Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Changing Group Dynamics (poll)
Eronakis
Member UncommonPosts: 2,249
I am one of the loud posters on here who really enjoys MMORPG's more when there is group content. Everquest had the best group content I have experienced, however, it was forced. In order to progress you had to journey in the world to with a full group of people. When you hit end game you had to raid with a monumental amount of players for raids. I enjoyed this at the time and I found it built a good community. However, the days of Everquest are old but we still need something in this genre that can capture the spirit of grouping but yet not allow it to be a burden like it was in Everquest. (waiting hours for LFG or making groupings).
Right now grouping is consisted of completing dungeons or raids. Hardly anyone groups out in the world for PVE gameplay. I would like to change that. There are a lot of variables that needs to be considered when changing group dynamics. The world, combat mechanics, classes, roles, mob interaction, pathing, ect. What I want to focus on is the number of players that would be associated to a group.
I propose a different way of thinking to approach grouping and changing their dynamics and what we think of grouping all together. In this proposal I am just focusing on PVE group content for the world (wilderness).
The Setting - The Wilderness
Imagine when you trek out into the wilderness it's a dangerous place. There are NPC communities, encampments, scouting regiments, patrols, dangerous wildlife, bandits ect. An average adventurer would dare not go alone in the world unless he's/she's brave and confident enough in his own skill to attempt.
Grouping Functionality
My proposal for grouping functionality is no longer the tank and aggro stratagem but rather every class has their own individual responsibility in a group. Realistically if there are 5 on 5, each person will fight one other and once one is down they will help another in need. This means that all melee classes are "tanks" and hold "aggro" off casters and healers. They're sort of like your 'front line' if you will. Naturally in some cases it would be melee vs. melee and caster vs caster. There will be other variables to break up that gameplay method and allow players to be more strategic of who takes on what.
Adaptable combat mechanics will allow players to have multiple paths of victory in which will be essential for fun gameplay. The idea of this alternate route of grouping functionality is to have one group work as one cohesive unit against another NPC group but have their own responsibility within the fight.
In this proposal I am not talking about zerging either because AI will be slightly more intelligent than your average two step 'if then' statements. The adaptable combat mechanics will allow the player semi-lock on to that target.
I also want to mention that I am very much in favor of diverse selection of roles within class design as well. With my below example it doesn't diminish that.
Number of players equal more or less challenge
The number of how many players per group is subjective in a sense but it really boils down to the type of core gameplay you want to present to the player. I think a good max number of players for a full group should be 6.
Now that I have established the setting of the world a player would more than likely need to depend on others for survival out in the wilderness. This example doesn't include dungeons.
Each zone in the world should have it's own dedicated challenges, cultures and NPC behaviors. There could be a large scale of different challenges and cultures per zone as well.
I think a good way to incorporate group dynamics in today's MMORPG world is to scale the challenge of gameplay. The more players you have in your group out in the Wilderness, the more it may make the challenge more 'luxurious'. What I mean is that there will be more classes to offer beneficial skills/spells and more utility to use against other group of mobs. Instead of adding more challenge with adding more players for Wilderness PVE gameplay, you're more or less putting your self on the same level as the group of NPCs. Kind of evening out the playing field. This will give an incentive to group more.
This way when players want to go out and adventure in the Wilderness with 2-3 players the challenge becomes greater because you lack that extra healing or utility you may need. Could 2-3 players survive out in the Wilderness against a group of NPCs? That depends on the player skill.
By allowing the player to choose their group dynamics in this proposal to adventure out in the Wilderness will negate needing certain classes to survive out in the world. Your support/healing classes will more or less be a very high end luxurious item in the group, but it may not be needed.
I hope I conveyed this as clear as possible. I did leave it on the surface. Please vote and let me know what you think.
Comments
1 one 1 is a pretty natural main combat model if you run a classless game. The real problem comes when you get weaker characters like mages who can't hold themselves in melee.
I think it would work just fine if you get the system right, I do think though that you need to be very limiting on magic users. Classes like bladedancers who fight with the aid of magic works tough. Healing also needs to be pretty restrictive, maybe you should go for a historical setting rather than a fantasy one?
As for tanking I suggest you just make it very painful to withdraw from amelee combat once it is initialized. Ask any SCA re-enactor, disengaging is risky at best.
But I do like how you think, to actually make it into a working system will take some trial and error though. It is pretty different from any teampark games I seen while most sandbox games gets a bit too chaoticwhich you also need to avoid.
But make it right and I would easily play it.
Thanks! Glad you like it! The blue I highlighted is such a good way to negate a zerg or anything like that. That is a good idea! Like if you disengage you're more twice as prone for more damage done to you. Unless there is a special skill of course.
Well in my designs, I do have a balance of melee and casters/support/healers. I think balancing between those archetypes for this group dynamic proposal will be crucial.
