Howdy, Stranger!

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

Ideal group size

2

Comments

  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,582

    I think 4 is ideal group size. In a small group everyone is important, and in a small group each of the players have much more freedom to react and make-up new strategies.

    I don't really like large groups. They bind you to a role and strategy too much, and make the fights less interesting.

     
  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by rojoArcueid

    Now, apply that same list to a different playstyle where tanking is not necessarily required to hold aggro then yeah, it would make the fight more active, dynamic, teamwork based, and just more fun.

    All the MMO where you take away the tank have far less teamwork. Games like Vindictus and all upcoming Korean action MMO like Black Desert without traditional trinity roles have no teamwork.

    What you're arguing is different from reality, action MMO without aggro have far less teamwork, not more.

    The group size is irrelevant in those MMO, since everyone is a DPS class dodging, bunny jumping and spamming attacks.

    Trinity combat is not teamwork. It is an algorithm. If everyone does their job i.e. tanks hold aggro, DPS overcomes enemy regeneration/heals and heal keeps your tanks up, you will win the encounter.

    There's hardly any cooperation between tank and DPS or DPS and heals for example.

     

    No. rojoArcueid is quite right in what he said. You are wrong.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 7,470

    Do you know why City of Heroes/Villains will always remain as the most chaotic fun grouping for  missions game ever ? Although the missions itself got stale but the group makeup rocked. We had control,shields,debuffs, dps,tanks,buffs,heals,pets and so many different variations of those things that gave us such interesting group dynamics that that game will always remain in my mind.

     

    The reason they managed it is simple. The 8 person group makeup allowed for as many different or same classes and allowed you to tackle the content with whatever you had. No one was left out because you had 8 people so once an encounter starts the different classes when played together did not need a trinity just knowing how to use your skills and talking before hand how we were going to handle the mobs. Discussing how to use our different skills before hand what a  concept and who does that anymore huh ?

     

    So if you ask me about an ideal group size I would say 8 so you can do it with just 4 but 8 rocks.

  • Trudge34Trudge34 Member UncommonPosts: 392
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by rojoArcueid

    Now, apply that same list to a different playstyle where tanking is not necessarily required to hold aggro then yeah, it would make the fight more active, dynamic, teamwork based, and just more fun.

    All the MMO where you take away the tank have far less teamwork. Games like Vindictus and all upcoming Korean action MMO like Black Desert without traditional trinity roles have no teamwork.

    What you're arguing is different from reality, action MMO without aggro have far less teamwork, not more.

    The group size is irrelevant in those MMO, since everyone is a DPS class dodging, bunny jumping and spamming attacks.

    Trinity combat is not teamwork. It is an algorithm. If everyone does their job i.e. tanks hold aggro, DPS overcomes enemy regeneration/heals and heal keeps your tanks up, you will win the encounter.

    There's hardly any cooperation between tank and DPS or DPS and heals for example.

     

    No. rojoArcueid is quite right in what he said. You are wrong.

    You could say this about sports, doesn't mean they don't require teamwork. You're still relying on another person to get a job done. If on a given play in football, if everyone does their job (blocking assignments, snap, handoff, pass, pass route, etc) you will win. 

    Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
    Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
    Currently Playing: GW2

    Nytlok Sylas
    80 Sylvari Ranger

  • AdamantineAdamantine Member RarePosts: 4,848

    I would say the aggro mechanism tends towards repetitive gameplay. Because its always the same.

    A game in which every party member is forced to think on their feet how to avoid getting attacked or, if you're a tank, how to protect others from damage, by positioning and various abilities, is in my mind a lot more interesting than a game which just repeats the same mechanism over and over.

  • Ender4Ender4 Member UncommonPosts: 2,247

    You don't want to carry many people as nothing but DPS so the number needs to be small.

    EQ more or less nailed it which is why so many loved the game. You needed a puller, tank, crowd control, healer, DPS and debuffer. You could get away with only 4 of the 6 but since each class filled multiple roles it worked out fine with a 6 man gruop. Once you go over 6 you end up with too many players just coming along as DPS and nothing else. Make it much smaller and you have to build encounters that require every single role to accomplish.

    EQ also got it right that solo mobs should be difficult to solo and group mobs should be the same as solo mobs. GW2 is a classic example of how dungeons can be done completely wrong.

    I would also agree that combat should be made more dynamic than it is in most MMOPRG. Tanking should be applying your abilities to your allies to prevent damage, not about holding the top of the aggro list. Unfortunately these games are being dumbed down instead of improved which is why they are all so bad lately.

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by rojoArcueid

    Now, apply that same list to a different playstyle where tanking is not necessarily required to hold aggro then yeah, it would make the fight more active, dynamic, teamwork based, and just more fun.

    All the MMO where you take away the tank have far less teamwork. Games like Vindictus and all upcoming Korean action MMO like Black Desert without traditional trinity roles have no teamwork.

