A short search regarding this didn't pop anything, however I may have simply overlooked the correct terminology - if so, then apologies...
There was a while in EQ2 where some emphasis was placed on group leadership abilities. To mo, this seemed like a great idea. However looking in to it I decided it wasn't implemented as well as it could have been. It seemed to be pretty much focused on Tanks and the bonuses they got were great for them but not so much for anyone else. To that end, I was wondering if we could have a discussion on roles played within the group setting.
Why is there this perception that the Tank is the group leader? What is the role of the group leader?
What other group roles are there? Puller, looter, crowd control, healer, tank, lore master, etc. let's identify these roles, how important each role is, and what benefit each of these roles should get in a group setting.
For instance: Crowd Control - While it goes without saying that an Enchanter is the king of this position, there will be times when one simply cannot be found. There many ways of performing this task other than mezzes. Roots are just as effective and even more so in some cases. What other CC methods are out there? Mezzes, stuns, roots, snares, Feigning (hey, believe it or not, this works), and my all time favorite - Diplomacy. Are there others? I like the idea of giving a spell to high level wizards that would force an enemy to quest on behalf of the wizard. Let's say our wizard is in a group and the Enchanter is lying on floor in a fetal position for some reason or another. The wizard notices that the group is involved with two mobs and it looks sketchy as to the outcome. So the wizzy casts COMPEL on one of the targets and the target dissapears. He is off on a quest for the wizard. In this case his quest length is determined by the wizard - here he talls the orc to fetch me some food. The mob pops out and after a specific amount of time (plus or minus variables) he comes back with level appropriate food and drink. Or let's say he is a fire goblin and the wizard needs some fire rubies for crafting. He gets to select the quest the mob goes on. Depending on the quest, that is how much time the mob is gone. When he comes back he is agro again and cannot be sent out on a quest. Make it so there is only one quest at a time for the wizard, and give some veriable time limits based on quest type. Food? 30 seconds. Crafting suppliues? 20 minutes. etc. Point here is that a wizzie should have options too.
As for the Infrastructure part, we award grouping abilities based on previous performance. For instance, after 1000 group mezzes the Enchanter should get +x% to mezzing while grouped. Monks could get +x% to feign chance based on the munber of previous group feigns performed. Give tanks a taunt bonus. And so on.
Let's give some group awards/abilities to groupers.
When a game is entirely built upon grouping, awarding people for doing something they are required to do anyway seems weird. Everyone would just end up with all of these bonuses and then they wouldn't really be bonuses.
I wouldn't mind finding new fun ways to handle CC, but the scenario you laid out seems a bit much. It also seems like it could be exploited.
As for roles, I think the tank is often seems as the "leader" mostly because it is usually the tank that would call out his intended target. Tanks will tend to swap targets a lot if there is little or no CC. So having them direct the group on where to focus their attention is critical. If you bounce from target to target following the tank he might easily lose aggro. In that sense the tank is the natural choice. This isn't the rule of course, more the norm.
I believe a better solution for grouping boons would be through the use of "combos" within the group. Several games have done this, but they have all seemed rather gimmicky and end up not being used much. LOTRO is one I can think of right off the top of my head. Their system looks good on paper but in practice was cumbersome and, in my experience, seldom used to any great effect. That said I do believe that this type of system has merit if done correctly. I would love to see abilities spread across classes that built upon one another. Like rogues getting a bonus to crit or hit when their target is stunned, but the rogue itself doesn't have any abilities that stun. Then say they group with a Paladin who is using a shield. Using a skill like Bash that stuns the target could open the chance for the rogue to time his backstab (or whatever) in that instant to get a nice bonus to damage. That backstab in turn could cause a bleed. The monk being the master of the physical form could exploit the bleed which would give a bonus to his palm strike (maybe?) as he targets the bleeding wound. This could cascade around the group almost endlessly, rewarding not just the fact that someone grouped with another person, which should be a given in this game, and instead reward them for grouping WELL with others. Reward cooperation. I'd rather see that than a "participation trophy" approach to grouping bonuses. Reward skill and competency of your class rather than just showing up to the fight.
Nephretiti said:There was a while in EQ2 where some emphasis was placed on group leadership abilities. To mo, this seemed like a great idea. However looking in to it I decided it wasn't implemented as well as it could have been. It seemed to be pretty much focused on Tanks and the bonuses they got were great for them but not so much for anyone else. To that end, I was wondering if we could have a discussion on roles played within the group setting.
