xtnpd said:I've always felt 4 was to small, but 8 might be too big. Seems like 5-6 should hit the spot nicely.
I've always felt that when raids get overly big, there's a ton of dead weight that get pulled along with the train. 10-20 seems about right for me there. Big, but structured.
Ive read that this is a game that will be mostly about group content, and I'm glad for that. Some of the best moments I can remember from MMOs came from being in a group: the times when it all looked lost, but all the members pulled out all the class tricks, blew all their cool-downs, and played together as a true team and beat what every last one of us thought was a no-win situation. I live for going in a dungeon just a bit too far, pushing the mana/health bars to the bottom, squeaking through and laughing about it later. I rarely feel that way when raiding in large groups; I like to watch the individual team members shine, not the raid zerg en masse.
I agree on the group size. 5-6 seems good/works. 4 you cant get enough awesome stuff (trinity + cc doesn't leave room for anything cool like a bard or a porter or some 'utility/hybrid' types)
8 feels too big to me.. could be fun though if all 8 people were trying and on the same page. It's hard enough for 5-6 people to pay attention together in an informal non-guild non-raid setting 8 might be too much to feel like a tight-knit group still.
25-30+ on the raids tho IMO. Just too awesome to not have 'em that large. Maybe some 'epic quest mobs' could be droppable with like 10 or 15 though.
kinidin said:xtnpd said:I've always felt 4 was to small, but 8 might be too big. Seems like 5-6 should hit the spot nicely.
I've always felt that when raids get overly big, there's a ton of dead weight that get pulled along with the train. 10-20 seems about right for me there. Big, but structured.
Ive read that this is a game that will be mostly about group content, and I'm glad for that. Some of the best moments I can remember from MMOs came from being in a group: the times when it all looked lost, but all the members pulled out all the class tricks, blew all their cool-downs, and played together as a true team and beat what every last one of us thought was a no-win situation. I live for going in a dungeon just a bit too far, pushing the mana/health bars to the bottom, squeaking through and laughing about it later. I rarely feel that way when raiding in large groups; I like to watch the individual team members shine, not the raid zerg en masse.
I agree on the group size. 5-6 seems good/works. 4 you cant get enough awesome stuff (trinity + cc doesn't leave room for anything cool like a bard or a porter or some 'utility/hybrid' types)
8 feels too big to me.. could be fun though if all 8 people were trying and on the same page. It's hard enough for 5-6 people to pay attention together in an informal non-guild non-raid setting 8 might be too much to feel like a tight-knit group still.
25-30+ on the raids tho IMO. Just too awesome to not have 'em that large. Maybe some 'epic quest mobs' could be droppable with like 10 or 15 though.
6 for groups, but encounters themselves should not be constrained. You MUST have 18 or fewer people for this mob and you MUST have 36 or fewer people for this mob seems highly artificial and also flies in the face of ROTF being a highly social game. This should be a game of freedom, not rails.
CC being needed is mostly dependant upon the content unless you're just overgeared then it isn't as needed.
I'm down with 6 person groups and 54 to 72 player raids.
I would be entertained with a group size larger than 6, but content is going to revolve around standardized group size and can you readily always get, say, 8 people lined up? I dunno.
Krixus said:6 for groups, but encounters themselves should not be constrained. You MUST have 18 or fewer people for this mob and you MUST have 36 or fewer people for this mob seems highly artificial and also flies in the face of ROTF being a highly social game. This should be a game of freedom, not rails.
I might not have said it in those words but thats exactly how I think of it also. By 'droppable' with 10 to 15 maybe that meant 8 studs could do it or 20 strangers could do it. Depends on skill/lvls/gear/numbers if you can kill it. Same as EQ.
kinidin said:Krixus said:6 for groups, but encounters themselves should not be constrained. You MUST have 18 or fewer people for this mob and you MUST have 36 or fewer people for this mob seems highly artificial and also flies in the face of ROTF being a highly social game. This should be a game of freedom, not rails.
