Trending Games | Landmark | Warhammer 40K: Eternal Crusade | Camelot Unchained | Elder Scrolls Online

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,919,516 Users Online:0
Games:760  Posts:6,309,887
Sony Online Entertainment | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Development  (est.rel 2014)  | Pub:Sony Online Entertainment
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Retail | Retail Price:n/a | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:n/a
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

EverQuest Next Forum » General Discussion » The case for the three man group experience as standard in EQN

6 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 » Search
101 posts found
  Wizardry

Elite Member

Joined: 8/27/04
Posts: 6988

Perhaps tomorrow will be better.

9/04/13 11:11:25 AM#21

I will try to make a point as to why the 6 man group has been a staple for a long time.

First off i believe in roles,they are more organized and this is a role playing genre so all makes sense.

With a basic Tank design "ROLE" yo ucan create tougher battles because the Tank can take the added dmg that others cannot.That added dmg also puts others at risk if the entire group does not play well.Healers over heal ,dps over nukes they steal hate and die.

Ok now onto the 6 man versus 3.

If you only have 3 therefor a tank healer and one dps that  pretty much means the mob is too easy,otherwise the fight would last too long with only 1 dps.So back to the challenging more difficult foe,with the Tank able to take high dmg and having more than 1 dps,perhaps 3 everything works in an orderly fashion.You have the challenging fight as well as enough dps to make sure it doesn't last 10 minutes for a simple mob.

I also did not touch on having SPECIFIC roles in a group such as buffers,debuffers and enfeebles.Now of course yo ucan give the Healer tons of abilities and spells but you can't overdo it or they run out of mp and that is another area that makes for challenging and good playing by monitoring your mp use.

I do not believe in going over board with all these RAID fights,they are not needed,you have every ROLE filled in a 6 man group,all you are doing after that is creating massive HP fights and tons of adds.Adds don't make fights more skillful,they simply create the need for more players,again not needed to attain the goal of creating a challenging fight.

Simply put 3 is not enough and  12+ is  not needed. to accomplish good combat.

 

 

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

  georgatos7

Novice Member

Joined: 11/15/12
Posts: 54

9/04/13 11:16:39 AM#22
Originally posted by Enrif

three sounds good for me for an adventuring group out in the wilds. 

six sounds good for a dungeon run.

nine/twelve/fifteen sounds good for real hard and complex content, like raids.

 

I can see how a 3 member group can work smoother then a 5 man group for your regular stuff. For dungeons you met another group, and like mentiont this can add new stuff to dungeons that you normaly only saw in big sized raids(splitting to do different tasks). 

 

I disagree with this static concept with a passion!

Content in a sandbox should not be based on static pre-made decisions. It should be a matter of being in the right place at the right time.

Of course knowing that a dungeon has hundereds of orcs and trying to confront them with a 3 man group should not work but also discovering a new dungeon shouldn't mean that it's not viable for a small group. So for example it might have some bigger threats that can crash a large group but a small group or an individual can just sneak by.

A sandbox means dynamic features and dynamic means that there is not knowing what might lie a few steps ahead.

  rungard

Novice Member

Joined: 7/25/03
Posts: 1037

The Sandbox Foundation does not exist!

 
OP  9/04/13 12:28:16 PM#23
Originally posted by georgatos7
Originally posted by Enrif

three sounds good for me for an adventuring group out in the wilds. 

six sounds good for a dungeon run.

nine/twelve/fifteen sounds good for real hard and complex content, like raids.

 

I can see how a 3 member group can work smoother then a 5 man group for your regular stuff. For dungeons you met another group, and like mentiont this can add new stuff to dungeons that you normaly only saw in big sized raids(splitting to do different tasks). 

 

I disagree with this static concept with a passion!

Content in a sandbox should not be based on static pre-made decisions. It should be a matter of being in the right place at the right time.

Of course knowing that a dungeon has hundereds of orcs and trying to confront them with a 3 man group should not work but also discovering a new dungeon shouldn't mean that it's not viable for a small group. So for example it might have some bigger threats that can crash a large group but a small group or an individual can just sneak by.

A sandbox means dynamic features and dynamic means that there is not knowing what might lie a few steps ahead.

