Trending Games | The Crew | Landmark | Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor | WildStar

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,850,620 Users Online:0
Games:732  Posts:6,223,953
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

General Discussion Forum » The Pub at MMORPG.COM » The perfect raid size? (Pve discussion)

3 Pages « 1 2 3 » Search
52 posts found
  Nikopol

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/08
Posts: 627

Brought to you by... The Spirit of Nikopol.

12/02/12 7:39:50 PM#21

60 or 80. No scaling.

Failing that, I'll make do with 40.

Something like 10 feels like a semi-crowded taxi cab. :)

  MMOman101

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/05/08
Posts: 1204

12/02/12 7:52:38 PM#22

3+ groups. 

The group size should be based on the game and how it plays.  I honestly think 6 person groups is the right size but a lot of games use 4 or 5.  A raid should consist of no less than 3 groups though.  2 groups is not a raid.

I like the idea of 6 person groups with 4 groups in a raid (24 total). 

Complexity and difficulty can be scaled for any number, but the more people you have the easier it is for others to pick up the slack.  Similarly, it can also be said that the more people you have the more easily it is to take an under skilled/geared/leveled/ect person. 

Game population and design should be what determine grouping size. I don’t think there is one perfect size, just general guidelines.   

  Loira

Novice Member

Joined: 2/15/07
Posts: 89

12/02/12 9:00:33 PM#23

I don't think the size is the real issue, I think how the content is balancedd is the real issue. 

Having played DAOC back in the day, we used to be able to but together 100+ people raids and as long as we had a couple of good balanced groups we were usually good to go on the content.

Having played WOW, no matter is it was the 40 man raid, 25 man, 20, or 10, group makeup across the entire raid mattered.  If the entire raid was not made up right, then you would likely fail.  This is especially true when developers design gimmick encounters that require one certain class/skill.

I think a better approach is to design encounters that have a minimum group size, but allowing people to substitude numbers for perfect raid balance will create an overall better experience.  Example:  Encounter is designed for 20 people in a balanced raid, but you have 30 and are heavy on DPS, and light on tanks.  You should still be able to do then encounter, provided you don't suck.

  DSWBeef

Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/09
Posts: 772

12/02/12 9:02:02 PM#24
Originally posted by Quirhid

Depends entirely on game mechanics and party dynamics.

Same as asking "How many players should be in a sports team?" -It depends on the sport.

Pretty much this.

Although im tired of raids to be honest. I prefer small group content which IMO feels more "heroic".

Playing: Archeage Alpha, World of Warcraft, and Diablo 3
Waiting on: Archeage, Everquest Next and The Black Desert

  Rydeson

Elite Member

Joined: 3/05/07
Posts: 3272

12/03/12 6:44:19 AM#25
Originally posted by Wolfenpride

I prefer no limits. Raids always become a bit exclusive of certain classes/builds when you limit the amount of people you can bring.

 

     I so agree with this.. Raids should be inclusive social events, as it was when I first played EQ.. I loved when our guild would raid, and there was no technical start or finish.. Everyone was welcome to raid and show up and leave at anytime and still earn "points" for rewards.. It didn't matter if you played a plate tank class, or dps, or heals, or any one fo the many hybrid classes.. It was the most fun I had with guilding..   But once tiering started with PoP, things just fell apart..

  zymurgeist

Advanced Member

Joined: 12/24/04
Posts: 5185

12/03/12 6:48:16 AM#26

About 100-150 per side and it has to be for real estate. And don't forget the lamentation of your women. Because you're all just mobs to me.

I miss Shadowbane............

"Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  User Deleted
12/03/12 6:49:24 AM#27

No limits, let players decide how they want to scale difficult versus reward.
(rolling against 39 people is way different than rolling against 9).

And it stops the themepark issue of TANK & Healer to DD ratio.
Got two active tanks in your friendlist? No issue, take both!