    What you're arguing is different from reality, action MMO without aggro have far less teamwork, not more.

    The group size is irrelevant in those MMO, since everyone is a DPS class dodging, bunny jumping and spamming attacks.

    Trinity combat is not teamwork. It is an algorithm. If everyone does their job i.e. tanks hold aggro, DPS overcomes enemy regeneration/heals and heal keeps your tanks up, you will win the encounter.

    There's hardly any cooperation between tank and DPS or DPS and heals for example.

     

    No. rojoArcueid is quite right in what he said. You are wrong.

    You could say this about sports, doesn't mean they don't require teamwork. You're still relying on another person to get a job done. If on a given play in football, if everyone does their job (blocking assignments, snap, handoff, pass, pass route, etc) you will win. 

    You cannot say this about all sports. And even in football, every play is not the same.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 19,911
    MMOS have gone so solo these days even 2+ would be a bonus. But it all depends on what the players are doing, problem is no matter what they are doing it can nearly always be done solo these days. How long before we get solo "raids"?
  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,238
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by rojoArcueid

    Now, apply that same list to a different playstyle where tanking is not necessarily required to hold aggro then yeah, it would make the fight more active, dynamic, teamwork based, and just more fun.

    All the MMO where you take away the tank have far less teamwork. Games like Vindictus and all upcoming Korean action MMO like Black Desert without traditional trinity roles have no teamwork.

    What you're arguing is different from reality, action MMO without aggro have far less teamwork, not more.

    The group size is irrelevant in those MMO, since everyone is a DPS class dodging, bunny jumping and spamming attacks.

    Trinity combat is not teamwork. It is an algorithm. If everyone does their job i.e. tanks hold aggro, DPS overcomes enemy regeneration/heals and heal keeps your tanks up, you will win the encounter.

    There's hardly any cooperation between tank and DPS or DPS and heals for example.

     

    No. rojoArcueid is quite right in what he said. You are wrong.

    You just said that you need each role of class, via Tank, DPS to win an encounter. They are essential parts for victory and yet you don't consider that team work? Really? It wouldn't be team work if there was no dependence on each other. You have a very distorted view on what a team is. 

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,238
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by rojoArcueid

    Now, apply that same list to a different playstyle where tanking is not necessarily required to hold aggro then yeah, it would make the fight more active, dynamic, teamwork based, and just more fun.

    All the MMO where you take away the tank have far less teamwork. Games like Vindictus and all upcoming Korean action MMO like Black Desert without traditional trinity roles have no teamwork.

    What you're arguing is different from reality, action MMO without aggro have far less teamwork, not more.

    The group size is irrelevant in those MMO, since everyone is a DPS class dodging, bunny jumping and spamming attacks.

    Trinity combat is not teamwork. It is an algorithm. If everyone does their job i.e. tanks hold aggro, DPS overcomes enemy regeneration/heals and heal keeps your tanks up, you will win the encounter.

    There's hardly any cooperation between tank and DPS or DPS and heals for example.

     

    No. rojoArcueid is quite right in what he said. You are wrong.

    You could say this about sports, doesn't mean they don't require teamwork. You're still relying on another person to get a job done. If on a given play in football, if everyone does their job (blocking assignments, snap, handoff, pass, pass route, etc) you will win. 

    You cannot say this about all sports. And even in football, every play is not the same.

    I don't think you're comprehending this at all. In the Football example, he was expressing that each role on  the team has an individual assignment that is complimentary for a team. Those roles are the same but how they perform those roles are different. Your argument is invalid. Try again.

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by Eronakis
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by rojoArcueid

    Now, apply that same list to a different playstyle where tanking is not necessarily required to hold aggro then yeah, it would make the fight more active, dynamic, teamwork based, and just more fun.

    All the MMO where you take away the tank have far less teamwork. Games like Vindictus and all upcoming Korean action MMO like Black Desert without traditional trinity roles have no teamwork.

    What you're arguing is different from reality, action MMO without aggro have far less teamwork, not more.

    The group size is irrelevant in those MMO, since everyone is a DPS class dodging, bunny jumping and spamming attacks.

    Trinity combat is not teamwork. It is an algorithm. If everyone does their job i.e. tanks hold aggro, DPS overcomes enemy regeneration/heals and heal keeps your tanks up, you will win the encounter.

    There's hardly any cooperation between tank and DPS or DPS and heals for example.

     

    No. rojoArcueid is quite right in what he said. You are wrong.

    You could say this about sports, doesn't mean they don't require teamwork. You're still relying on another person to get a job done. If on a given play in football, if everyone does their job (blocking assignments, snap, handoff, pass, pass route, etc) you will win. 

    You cannot say this about all sports. And even in football, every play is not the same.