I might not have said it in those words but thats exactly how I think of it also. By 'droppable' with 10 to 15 maybe that meant 8 studs could do it or 20 strangers could do it. Depends on skill/lvls/gear/numbers if you can kill it. Same as EQ.
To me this kind of thing falls in the same bucket as being able to attack the banker or priest of discord or kill guards. There aren't barriers between players and the world, if they can do it, they can do it.
Sometimes this leads to 75 level 16 necros taking down sand giants with life draw and the devs having to swing the nerf bat, but I'd rather that have to happen than to have game rules that dictate how we are supposed to handle encounters.
I like there to be "tuning" to a specific group size. Like say group content is optimized around 6, but a skilled (and geared) group can start moving at 4 but it'll be slow and they'll have to be extra careful (low margin of error). Adding a 5th reduces down-time or alleviates some pressure on tank/healer/cc. Adding 6th puts you in the sweet spot of risk/reward/downtime. Adding a 7th increases margin of error and allows for maybe tackling that named/mini-boss, and hitting 8 really just opens up all options with low downtime, low risk, good kill, and full group xp bonus, but now loot is split 8 ways instead of 6. Encourage full groups, but allow the game to function without "full groups".
Krixus said:There aren't barriers between players and the world, if they can do it, they can do it.
Sometimes this leads to 75 level 16 necros taking down sand giants with life draw and the devs having to swing the nerf bat, but I'd rather that have to happen than to have game rules that dictate how we are supposed to handle encounters.
This is a critical concept that developers need to take to heart. Put in the content and make all efforts to design it well adding those aspects which make us want to consume the content....then step back and let us apply our given skills and abilities to the content. Now if we do find an actual bug that can be exploited then yes please fix it, but if, as you say, 75 lvl 16 necros decided to try and kill a sand giant just to see if they can....let them do it. So long as they 'follow the rules' do not alter the content.
I posted in the last thread for 6, and I still prefer that number based on past experiences.
-It allows for more flexibility of compostion than the smaller groups. In Eq2 we could take more than one tank or healer and still be a viable group. We wouldn't have to tell a friend "sorry we already have a healer."
-I feel more than 6 people is too much (crowded) socially. It starts to cross the threashold where either there are too many people talking at once, or the group reverts to listening to just a leader talk. Think of 6 people talking at a table in a party versus 8. I use voice communication while gaming, so this may not apply as much to text based groups.
I really liked the 6 man groups in Everquest too. That said, there were times when we had an extra person or two around and we ended up forming mini-raids. For that reason, having the option to have larger groups might be nice. Of course, I suppose if there were 8-man groups, the same thing could happen where you've got a group of 8, and then there's an extra person or two who might want to join in and there's no space.
In that regard, designing content for groups of 5 or 6, but allowing up to 8 might actually be a nice mechanic. At that point, if you have more than 8 you could just split into 2 groups that would each be essentially 'full'. I guess the only concern at that point would be if having the potential for 8-man groups triviallized content that was designed around a group strength of 5-6.
I strongly agree with Krixus' views on not constructing artificial barriers to play. This sort of ties in to a separate debate on the amount of sand-box vs theme-park people want to see in the game.
Maybe I'm missing something but when you all say you prefer a group size of this or that, what are you basing this on?
I too enjoyed EQ and the group size was very fitting for that gameplay. If Pantheon has a group size of 8 then the gameplay is likely to be setup for it. I just don't see how we can argue(discuss with lack of facts) or theorycraft without knowing what we're up against.
Hi Warlored!
This is all just discussion based off of what's stated in the faq right now. The way I read it, they're considering a group size of somewhere between 6 and 8, I don't think anything's even close to set in stone at this point. Maybe it's something the Devs plan to flesh out in alpha/beta. I was just trying to figure out what the pros and cons of an 8-man group might be. And I was curious if any existing games had group sizes that went that high, as I've never played one.
Here's the link to the faq. Sorry, I should have included it in the initial post!
How big are groups in Pantheon?
Elrandir said:Hi Warlored!