It's just a different design element on the trinity. The Trinity survives on tanking and aggro. When you broaden that spectrum of gameplay then you have grouping dynamics that I have suggested in the OP. I really do like the trinity gameplay but it needs to change.
not really interested in group dynamics .. plus this does not look fun and convenient.
Agreed. And on top of the wasted time, you also face the issue that what you can do in game is highly dependent on other people.
For example: I used to play Vanguard at its launch, and I was excited about exploring all those "dungeons" and areas with elite mobs in them (and finishing those quests there). Boy was that one huge disappointment when it turned out no players wanted to do them.
Instead everyone always did the same areas. Everyone flocked to the same popular dungeon that was good for farming, and then moved on to the next one in line. No one cared about exploring, they only gave a damn about the most xp per hour.
It's why I'm convinced that most of those people who talk about wanting a vast open world to explore wouldn't even bother to explore that world if the devs simply gave them one room with a red button to push over and over for xp.
All that griping about themeparks being too "linear" and yet when it comes down to it, they play a sandbox game the same way: move from dungeon/area A to dungeon/area D, skip B and C because they aren't so farmable, and then go from D to H because everything in between isn't "worth" bothering with. Rinse and repeat on each character they make.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
Ok..Here goes !!
I really hate all this talk about forced grouping, I highly DOUBT that the majority of EverQuests players had to wait for long for a Group because the players had friends and guilds that stood ready most of the time and if you didn't ..well then you didn't play EverQuest...Simple ..right
Sure the players who belonged in this category and yet still wanted to play EQ had to solve it by either PUG or trying to become friends with other players or try to lure RL friends to play the game..Whats really wrong with that ? Still this Group was the minority of players that actually played EQ.
I agree that an MMO can be so much more than just a Group of players combating monsters and that there should be LOTS of activities that doesn't require 4-5 extra players to do so, but an MMO should IMO ALWAYS be a social experience first .
If the talk about forced grouping is going to continue , I will start to say that ...todays games has forced soloing, yes you heard me
I know I know ..I can Always Group up !! but If you look at the games today they are 80% solo and 20 % Group activities ; If you Group up to all these quests that are balanced towards 1 player you will get a seriously trvialised game and gameplay. The game will become so boring that all you have to do is run , click , run..
1 solotion is to make it like you say based on number of players the zones alter in difficulty, but I Think since it hasn't been done Before it's very difficult to get right or impossible with todays standards regarding MMO's atleast. or very cost ineffective ?
From my perspective ..the Trinity, or It doesn't have to be the well known 3 It can be more, it's still the best way of doing things in a Group in MMO's, It's very basic and may seem simple and all that, but It can also be very tough and strategic based on a number of things, mainly how the developers form their game.
What Publishers and developers has to be aware of is that ..there will be no more MEGA successes like WoW or maybe there will one day but please stop dreaming and start to make games for the diffrent player Groups that are out there now.
TIME is the issue !! Yeah it really is. we all want to play but can't because of TIME, so we play games that let's us have fun for 30 min-to an hour, thats also fine..but develop these games for this categorie of players and leave the players with much time to some other game..do NOT make a Product that tries to pleas everyone , because it doesnt WORK, plain and simple because there will Always be one Group or Another that get's the short end of the stick in this + it COSTs HUGE amount of Money to develop a jack of all gamers kind of game and only the biggest companies can even try such an endeavour , Like EA or Blizzard and now Zenimax with ESO
Yes we know, you don't like or not interested in grouping but yet you still post about it. Wanting your post count to go up?
no different than others posting stuff they do not like.
Try posting a topic about world pvp, and see how many say they don't want that .. or perma death.
plus, i know you know that i don't like grouping, and yet you still post about it .. so what you are doing is really not that different from mine.
Groups come from any player who is wanting to group. In Everquest forced grouping was based off the challenge that the world presented and needing certain roles in group to perform. Also you had to have a full group of 6 players to be most efficient. You couldn't go camp named mobs without a tank, healer or slower. Long duration times for waiting for a group are because of those aspects. That dynamic of gameplay must also change to complement what I have proposed in the OP. Go re-read the OP, I have expressed some elements that would allow more of an open invitation to group.
With the OP example, it limits the need for a full group, the need for certain roles in the group to progress. Each role brings a different utility to the table to make it more efficient to take down other NPC groups. Like I have expressed in the OP, a group of 2-3 players could just be as efficient but their challenge is scaled differently.
Not really no. I post threads/posts with substance and a thought process behind them. I may regurgitate the topic about grouping but at least I'm tackling a different avenue about it. I don't go to every thread and rehash the same point like you do. "I'm not interested in grouping, it's not fun or convenient." That's all you really say. That's what you said here. So no, we're not doing the same thing.
Of course it takes time to play games. We should know ahead of time what time we have to offer to dedicated to that game. I am not implying that mmos > real life. Not even close. But I do agree that a good 1-2 hours of game time should be efficient enough to feel like you've accomplished something. I think there should be incentives to group but not force the number of players to group. If you've read the OP, I said I was in favor of class roles but thinking outside of the box for this type of gameplay to coexist. With grouping comes with a better community.
