BIOWARE ALWAYS MAKES THE SAME GAME, WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THIS?!
Geeze....
SWTOR isn't a game for you that you will enjoy, why can't you see this and accept it?!
Geez.
Originally posted by Adamantine
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
It's easier and more flexible to form a group of 3-4 then forming groups of 5-6, that's also something to consider.
Keep in mind, the classes will be less strict trinity and more capable of multi-role functionality than in other MMO's.
I am deeply confused about your definition of "flexible".
A 6 man group can be 1 tank 1 healer 4 dds. Or it can be 1 tank 2 healers 3 dds. Or it can be 2 tank 2 healers 2 dds - low dps, but crazy good survivability.
In fact, it can also have 5 man groups if you cant find a 6th player, so that would be 1 tank 1 healer 3 dds, or 1 tank 2 healers 2 dds.
Also 4 man (1 tank 1 healer 2 dds) or 3 man (1 tank 1 healer 1 dd) is possible.
A 4 man group can be ... 1 tank 1 healer 2 dds. There is not much derivation from this possible. So there is MUCH less flexibility.
It seems your mind is stuck in only able to imagine hardcore trinity team setups, MMO's have been able to provide team setups and team combats outside of 'hard trinity', in fact GW2 will even be using a completely non-trinity setup. So no, groups aren't forced to use hard trinity in group setups, and MMO's in the past 10 years have already shown that it's possible.
Here's what I mean with more flexibility:
- to form a group of 4 players is faster and easier than to form a group of 5 or 6 players
- they already mentioned that 'soft trinity' groups or however you want to call it are possible and workable, so you can have a team without a pure healer or pure tank and still do group encounters, it would be more challenging but it would be doable.
Combine this with the current build that you can bring along a healer or tank companion when you're with 3 and you can't find another player, and those elements taken together lead to a more flexible way ot team forming than is common in MMO's.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
No. It's a healer, tank, dps dps and since everyone has a out of combat self heal and rez ability then whats the point of an extra dps, heal or off tank.
Classes and trinity have the advantage that ppl can pick right from the start which role they want to play and what will be expected of them. I'm sure even GW2 will have some roles to fill even if they arent holy trinity. There will surely be some "LF this and that build/skill" etc even in that game. If not, is it fun to just run around and do your thing with no role to fill? Will ppl feel less special? =P Just of the top of my head.
I cant help but feel that only 4 people per party is too small.
That means 25% of all people MUST play tank, and another 25% of all people MUST play healer.
A larger group size is more natural (why would anyone restrict themselves from forming a temporary alliance with more than 3 other people ?) and of course would open more tactical possibilities.
So a 6 or 8 or 10 or even 12 people party would be perfectly fine, in my opinion.
I also dont buy the "buy everything has to be rebalanced" argument.
In the trinity, if a party can kill a mob depends upon
1. The tank survives the damage
2. The healer can heal it away
3. The group finishes the mob before the healer runs OOM, the tank dies and then the party wipes.
So if you have more players, you can already fix 90% of the problems with just adding more hitpoints. Damage doesnt need to be increased. If your healers have group heals, most likely neither does area damage.
I think they would be better off with allowing Companion Characters and scaling Instances for Full Groups to a max of 8...I totally agree 4 is too small when you take Companion Characters into consideration...If it was 4 WITH CC's then I think it would be OK...But 4 max? That's too small IMHO...
The 4 base classes / faction support it and I think smaller groups are also simply better to get social interaction out of people.
Interpersonal communication gets jammed when you pack a lot of random people together: any more than 3-4 and you get a lot of people who are left out of the communication while a couple are doing all the talking.
You can simply observe this when sitting together around a campfire: either a couple of people are talking and the rest is shutting up, or small groups form to talk to each other. Big groups don't allow people to communicate at the same time, it gets too confusing and you get in each others way.
6+ is way too much.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
playing jedi in this game wont be like being a jedi in kotor. because some dude with a blaster and trooper armour will be just as tough just as powerful and probably more deadly than you in pvp because he has a long range gun he has auto target and auto hit, he can shoot on the move without having to aim.. where as a jedi in this game has to chace the target down and get to melee distance before landing attacks that count. sure forces powers would work but the range will be toss compaired to a blaster rifle.
it really isnt hard to work out why they have opted for smaller groups
If you realized this, then I'm sure the devs have aswell and are balancing accordingly....
edit: also agree with poster above. a group of 4 could possibly be better for socializing and goes well with the 4 class/faction setup.