  Insane666

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/26/08
Posts: 66

12/03/12 7:01:59 AM#28

games should NOT limit the ammount of players you want to bring to a raid, but with that said games should have a diverse group of raids to choose from, wich should be designed for certain ammout of raiders, some for ~20, some for ~50,  and some for 100+ or even more,,,

 

diversity and no restrictions, thats how i like it

 

[edit] P.S.

and pls let it NOT be instanced, and while we're at it, no rezzing possible, you're dead you're out

Games previously played: AO, AoC, Aion, AoW, Eve, SWTor, WaR, STO, TSW, DCUO, FE, BP, ProjectEntropia, FootballSuperstars!

  Caliburn101

Novice Member

Joined: 3/30/11
Posts: 647

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

12/03/12 8:38:07 AM#29
Originally posted by Quirhid

Depends entirely on game mechanics and party dynamics.

Same as asking "How many players should be in a sports team?" -It depends on the sport.

Choose the raid size for your game first and then design around it.

The question here is implied but obvious to most - what is the ideal size for a raid based on the usual issues - at what level of participation do you get a raids challenges and 'feeling' balanced ideally against the increasing logistical demands of geting large groups together, running dkp tables etc. etc.

I voted 16 for the sweet spot in this case.

Of course - far better is a scaling system - either in predefined and instance entrance choosable groups - 12, 16, 20 or more finely scaling such as GW2... but with raid-style difficulty, not res-zerg mechanics like openworld GW2 bosses...

  Adamantine

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/07/08
Posts: 3316

War is not the ultima ratio, but the ultima irratio - Willy Brandt

12/03/12 9:35:48 AM#30

My internet connection says it doesnt like raids above about 24 people.

But thats my internet connection, not me.

 

  Axehandle

Novice Member

Joined: 12/02/12
Posts: 157

 
OP  12/03/12 1:31:18 PM#31
Originally posted by zymurgeist

About 100-150 per side and it has to be for real estate. And don't forget the lamentation of your women. Because you're all just mobs to me.

I miss Shadowbane............

While 100+ raiders taking on a boss would be a truely epic feeling the odds of all the raiders being able to sustain that amount of people at one time on their computers is highly unlikely. I had a custom rig when I played wrath and wintergrasp when lots of players were in 1 area would slow me down to a crawl on fps. The game engine would have to accommodate for such a huge raid and all raiders would have to own a high end gaming system to play it.

Express your opinion

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/371172/Poll-Most-hated-MMORPG.html

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 19506

12/03/12 2:43:02 PM#32

100 is for big battles, not dungeon adventures. I will take 5-10.

It does not feel heroic, or whatever i do matter, if i am one of the 100 to fight a boss. i would much rather be the boss.

  Wizardry

Elite Member

Joined: 8/27/04
Posts: 6675

Perhaps tomorrow will be better.

12/03/12 3:53:45 PM#33

There is NO raid size needed....period.There is nothing yo ucannot do with a 6 player group that needs a raid.Tehre is a reason 6 has been proven a good normal grouping size,it is because it works for every aspect.

You can have the choice of a Tank or 2,a couple DPS,a healer or 2,then some kind of buffer/debuffer variable class.Among the 6 a very stringent boss might need a specific class and with the 6 m,an groupo ,there is still room to operate with 2 of them,no more should be needed.

IMO Raiding has totally ruined Boss fights and people do not even understand why,which si sad.

It ruins it because by having TOO "many of" they would ruin the complexity of a fight.Example if a Boss was susceptible to STUNS,you could simply add 10 stuns into a Raid and make the fight super easy.So what has happened is devs have completely removed all FUN abilites from major boss fights.So now every ability or spell you got that is cool the Boss is immune to it,and that is NOT good gaming or design.

Now Bosses are immune to sleep,immune to stuns,immune to certain powerful attacks,immune to slow,immune to paralyze,immune to gravity,immune to many things.It has got even worse,players would line up behind a boss to avoid damage and allow ONLY a tank to take it,but devs have even removed that by creating massive AOE attacks.It all ends up with Raid fights being TOO simplistic in nature,ONE idea works and players try unti lthey find that oen formula,then everyone copies it.

With only 6 man groups you can make more immersive fights and allow for more versatility in a fight,instead of searching for that one formula that works.