And by the way, periods and commas are your friend
lol .. as if this post of your is of "substance". There is no such thing here .. is just opinions and forum pvp.
1-2 hours? Try 15 min.
You really lack reading comprehension and the point I was trying to convey. Please stop trolling. Other posters would agree that this is all you do.
Mmorpgs are not for you. It's that easy. Stop derailing the thread.
I think combat models where every person in a group is accountable actually does more to hurt rather than help the group dynamic. A lot of the most social players I meet in MMOs tend not be all that strong of players, but I don't mind carrying them if they are fun to be around. GW2 annoyed me for example in this regard, if a mob targeted one of the weaker members of my group there wasn't much I could do to keep them from getting downed. I could get them up after they had been downed, but they would just get downed again and eventually would die instantly. I dislike this, as I am there to play with my friends and wish to help and support them. I'm somewhat confused if this is the model you are suggesting as you mention that a battle would be 5 on 5 with each person attacking a monster, but then you state that all melee players would be tanks?
I also don't quite understand your section about group challenge. You state that you think that the challenge should scale by the number of people, but it seems to me what you are suggesting is no scaling at all? If you design an encounter to be completed with 6 average players and also with a static reward that would be based on the assumption that it would be split 6 ways, then if you attempt that encounter with 2 or 3 players you would already have a tougher challenge but also higher rewards (provided you are good enough to defeat it). This seems to be basically how EQ was designed, mobs have a static difficulty and reward regardless of how many people you have attacking it, which is why soloing or duoing was so lucrative if you could pull it off with a decent kill speed.
Only the ancient ones .. many of the modern ones are very convenient. Otherwise, why would even be here?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I'm not entirely certain that you've proposed anything concerning groups. There's a lot of talk about group dynamics, but no details. There's a fairly large discussion about how mobs move about in groups, but nothing about players. There's a lot of talk about 5 on 5 with everyone essentially taking care of themselves. Are you suggesting that every character needs to be able to succeed in a 1-on-1 situation, each player doing their own tanking, DPS, healing, crowd control, etc.? It sounds like another situation where every character does every thing. That kind of system isn't to my liking, as it undermines class and skill specialization.
There are specific problems with groups. There is the need to find a number of players with the requisite skills. It is really no fun to sit for hours trying to find a tank or a healer that will keep your group alive. Groups are highly dependent on where the population is, if the population isn't in the same area (zone), it becomes incredibly difficult to build a functional group. Recruits have to travel, don't know the way, disconnect when changing zones, or simply don't want to move. When EQ1:Droga (35-40 version) first opened, I tried making groups for that place... but everyone preferred to solo in Overthere. Healers and tanks were especially scarce. So, a wizard (evac), ranger (DPS), enchanter (CC) and monk (puller) sat there waiting for a tank and cleric.
If you are planning to have classes with specializations, what happens when the classes don't compliment each other? For instance, 4 rangers, a magician and an enchanter? Can this group function against the content, or does an attempt for these 6 people end with people going in different directions? Even if this group is functional, is that a quirk of the local world design, does the group composition restrict the available adventuring places or is that group only capable of operating against trivial opponents?
I agree with many of your ideas about how the content should operate -- different tactics, group sizes, combat strategies. I don't see that anything in the original post that really addresses the player group, or the inherent problems of grouping. As for voting, I didn't see anything concerning groups. Maybe you have some ideas in your head, but they didn't come across in this post.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
What about time? Players who need to pull from the group because of real life concerns? These players won't play the game because it's not flexible enough for them. Find for players who's time is all their own during gaming but for players who have to drop everything at a moments notice because of kids, elderly parents, on call, has to respond to a spouse when needed, etc.
I can't remember how many times I've heard something like, "I really got to go in a few guys, sorry."
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Can you then explain who you believe MMORPGs are for?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
A lot of fun players have indeed been less skilled than the average players. My guild recruit them and train them instead, it is frankly not that hard if you have a bit of patient.
I am more worried about the supporting players, if they just work as they do in most MMOs we will just have different tanking mechanic where 1 player block a mob each. That would work fine in massive combat but suck in a 5 or 6 man group.
The mechanics seems better for a game with knights or landsknechts then a fantasy game with a cleric, a mage, a thief and some warriors/rangers/pallys.
I think the challenge could easy be set by spawning the same number of mobs as the group, you could already do this in Biowares Neverwinter night 15 years ago so it is easy and would keep the combat balanced no matter if you have 3 or 12 players in your group.
I do think OP is onto something here but it would work far better in a historical or at least low fantasy setting (like Game of thrones, not much healers or mages there). Unless he use a very smart AI and have the mobs also use support and protecting them with the warriors. But I could still see many ways that would mess up combat.