    I don't think you're comprehending this at all. In the Football example, he was expressing that each role on  the team has an individual assignment that is complimentary for a team. Those roles are the same but how they perform those roles are different. Your argument is invalid. Try again.

    Each of those roles in trinity are essentially doing accomplishing their task solo. If there is any teamwork there, its between tanks, between DPS or between healers - hardly any between the roles.

    Why trinity even works so well is because it doesn't require much teamwork. No voice comms required.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505

    Personally, I'd like to see larger groups in MMOs.

     

    8-man groups, in my opinion, would be nice.  Gives lots of room for hybrid/support classes and leaves enough slots open to create variations in group composition.  Example group build:

     

    1 - Tank

    2 - Off-Tank (where has this role gone in MMOs these days?)

    3 - Healer

    4 - Crowd Control

    5 - Melee DPS/Control/Tank, if you will (could serve the control/tank roles as a secondary and supplementary role)

    6 - Ranged DPS/Control/Debuff (again, control secondary and supplementary)

    7 - Off-healer/DPS/Support (thinking classes like the Friar from DAoC bringing lots of utility to the group)

    8 - Personal taste/situational (depending upon the task at hand)

     

    This would have to be supplemented with a mob system that encouraged a sort of "organized chaos" where the tanks cannot just spam taunts back and forth.

    image
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by rojoArcueid

    Now, apply that same list to a different playstyle where tanking is not necessarily required to hold aggro then yeah, it would make the fight more active, dynamic, teamwork based, and just more fun.

    All the MMO where you take away the tank have far less teamwork. Games like Vindictus and all upcoming Korean action MMO like Black Desert without traditional trinity roles have no teamwork.

    What you're arguing is different from reality, action MMO without aggro have far less teamwork, not more.

    The group size is irrelevant in those MMO, since everyone is a DPS class dodging, bunny jumping and spamming attacks.

    Trinity combat is not teamwork. It is an algorithm. If everyone does their job i.e. tanks hold aggro, DPS overcomes enemy regeneration/heals and heal keeps your tanks up, you will win the encounter.

    There's hardly any cooperation between tank and DPS or DPS and heals for example.

     

    No. rojoArcueid is quite right in what he said. You are wrong.

    Woot, someone who gets it right.

    Ironic thing is that GW2 combat requires actual teamwork and cooperation, but they hate it lol

    trinity "works" BECAUSE it doesnt require teamwork and cooperation

    you can say that ESO and WS have limited requirement for teamwork and cooperation. "old school" ? lol no

    Group size? Group size should be limitless. Theres no reason why you should limit group size.

    Ideal group size? As many friends i WANT TO play with that are online.

    Its should be CONTENT that adapts to our group size, not the other way around, one more thing "old school" mmos did very badly

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,238
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Eronakis
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by rojoArcueid

    Now, apply that same list to a different playstyle where tanking is not necessarily required to hold aggro then yeah, it would make the fight more active, dynamic, teamwork based, and just more fun.

    All the MMO where you take away the tank have far less teamwork. Games like Vindictus and all upcoming Korean action MMO like Black Desert without traditional trinity roles have no teamwork.

    What you're arguing is different from reality, action MMO without aggro have far less teamwork, not more.

    The group size is irrelevant in those MMO, since everyone is a DPS class dodging, bunny jumping and spamming attacks.

    Trinity combat is not teamwork. It is an algorithm. If everyone does their job i.e. tanks hold aggro, DPS overcomes enemy regeneration/heals and heal keeps your tanks up, you will win the encounter.

    There's hardly any cooperation between tank and DPS or DPS and heals for example.

     

    No. rojoArcueid is quite right in what he said. You are wrong.

    You could say this about sports, doesn't mean they don't require teamwork. You're still relying on another person to get a job done. If on a given play in football, if everyone does their job (blocking assignments, snap, handoff, pass, pass route, etc) you will win. 

    You cannot say this about all sports. And even in football, every play is not the same.

    I don't think you're comprehending this at all. In the Football example, he was expressing that each role on  the team has an individual assignment that is complimentary for a team. Those roles are the same but how they perform those roles are different. Your argument is invalid. Try again.

    Each of those roles in trinity are essentially doing accomplishing their task solo. If there is any teamwork there, its between tanks, between DPS or between healers - hardly any between the roles.

    Why trinity even works so well is because it doesn't require much teamwork. No voice comms required.

    In the game of Basketball, each player performs individually but yet works as 1 unit. Same for the class roles you've described here. Using Voice coms is irrelevant for team work. It's just an added luxury instead of typing. Still your argument is invalid. I don't see how you can't see this? If you're dependent on something and it takes more than 1 person it's still a team effort, even if each person performs individually. 