I agree with some of that but if you think of a trio as a "unit" and that "units" can be added together for 6,9, or whatever. You might need 2 or 5 or 10 units for some content, but the unit is still the easiest to assemble easiest to manage and is more personal than a larger unit.

you have to have some assembly and I think that when you add in voice communication, ease of forming, shared roles and multiple roles per player the number three is the correct choice. That doesn't mean that you cant have 6 or 9 or 12. It means that the default fighting unit is three.

people like to solo for a reason. To reduce the variables like bad players, downtime and short play sessions. I think three is a decent compromise from 1 and 6 in a modern mmo. Remember anyone can do anything and its not unlikely that you will have to do everything in combat.

  Theocritus

Apprentice Member

Joined: 7/15/08
Posts: 3622

9/04/13 12:37:56 PM#24
Not going to happen...The reason why: They had grouping in EQ1....How'd that hold up?.....Oh yeah the players complained..... Now go play EQ1 in 2013 and see how many group.....Oh sure maybe by level 95 or so you might see one or two LFG but 98% of the game is soloed now......Even if EQN started off as a grouping game, SOE will immediately make it a solo friendly game to appease the masses.
  Markusrind

Apprentice Member

Joined: 7/22/13
Posts: 390

9/04/13 12:57:19 PM#25

If there is 1 mob you might be able to take then on alone...but they might be a tough mob so you might have to run away and bring a friend.

If there is a small group you might be able to take them all on alone...but they might fight well together so you might get lucky and get away and only return when you have brought a few friends.

That small group might have sent someone out to get help so that when you return with your friends they might be down 1 in numbers so will be easy to take out...or they might have had help arrive and are now a large group.

Essentially, while things are static and you can, through trial and error eventually overcome said static encounter, there will never really be that much excitement in any conflict.

So by introducing non static situations, nut just in where a fight takes place but also in numbers involved, motivations for fighting, varying tactics employed from running to getting help you can never have a static group membership. Well you can but that essentially means you are limiting your options.

 

I love comments made by Dave about needing a small army to attack the Orc stronghold or a large group to take on a dragon.

I also love the idea that you might not have the ideal group with you when you meet that Dragon.

 

The thing I really, really, really hope for most of all...is that a raid is actually a raid...and by that I mean that a raid is when the Orcs choose to invade your town/city or when the players or NPC's decide to go out and destroy the local Orc menace.

A raid should be a mass of people rampaging across land to meet up with another mass and for all out war to take place. Not some 4 hours a night "must have 2 tanks, 4 healers, 2 off tanks and the dest DPS lets get the boss down to 15% tonight people if everyone does their job right" kind of thing.

  grimfall

Novice Member

Joined: 4/25/07
Posts: 1159

9/04/13 1:32:56 PM#26
OP: 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

Grimfall: Why?

OP: 'Cause you're fuckin' fired!

  ignore_me

Apprentice Member

Joined: 7/04/11
Posts: 2034

9/04/13 2:19:47 PM#27
I could understand having some content for triads, but I really hope that 6 man groups have a place in EQN. It's much easier to get the wives to play when we need them to fill the group.

Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011

  EnScheff

Novice Member

Joined: 8/15/12
Posts: 9

9/04/13 2:32:45 PM#28

"Grouping" in GW2 is literally nothing more than 5 people soloing in the same area. The only dependence you have on your groupmate is when they revive you after you die from failing to dodge out of a red circle in time. It is extremely poor combat.

Maybe the bad design of GW2 combat has jaded me, but I don't think EQN combat will be muchg different. Sure, the mob will behave a little differently, but in the end it will still be 3/5/6/12/24/40 players taking care of themselves making sure they keep themselves alive.

Grouping in a game like EQ1 is fun because the whole group is more powerful than the sum of its parts. A tank or a healer or a DPSer or a CCer isn't powerful on their own, but the 4 together are VERY powerful.

This dependency on each other will be missing from EQN, and I think it's the most crucial aspect of group combat.

  rungard

Novice Member

Joined: 7/25/03
Posts: 1037

The Sandbox Foundation does not exist!

 
OP  9/04/13 5:58:00 PM#29
Originally posted by EnScheff

"Grouping" in GW2 is literally nothing more than 5 people soloing in the same area. The only dependence you have on your groupmate is when they revive you after you die from failing to dodge out of a red circle in time. It is extremely poor combat.