I also do not like the idea of having 5+ tanks as back up and 5+ healers to ensure tons of easy mode healing,in essencee hate is easily shared.Possibly 5 crowd control classes or more,it all gets too ridiculous with Raid size groups.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Napolianboo#p/u/15/rCYLLQCNc1w
Samoan Diamond

  L0C0Man

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/30/09
Posts: 919

12/03/12 4:01:49 PM#34
I voted 15 (3 groups of 5), mainly because back when I played WoW (very casual raiding), 10 people usually meant we had to leave some people out, but when we did try to go to 25 people it was a logistics nightmare, we spent more time trying to get everyone invited, sorted in the right groups, summoned, and buffed (including giving them food for some extra buffs) than actually trying to do the raid.

What can men do against such reckless hate?

  Rydeson

Elite Member

Joined: 3/05/07
Posts: 3272

12/03/12 5:48:58 PM#35
Originally posted by L0C0Man
I voted 15 (3 groups of 5), mainly because back when I played WoW (very casual raiding), 10 people usually meant we had to leave some people out, but when we did try to go to 25 people it was a logistics nightmare, we spent more time trying to get everyone invited, sorted in the right groups, summoned, and buffed (including giving them food for some extra buffs) than actually trying to do the raid.

reason why it was a logicstics nightmare (which I agree they were) is because those raids were exclusive raids.. This mean syou have to have certain roles and make up to raid..  This is why I prefer just having open end raids.. As long as you have a meat shield, healers and dps.. I'ts all good..

 

  Axehandle

Novice Member

Joined: 12/02/12
Posts: 157

 
OP  12/04/12 10:40:20 AM#36
Originally posted by Rydeson
Originally posted by L0C0Man
I voted 15 (3 groups of 5), mainly because back when I played WoW (very casual raiding), 10 people usually meant we had to leave some people out, but when we did try to go to 25 people it was a logistics nightmare, we spent more time trying to get everyone invited, sorted in the right groups, summoned, and buffed (including giving them food for some extra buffs) than actually trying to do the raid.

reason why it was a logicstics nightmare (which I agree they were) is because those raids were exclusive raids.. This mean syou have to have certain roles and make up to raid..  This is why I prefer just having open end raids.. As long as you have a meat shield, healers and dps.. I'ts all good..

 

Well that's the nature of the beast so long as we have the trinity system. In fact I like clear defined roles so I'm on board with that system. However, I see where it would frustrate some gamers because of its restrictions.

Express your opinion

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/371172/Poll-Most-hated-MMORPG.html

  dave6660

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/26/08
Posts: 2338

"Next time I see you, remind me not to talk to you."

12/04/12 2:46:17 PM#37

I'm comfortable at around 6.022 * 10^23 players (give or take a few).

In all seriousness... I don't raid anymore.  40 man raids were a good size if your guild can deal with the logistics of it.  I've been in fleets in Eve of upward of 100 players, that really feels epic.

 

"Why so serious?"
-- The Joker

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 19506

12/04/12 5:07:43 PM#38
Originally posted by Rydeson
Originally posted by L0C0Man
I voted 15 (3 groups of 5), mainly because back when I played WoW (very casual raiding), 10 people usually meant we had to leave some people out, but when we did try to go to 25 people it was a logistics nightmare, we spent more time trying to get everyone invited, sorted in the right groups, summoned, and buffed (including giving them food for some extra buffs) than actually trying to do the raid.

reason why it was a logicstics nightmare (which I agree they were) is because those raids were exclusive raids.. This mean syou have to have certain roles and make up to raid..  This is why I prefer just having open end raids.. As long as you have a meat shield, healers and dps.. I'ts all good..

 

LFR solves the logistic problem.

But still 25 man is not that fun when you have to coordinate 25 people on what to do. IT also does not feel heoric when 25 guys are beating up on a poor monster.

something like 5 is more manageable.

  User Deleted
12/04/12 5:10:35 PM#39
I voted 10, but I think the ideal is twice whatever the normal group size for that game is.  
  Robokapp

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4589

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

12/04/12 5:10:50 PM#40

perfect raid size: MASSIVE.

 

If Eve can have 500 players shooting a POS, another MMo can have 500 players shooting a dragon.

3 Pages « 1 2 3 » Search