  • CalmOceansCalmOceans Member UncommonPosts: 2,437
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Trinity combat is not teamwork. It is an algorithm. If everyone does their job i.e. tanks hold aggro, DPS overcomes enemy regeneration/heals and heal keeps your tanks up, you will win the encounter.

    There's hardly any cooperation between tank and DPS or DPS and heals for example.

     

    You've never played EQ I guess.

     

    -Clerics communicate with the tank to keep Divine intervention up

    -Healers communicate with the puller to know when it's safe to heal to avoid social aggro.

    -Druids  communicate with tanks to keep the temporary HP boosts like wild growth up

    -Bards communicate with DPS to launch Quicktime

    -Shamans communicate with DPS to launch epic

    -Rangers communicate with DPS to launch auspice

    -Rogues communicate to keep a pinpoint chain going

    -SK communicate with warriors when they need aggro multipliers

     

    You know nothing about trinity combat, you like action combat, so stick with that.

     

  • CalmOceansCalmOceans Member UncommonPosts: 2,437
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Why trinity even works so well is because it doesn't require much teamwork.

    'It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt'

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 9,770
    I have played MMOs that teams of 4 had great group dynamics and I have played MMOs that had team sizes twice as large and it felt disjointed. There is no magic number but I do think MMOs have turned to far from their roots when it comes to teaming. Getting to max level is mostly a solo game and then players are thrust into a teamed game and they wonder why people leave. Its like getting two games and you have to hope the new player will like both of them. MMOs need to foster teaming more from the start of the game and encourage people to start teaming right from level 1. Sure there should be a solo game but even that could give more rewards if you team. 
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 9,770
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Why trinity even works so well is because it doesn't require much teamwork.

    'It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt'

    Ya, twitch games have yet to show me more tactics then a trinity game. Most twitch games end up zergs and numbers win first over planing. 

  • mazutmazut Member UncommonPosts: 988
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Why trinity even works so well is because it doesn't require much teamwork.

    'It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt'

    Giving a 15 years old dead game as example doesn't make you look very intelligent. ;)

     

     

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Member RarePosts: 9,686

    Te ideal group size is.  ....6.....  And multitudes of that   12,24,36,48, 72. ... All depending on the content...  Where 72 would be a PvP thing only...  Like a legion consisting out of six squadrons of 12..   Needless to say that this makes groups of 6 fit for PvE content only...

     

    With even some PvE content for half groups of 3...

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,238
    Originally posted by mazut
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Why trinity even works so well is because it doesn't require much teamwork.

    'It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt'

    Giving a 15 years old dead game as example doesn't make you look very intelligent. ;)

    If it was a dead game there would be no one playing it... Everquest has great grouping dynamics. Someone who bases what is good or intelligent based off how new something is or old something is, isn't very intelligent either.

  • XatshXatsh Member RarePosts: 451
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

    Te ideal group size is.  ....6.....  And multitudes of that   12,24,36,48, 72. ... All depending on the content...  Where 72 would be a PvP thing only...  Like a legion consisting out of six squadrons of 12..   Needless to say that this makes groups of 6 fit for PvE content only...

     

    With even some PvE content for half groups of 3...

    I agree with this.

    6 allows for party diversity outside the strict trinity of DPS, Healer, Tank which in my opinion is a bad thing. With 6 you can have those support or CC/Debuff classes as well and it just adds more dept to the whole party combat scenerio.

    If you go less then 6 you almost always have to sacrafice the supporting roles.  You end up with DPS, DPS, Tank,Healer or DPS, Healer, Tank.

    As for large scale content multiples work well. Some low man content is also ok as long as developers do not go crazy with it.

    Focusing on <6 more times then not you have to throw out those 2 whole job types. Which is what nearly all new mmo have done recently.

    Trinity sucks... It always has. It should be more EQ, FFXI, Lineage has it right back in the day. Healer, Damage Dealer, Tank, Crowd Control, Support (Buff), Puller.

  • SiugSiug Member UncommonPosts: 1,257
    6 with a tank, healer, cc and dps. 4-man groups like in SWTOR and ESO are abysmal and just dev laziness.
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 7,387

    For me, anywhere between 2 and 8. Getting closer to 10 and more, it loses cohesion.

    This comes form my D&D days. My "usual group" consisted of 7 or 8 players. I played a couple of times in "massive" groups (15+) and the group became very unwieldy as everyone wanted to do different things to accomplish the same task differently, and most thought their way as best.

    I dislike raiding simply because there is too much going on for me to follow. Add in action combat and the experience is the furthest from "fun" for me as a game can get.

    The MMORPGs I've played that had their groups at 8 or under worked best for me and fit what I enjoy, groupwise (CoH, EQ, WoW).

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Member EpicPosts: 5,643
    For dungeons it's 6 man with one tank, one healer and 4 dps.  5 mans make the queue times too long due to too few tank/healers.
Sign In or Register to comment.