Maybe the bad design of GW2 combat has jaded me, but I don't think EQN combat will be muchg different. Sure, the mob will behave a little differently, but in the end it will still be 3/5/6/12/24/40 players taking care of themselves making sure they keep themselves alive.

Grouping in a game like EQ1 is fun because the whole group is more powerful than the sum of its parts. A tank or a healer or a DPSer or a CCer isn't powerful on their own, but the 4 together are VERY powerful.

This dependency on each other will be missing from EQN, and I think it's the most crucial aspect of group combat.

I partially agree with your GW2 assessment, but played right and specced right there was a group dynamic. The problem I found was that they pretty much had to make every mob a titan compared to the player and the best groups relied too heavily on extra effects from combining skills.  This is why I think if they go this route they need to reduce the group size so they don't have to do that to the extreme GW2 did. GW2 style is too difficult to manage in my opinion for many players, and made pickup groups totally useless.

I would like somewhere in between but what I don't want to see is hard timers (except global cooldown from any skill use). Everything should come from stamina/mana and you should be able to blow your wad if you choose. Rather than timers, penalties would be better. use a skill it turns yellow, you can use it again but it costs 1.5 times as much, and if you use it again while its yellow it turns red and costs 2 times as much. Its there in a pinch but it loses efficiency with use.

I think half the reason that GW2 combat turned a lot off is because of the timers.

 

  Allein

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/13
Posts: 1108

9/04/13 9:25:55 PM#30
Originally posted by rungard
Originally posted by Four0Six

I like bigger groups.

I also like defined roles.

Well defined rolls seems to be out the window so youll be in for a shock there. The "take care of yourself" mechanics doesn't work well when you scale up the groupsize.

How you interpret what they have said is very subjective as nothing is defined yet. Myself, I feel each class will still have a defined role. Instead of having a dps warrior build or a tanking warrior build, they will be different classes. There may be some overlap, but they will be unique overall.

"Take care of yourself" seems to mean that you can't just stand around and assume someone else will keep a mob off you or heal you while you spam dps. You'll have to be active and engaged in the fight. Not that you'll be able to dps, cc, heal, self-rez, tank, at once like GW2.

with a larger group youll end up with bosses that can kill you in 2 hits and have a million hp while you do 3 dmg per hit. It has to be this way because youll be having 6-8 times the dps of one player and thus the mob has to be stated accordingly to make it a fair fight.

It sounds like they are trying to get away from the uber named mob that takes an hour to kill aka a meat sack of a million hp. They have mentioned a few times of having encounters like the huge battles in LOTR. Hundreds of weak orcs and several much stronger ones mixed in. Not simply walking up to a big named mobs spawn and attacking. 

Its already been confirmed that there will be no dedicated healers or tanks in EQN so I believe they have to not make the mistake that GW2 made and reduce the groupsize to make the encounters more fun.

Again, this is my version, but I believe there will still be healers and tanks. Instead of a tank spamming taunt, they will be using defensive/cc abilities to control a mob an a healer will be doing more then just staring at health bars. No reason they can't have a cleric with a few healing/preventative abilities on their weapons that aren't useable by other classes.

I hope they have content for all group sizes, but want it to be semi-realistic. Since there are no levels or vertical progression, you'll never become god-like. Instead of hitting 100 times harder, you'll instead learn more interesting attacks. You can do okay with just punches, adding kicks makes you better, add in spinning jump kicks, then grappling, then....you are still as strong as before, you just have a larger arsenal. Without vertical progression, they have to be more creative then just simply adding hps and more damage to mobs, hopefully this is the whole "emergent AI" deal.

Going with the realistic, if you and 2 buddies roll up on Crushbone with hundreds/thousands of Orcs, you should only be able to pull a few from the entrance. Bring a few more friends and make it inside a bit. Bring an army and storm the place. By army, I mean hundreds, not some pre-determined 20/40 raid number that magically makes you able to handle the situation. Everyone is participates and pulls their own weight.

Along with this, no class should be able to solo large groups through kiting/aoeing like most games allow. Mobs shouldn't chase people in a circle until dots/aoe damage kills them, they should go "hey wait a second" and make a beeline to you or heal themselves or run away, or CC you, etc.

