counter argument commonly used.

  • PalebanePalebane Member RarePosts: 3,930

    I enjoy large scale raids. I think EQ still has 72+ player raids. Not sure if those are from the newer expansions or not.

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

  • YarunaYaruna Member Posts: 342

    Sieges and mass battles, yes. Raid instances that require at least 40, and up to 70 people to kill a boss? Nope. Never heard of that in any of the games I played. If you're the one coordinating it all, then good luck to you.

    Waiting for Guild Wars 2, and maybe SWTOR until that time...

  • CastillleCastillle Member UncommonPosts: 2,679

    Originally posted by gummy52

    Also, does anyone know of active/fresh MMORPGs with raiding that involves at least 40 people?

    Fiesta Online.  You can start raiding at level 1 and its called "Kings Quests"

    Pretty fun stuff o.o

    ''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
    ( o.o)
    (")(")
    **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**

  • darlok6666darlok6666 Member Posts: 211

    Because majority of people who raid are adults and don't need to deal with player BS like here who have some serious issues...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtvIYRrgZ04

  • HaegemonHaegemon Member UncommonPosts: 267

    Easiest answer for why these fell out of style is the correct answer..

    More people find it more fun to not have to deal with the hassles involved in wrangling that many people together and co-ordinating them.

     

    In every case of large-scale raids, the same unwanted people always are there.

    The guy who got his invite because he's a MT or MH's irl friend, but they suck.

    The inevitable mouth-breathers who round out the bottom 2% of damage done in the fight.

    "That Guy" who will always stand in the fire on the ground and never admit to being bad for it.

     

    Now, all these things can still happen in a smaller-scale raid, 10 and 25, but now, its a LOT easier for the raid as a whole to identify those people and kick them out of the group.

    More people than not would like to succeed at these things, and going to smaller raid sizes helped remove a lot of the social backlash that cutting the dead weight would have caused in larger settings.

     

    And that doesn't even go into petty things like artificial loot drama, ego-tripping, etc etc.

     

    And that golden age, well, if those 40 man raids had been as wanted and popular as some think, I'm pretty sure they would have kept making new ones. But they weren't, so they didn't.

    Heck, even some of the older 40m have been turned into 25m, because for how FEW people ever saw the content, it was kinda wasted.

     

    While some people may still want that size/scope of encounters, they're outnumbered by the new style of raider.

    To the people who'd still want 70+ raids, do you want to be in charge of wrangling all those people together? Do you wanna be the guy who has to organize, schedule, plan out just the personel composition for the raid?

    And then have to do the legwork of digging through the combat logs to figure out who did what wrong, and crunch the numbers to see if you'll even be able to beat the encounter.

    And then if you kill it, being the guy who everyone is bitching to because they didn't get item X, or hear all the petty complaints that loot system Y is biased. Basically all the petty internet drama that shouldn't be given any time or mind by a logically-sound person.

     

    I've met a lot of people who may have fond memories of those times. I haven't met a single raid-leader who wishes they would go back to that style though, because everyone has the same stories.

    It's to stressful for the rewards, it's a thankless role with to much pre-planning needed, and it was a breeding ground for artificial drama that all got funneled onto them.

     

    So if some game had these large raids, would the OP be lined up to participate in them, or would they be trying to form/lead one?

    If you're only looking to participate, you may be in that "part of the problem" group that helped steer this style of raiding away.

    Lets Push Things Forward

    I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.

    Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,125

    No, you're not the only one.  But you (not "we") are definitely in the minority.

    Many people have other real-life responsibilities to tend to that make scheduling your life around a game impractical.  It's essential for a game to allow you to log on when you have time, play for a while, and log off.

    That means that you have to be able to grab whoever is online and go.  You can't get an organized raid of 70 people who know each other that way.  Rather, it will have to be a PUG.

    The problem with a 70 person PUG is that no individual person can make much of a difference in the success or failure of the PUG.  If game mechanics make it so that one bad player can ruin it for everyone, then with that many people, you're all but guaranteed to have that one bad player.  If one great player can carry an otherwise medicore PUG, then it's too easy, as you'll get that one great player and get through even if you're clueless.  So instead, you end up with content where it doesn't particularly matter what you do, and that's boring.

  • herculeshercules Member UncommonPosts: 4,920

    in old eq1when i played there was no cap for most bosses but the problem was if you had too many people you would lag badly and back then you relied on cleric's complete heal spell which took ages to cast and had to be timed so bad lag meant death to main tank and then wipes.

    so people kept the amount going to a certain number.

    I was guild leader and raid leader in wow tbc and the end part of vanillia and i can tell you it was a nightmare organising 40 people .link dead and afk was always a problem .Also you knew the players less ,we often had to take people we just guilded a day earlier.

Sign In or Register to comment.