This is all just discussion based off of what's stated in the faq right now. The way I read it, they're considering a group size of somewhere between 6 and 8, I don't think anything's even close to set in stone at this point. Maybe it's something the Devs plan to flesh out in alpha/beta. I was just trying to figure out what the pros and cons of an 8-man group might be. And I was curious if any existing games had group sizes that went that high, as I've never played one.
I understand that and I previously read the faq. Due to a lot of missing information I just don't see how you can adjust pros/cons toward anything. It's all up in the air at this point. I too have never played a game with any group size over 6 BUT I have never played a game that is going beyond the holy trinity and making support/cc it's own role.
I understand it's all a guessing game, but strongly feel the appropriate number for a group will be largely dependant on the game itself.
In previous games you sacrificed DPS or that cc/support role. Perhaps in Pantheon you NEED that CC/support AND extra DPS. I don't know??
Thanks for replying.
Ah, I understand what you mean now. And I agree, I'm probably coming at this from a biased (possibly very incorrectly biased, at that) point of view that Pantheon's gameplay will be something very similar to early Everquest. That may not be the case at all.
Six feels just right. I feel like anything more is too much. More people = more problems imo. More chances for people to go afk and hold up the group, more chances for people to not get along, more time spent trying to fill the group for tough content requiring a full group, etc.
Warlored said:
I understand that and I previously read the faq. Due to a lot of missing information I just don't see how you can adjust pros/cons toward anything. It's all up in the air at this point. I too have never played a game with any group size over 6 BUT I have never played a game that is going beyond the holy trinity and making support/cc it's own role.
I understand it's all a guessing game, but strongly feel the appropriate number for a group will be largely dependant on the game itself.
In previous games you sacrificed DPS or that cc/support role. Perhaps in Pantheon you NEED that CC/support AND extra DPS. I don't know??
Thanks for replying.
The Trinity was Tank, Healer and CC. However Brad and others have said in Pod casts and forum posts, that they are going for a quadinity system needing, Tank, Healer, CC & Dps. I believe the trinity only became Tank, healer and Dps in Warcraft and beyond. But from all current accounts (subject to change being prealpha) we will need one of each of the four roles minimum, for a true quadinity system to work.
Kellie said:Warlored said:
I understand that and I previously read the faq. Due to a lot of missing information I just don't see how you can adjust pros/cons toward anything. It's all up in the air at this point. I too have never played a game with any group size over 6 BUT I have never played a game that is going beyond the holy trinity and making support/cc it's own role.
I understand it's all a guessing game, but strongly feel the appropriate number for a group will be largely dependant on the game itself.
In previous games you sacrificed DPS or that cc/support role. Perhaps in Pantheon you NEED that CC/support AND extra DPS. I don't know??
Thanks for replying.
The Trinity was Tank, Healer and CC. However Brad and others have said in Pod casts and forum posts, that they are going for a quadinity system needing, Tank, Healer, CC & Dps. I believe the trinity only became Tank, healer and Dps in Warcraft and beyond. But from all current accounts (subject to change being prealpha) we will need one of each of the four roles minimum, for a true quadinity system to work.
Where does it say anywhere the "Trinity was Tank, Healer and CC"? It has always been Tank Healer and DPS. CC/support was always just an addition. The QUadtrinity is to give CC/Support predominate classes their own spot in a group comp. I have never seen this concept, in every game a support role had to fit within a trinity role or took up the spot of something else.
Warlored said:Kellie said:Warlored said:
I understand that and I previously read the faq. Due to a lot of missing information I just don't see how you can adjust pros/cons toward anything. It's all up in the air at this point. I too have never played a game with any group size over 6 BUT I have never played a game that is going beyond the holy trinity and making support/cc it's own role.
I understand it's all a guessing game, but strongly feel the appropriate number for a group will be largely dependant on the game itself.
In previous games you sacrificed DPS or that cc/support role. Perhaps in Pantheon you NEED that CC/support AND extra DPS. I don't know??
Thanks for replying.
The Trinity was Tank, Healer and CC. However Brad and others have said in Pod casts and forum posts, that they are going for a quadinity system needing, Tank, Healer, CC & Dps. I believe the trinity only became Tank, healer and Dps in Warcraft and beyond. But from all current accounts (subject to change being prealpha) we will need one of each of the four roles minimum, for a true quadinity system to work.