As for the Infrastructure part, we award grouping abilities based on previous performance. For instance, after 1000 group mezzes the Enchanter should get +x% to mezzing while grouped. Monks could get +x% to feign chance based on the munber of previous group feigns performed. Give tanks a taunt bonus. And so on.
Let's give some group awards/abilities to groupers.
Can you imagine the fights people will have over who gets to be group leader, especially if those abilities are in any way seen as advantageous to the player? Everyone will want to be group leader.
Your infrastructure part, although interesting, would quickly force the developers to create more and more difficult content because a significant subset of the playerbase (the really hardcore players who will put in hundreds of hours a month playing) will have +X% reaching god-like levels. This will do nothing but punish the casual player. Remember, whatever abilities you hand out will have an effect on future gameplay otherwise it becomes too easy. 1000 group mezzes? what if that only took you a week to get? Think about how many times a cleric casts a heal in an adventuring situation. What about the Shaman buffing/debuffing. They could sit around, grouped with an alt, buffing that alt and that would count. Easily exploitable all of it.
Kilsin said:Moved to "General Pantheon" as posting in "News and Announcements" is for VR Staff only.
I did? How the heck did that happen? Oddly enough while I was thinking of a snarky way to blame Kilsin I came up with a great Enchanter spell: MindTrap. Place it out in front of the group and if a mob passes through - instant mezz.
Vandraad said:Nephretiti said:There was a while in EQ2 where some emphasis was placed on group leadership abilities. To mo, this seemed like a great idea. However looking in to it I decided it wasn't implemented as well as it could have been. It seemed to be pretty much focused on Tanks and the bonuses they got were great for them but not so much for anyone else. To that end, I was wondering if we could have a discussion on roles played within the group setting.
As for the Infrastructure part, we award grouping abilities based on previous performance. For instance, after 1000 group mezzes the Enchanter should get +x% to mezzing while grouped. Monks could get +x% to feign chance based on the munber of previous group feigns performed. Give tanks a taunt bonus. And so on.
Let's give some group awards/abilities to groupers.
Can you imagine the fights people will have over who gets to be group leader, especially if those abilities are in any way seen as advantageous to the player? Everyone will want to be group leader.
Your infrastructure part, although interesting, would quickly force the developers to create more and more difficult content because a significant subset of the playerbase (the really hardcore players who will put in hundreds of hours a month playing) will have +X% reaching god-like levels. This will do nothing but punish the casual player. Remember, whatever abilities you hand out will have an effect on future gameplay otherwise it becomes too easy. 1000 group mezzes? what if that only took you a week to get? Think about how many times a cleric casts a heal in an adventuring situation. What about the Shaman buffing/debuffing. They could sit around, grouped with an alt, buffing that alt and that would count. Easily exploitable all of it.
If your fighting over who gets to be leader then you fail to realize that there are other options you would be missing. If you are the leader then you cant be X. You will never develop group abilities for the other group positions etc. And what makes you think there would be an unlimited bonus? I would never do that. There would HAVE to be a limit. So let's say it DOES take a week to get 1000 group mezzes to get your first bonus of say .5%. Next time it might take 5000 mezzes to get .025%. These numbers are not set - they are surely just "for instance" guess at the moment. I am sure a decent effort/reward would have to be investigated.
Nephretiti said:Kilsin said:Moved to "General Pantheon" as posting in "News and Announcements" is for VR Staff only.
I did? How the heck did that happen? Oddly enough while I was thinking of a snarky way to blame Kilsin I came up with a great Enchanter spell: MindTrap. Place it out in front of the group and if a mob passes through - instant mezz.
Haha, I love it! :D
I am not sure we don't have several unrelated ideas in this thread.
One is giving bonuses for being group leader or doing other things in a group. Since grouping will be "normal" and solo play will be Hobbsian - nasty, brutal and short - or was that a mean dwarf I can't remember - I don't really see a need to give bonuses for it.
On the other hand, giving bonuses based on use of an ability isn't necessarily a bad idea as long as there are reasonable caps so that all but the most casual player has a chance to reach them in time. It is entirely logical that how often you successfully use a skill has more to do with how good you are at it than how many orcs you kill and what level you climb to over the bodies of these poor much maligned beings.