Overall, I like all group sizes and think limiting encounters to a set number is a bad idea. The better skilled players should be able to handle more/harder content, but not where they can replace 40 unskilled players. There needs to be a balance and some sense of a challenge.

I think that is really the devs challenge. How to have a game without vertical progression that doesn't solely rely on zerg combat. If 3 people can handle the fight, 6 will do even better, why not bring 6? Without a lot of instancing, I don't know how they will do this well. Unless they have a lot of midfight mob spawning. 10 people attack 5 Orcs and all of a sudden 10 more run out from the trees. Would be interesting. Or like some games, the more people, the less reward. So 20 attacking 1 would net nothing, everyone had one swing and didn't progress.

So many possibilities. But hopefully the game doesn't revolve around cut and dry mechanics.

 

  Aelious

Elite Member

Joined: 9/27/11
Posts: 2540

World > Quest Progression

9/05/13 5:53:34 AM#31
Originally posted by rungard
I mean in regards to the GW2 like combat which seems to be a feature of EQN.

 

A better comparison would be MOBA when talking about the class/combat features of EQN.  Dave personally went on Reddit when someone posted as much to confirm it.  This ties into what your original OP was about.  Each class can have a defined role it's just not nailed down to one role for the whole time you play that character...

 

Thank goodness!

 

I agree that a three man group could work very well since each will be DPS plus tank (control) type, healer type or support type.  With the combinations that are available you can go in with what works and if an encounter is difficult you'll probably end up with standard roles.  I think the comparison to GW2 is a stretch from the info we've been given.  Dave said they were working on something to better clarify but I think it's still in the oven .

  rungard

Novice Member

Joined: 7/25/03
Posts: 1037

The Sandbox Foundation does not exist!

 
OP  9/05/13 9:13:32 AM#32

also a three man unit does not prevent 6 or more players doing content. Its just organized around three to keep it simple and easy.

like above everyone does damage, and other roles as well, whether it be tanking, control, healing, support.

 

the key aspect is this:

when in an encounter of any kind there are expectations based on how the players set themselves up. If we use the 6 model and say we have a single mob, well that mob now has to have at least 6 times the armor, defence and offense of any singe player to account for the number of players the mob faces to make it a fair fight. At 6 times the output against one player armor will mean nothing.

no single player can stand up to anything with 6 times their raw power without specialized roles for tanking and healing, unless we split up the mob into 3 lesser ones or 6 player like ones.

when we move down to three though for our basic unit we see that this effect is a lot less as our single mob is tuned for 3 times a single player. Still more, but not a titan. Here our armor still means something and you can go toe to toe without a dedicated healer for a short duration.

in GW2 in dungeons it seemed more like you were chopping down trees than killing mobs. Something wasn't right about it. Even the trash were titans compared to a player. In many cases you were dead in 2 hits regardless of armor. I would prefer EQN not make that mistake.

I believe there is a fine line between fun and challenge, and in the age of soloing I think its time to meet players half way. People solo because there are too many problems with larger groups. Its not worth their time. To put the proverbial head in the sand and ignore the basic problems with large groups is neither innovative nor useful.

 

like everything else in eqn, I believe its time for change. As a note I believe that some testing of this magnitude was done by sony regarding three man content  in EQ2 and from what I hear it was a success though I would like to see something that was designed from the ground up with that in mind.

 

  User Deleted
9/05/13 9:27:15 AM#33

Supposedly the amount of people you would need would depend on what you are trying to do... so I'm not exactly sure there is going to be a "standard" in EQN.    Altho if you always attempt the same type of thing.. I guess you could create a standard.

 

Of course that's just based on some vague comment with an example of Crushbone.. that I saw in one video.    Where they said you won't go into a place like that with just a couple of friends...

  rungard

Novice Member

Joined: 7/25/03
Posts: 1037

The Sandbox Foundation does not exist!

 
OP  9/05/13 10:06:17 AM#34
Originally posted by Antarious

Supposedly the amount of people you would need would depend on what you are trying to do... so I'm not exactly sure there is going to be a "standard" in EQN.    Altho if you always attempt the same type of thing.. I guess you could create a standard.