Where does it say anywhere the "Trinity was Tank, Healer and CC"? It has always been Tank Healer and DPS. CC/support was always just an addition. The QUadtrinity is to give CC/Support predominate classes their own spot in a group comp. I have never seen this concept, in every game a support role had to fit within a trinity role or took up the spot of something else.
From my first day ever in EQ the trinity was Tank Healer and CC (or slower if you had ghetto CC like a rooting druid)
having those 3 roles covered meant you could do just about any content in game. throw in a puller and DPS which was a dime a dozen and you had the perfect group. It wasnt until like others have stated that DPS became part of the trinity because most games removed or nerfed CC (Usually because it was to strong in PvP). I am still hoping that the Quadrinity refers to Tank Heal CC Utility (Puller buffer debuffer etc etc)
Amen!
From my first day ever in EQ the trinity was Tank Healer and CC (or slower if you had ghetto CC like a rooting druid)
having those 3 roles covered meant you could do just about any content in game. throw in a puller and DPS which was a dime a dozen and you had the perfect group. It wasnt until like others have stated that DPS became part of the trinity because most games removed or nerfed CC (Usually because it was to strong in PvP). I am still hoping that the Quadrinity refers to Tank Heal CC Utility (Puller buffer debuffer etc etc)
And this is why I can't stomach PvP in MMORPG games. PvP "balancing" killed the CC role PvE. I love me some CC, man. when CC has an integral role, everyone in the group has a duty and needs to keep their head on a swivel. I fing it a much more challenging combat style - certainly a better grouping dynamic.
Warlored said:That's interesting. I was taught DPS was part of the trinity. Doing some searching on the net and it seems some say its tank, healer, cc and other dps. I guess the holy trinity is subjective.
Used to be tank, heals, CC, other. Back in the days when we walked up hill, both ways to school. And we liked it. As a group, you’d encounter groups of hostiles, and you’d split them up because the baddies were just too damn tough to fight more than one at a time. The trick back then was to find a spot with the perfect balance of mob availability, split-ability, and kill-ability. Once you found the perfect spot, the carnage continued at a steady pull damn near forever. But everyone had a job to do, and everyone did it. The tank tanked, the healer healed, the CC kept the additional baddie(s) under control, and the puller pulled/split if needed.
Then games started morphing to the fast-paced zerg-fests that are the majority of today’s games. I watched WoW turn from an almost EQ-like game back in the “vanilla” days to the sickening parody of that game it is today. Waaay back in WoW’s history, CC was needed. Mobs were tough, and groups that didn’t use their CC abilities, and work together as a team wiped. And they wiped a LOT. And then they learned how to play the game. Then something changed -- the mobs that once wiped the floor with players grew soft. CC came to be skill almost never used. Mages pulled 2 “sets” of mobs in dungeons and expected to live. “Speed runs” became a thing. It’s a vastly different world in today’s MMORPGs.
The chess-like planning of mob splitting, pulling, and CC is now replaced with the speed run. I’m not saying it’s better or worse, but it’s a very different game these days. IMHO skill and group play has given way to over-powered characters and sloppy mechanics, but that’s just my opinion.
Within the context of Everquest, the original "Trinity" was Tank/Healer/CC. The term "Holy Trinity" was actually a reference to three specific classes: Warrior, Cleric and Enchanter. As Sevens pointed out, once you had those three bases covered the rest of the group was just dps 'filler.' In that regard, the "Quaternity" system that Pantheon is going for is much like the original EQ Trinity system, the dps role has just been included now. That's the main reason why I've been assuming Pantheon combat will be a lot like early Everquest. That said, Pantheon is now incorporating new systems like environments and the perception system, so that may well have been a bad assumption on my part. It's very possible that the new systems may dictate a change in desired group size. Until Brad and Co. are able to start showing game-play videos, or until alpha/beta begins, it's all just going to be speculation.
In many (most?) other games Trinity refered to tank/healer/dps. So all the confusion in that regard is understandable.