 

Of course that's just based on some vague comment with an example of Crushbone.. that I saw in one video.    Where they said you won't go into a place like that with just a couple of friends...

I certainly agree with that but I also think that you do need a small fighting unit that makes sense so players can organize themselves.

im not saying that if you make the fighting unit 3 that everything will necessarily be made for three, but rather players would organize themselves in multiple of three, and the most basic multiperson adventures would begin with three, not 5 or 6 or 8. Remember than standard content for three, is challenging content for two and very challenging content for one.

I would hope that going into crushbone would require an army but getting them out of your house might not require that many.  

  

  Enrif

Novice Member

Joined: 8/06/13
Posts: 145

9/05/13 10:28:32 AM#35

3 is in fantasy setting always a magical number.

3 base armor classes: Heavy/Plate, Medium/Leather, Light/Cloth

3 base fighting styles: Melee, Ranged, Magic

3 base classes that appears in many games: Warrior, Rogue(mixed with ranger sometimes), Mage(mixed with priest sometimes)

3 base allaingments: good, neutral, evil

even the holy trinity of tank, heal, DPS!

 

  rungard

Novice Member

Joined: 7/25/03
Posts: 1037

The Sandbox Foundation does not exist!

 
OP  9/05/13 11:16:16 AM#36
Originally posted by Enrif

3 is in fantasy setting always a magical number.

3 base armor classes: Heavy/Plate, Medium/Leather, Light/Cloth

3 base fighting styles: Melee, Ranged, Magic

3 base classes that appears in many games: Warrior, Rogue(mixed with ranger sometimes), Mage(mixed with priest sometimes)

3 base allaingments: good, neutral, evil

even the holy trinity of tank, heal, DPS!

 

3 the number of minutes it takes to get your adventure going without having to use lame LFG cross server crap.

0 the number of dead weight players you need to tow across the game that contribute nothing but "dps".

 

 

  Nadia

Tipster

Joined: 7/26/03
Posts: 11780

9/05/13 11:19:55 AM#37
Originally posted by Enrif

three sounds good for me for an adventuring group out in the wilds. 

six sounds good for a dungeon run.

nine/twelve/fifteen sounds good for real hard and complex content, like raids.

 

I can see how a 3 member group can work smoother then a 5 man group for your regular stuff. For dungeons you met another group, and like mentiont this can add new stuff to dungeons that you normaly only saw in big sized raids(splitting to do different tasks). 

i agree w your commentary

 

I loved EQ1 groupsize of 6

GuildWars1 / COH had a group limit of 8

I never liked WOW group limit of 5  (in fairness, WOW had simpler roles than EQ)

 

the fact that EQN supports the combat skill slow

source, Pax prime http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/395373/Everquest-Next-PAX-personal-QA.html

makes me curious if slow will be essential for party combat

 

clarifier:

the original holy trinity was   Tank, Cleric  (rezzing priest), Enchanter (cc)

in vanilla EQ,  other healers, Druid / Shaman were not able to rez

  solarbear88

Novice Member

Joined: 12/12/10
Posts: 73

9/05/13 5:00:18 PM#38
Everyone says they want to group then they solo 99% of the time.
  rungard

Novice Member

Joined: 7/25/03
Posts: 1037

The Sandbox Foundation does not exist!

 
OP  9/05/13 5:10:53 PM#39
Originally posted by solarbear88
Everyone says they want to group then they solo 99% of the time.

Exactly. Its because something is wrong and no one can seem to admit it.

  Rydeson

Elite Member

Joined: 3/05/07
Posts: 3548

9/07/13 6:30:07 AM#40
Originally posted by Four0Six
Originally posted by georgatos7

The Trinity was created as an excuse for shallow and simplified game mechanics and bad enemy AI.

Its time to move forward.

Let it die already.

Who said "trinity"?

I actually prefer a bigger group with more than 3 defined roles........5, 6, or even 7 defined roles seems to be better to me than 3.

     Me too.. I loved fights that various players had to pay attention to the entire fight on who , or what was happening and when..  One my my most favorite fights in WoW for example was Moroes in Kara..  and I think if you really tweaked class roles you can make even more dynamic battles..

6 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 » Search