4 person groups does seem rather small for a dungeon. It's possible Bioware is sticking to this size because their content designers are so used to working with parties of 3 (Mass Effect) or 4 (Dragon Age) in their single player games.
I would prefer dungeon encounters to be designed for 5-6 players in a group. This way a really well coordinated 4 man group could complete the encounter.
Wait. There are operations (raids) that let you play with more than 4 people?
CRISIS AVERTED!
Haha! So apt.
I am also happy about it because smaller groups are just more fun, more focussed. I remember all the 3-man dungeons I did in LOTRO and it had a much different and better feel than the usual tired formula of 5-6 people trudging through a dungeon only half paying attention.
Wait. There are operations (raids) that let you play with more than 4 people?
CRISIS AVERTED!
Haha! So apt.
I am also happy about it because smaller groups are just more fun, more focussed. I remember all the 3-man dungeons I did in LOTRO and it had a much different and better feel than the usual tired formula of 5-6 people trudging through a dungeon only half paying attention.
I think I tend to agree with you Vonatar. With the exception of RVR in WAR and DAOC I prefer smaller groups. In this game in particular I am already in a guild but will most often be teaming up with my son and brother. If we can;t find a 4th we will only have to pull in 1 companion character.
Obvsiously we will not know exactly how well balanced it is for different party mixes until launch but I think 4 should be a great number.
Don`t forget the companions. They are proberably taking them into consideration, and as there are healer and tank companions it isn`t as much of an issue.
And we all know how well BioWare progams companion AI. LOL.
I envision me as a DPS being joined by my AI/companion tank, healer, and 2nd DPS:
1) Tank gets stuck behind a rock and is unable to grab aggro
2) Healer ends up walking the wrong direction and goes 3 miles around the corridor before turning back
3) The other DPS charges straight into a firestorm and burns to a crisp
Me, as the main DPS, now have to do everything while cursing under my breath, just like in Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect, Baldurs Gate, etc.
I just hope these "companions" don't become loot ninjas when the loot drops: "Companion tank rolls need on agility dagger. Companion tank rolls 99. Companion tank wins agility dagger. Companion tank has left your party"
LOL
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
Don`t forget the companions. They are proberably taking them into consideration, and as there are healer and tank companions it isn`t as much of an issue.
And we all know how well BioWare progams companion AI. LOL.
I envision me as a DPS being joined by my AI/companion tank, healer, and 2nd DPS:
1) Tank gets stuck behind a rock and is unable to grab aggro
2) Healer ends up walking the wrong direction and goes 3 miles around the corridor before turning back
3) The other DPS charges straight into a firestorm and burns to a crisp
Me, as the main DPS, now have to do everything while cursing under my breath, just like in Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect, Baldurs Gate, etc.
I just hope these "companions" don't become loot ninjas when the loot drops: "Companion tank rolls need on agility dagger. Companion tank rolls 99. Companion tank wins agility dagger. Companion tank has left your party"
LOL
wait what? lol i'm going with your joking, at least i hope you are :P
If by some strange reason your not.
you can only have 1 companion out at a time, plus companions can't loot gear let alone roll on it and if they can loot gear it will be you telling them to do it.
I will state i don't think your serious on this but i'd figure i'd throw those out there just in the case that you are serious.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Don`t forget the companions. They are proberably taking them into consideration, and as there are healer and tank companions it isn`t as much of an issue.
And we all know how well BioWare progams companion AI. LOL.
I envision me as a DPS being joined by my AI/companion tank, healer, and 2nd DPS:
1) Tank gets stuck behind a rock and is unable to grab aggro
2) Healer ends up walking the wrong direction and goes 3 miles around the corridor before turning back
3) The other DPS charges straight into a firestorm and burns to a crisp
Me, as the main DPS, now have to do everything while cursing under my breath, just like in Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect, Baldurs Gate, etc.
I just hope these "companions" don't become loot ninjas when the loot drops: "Companion tank rolls need on agility dagger. Companion tank rolls 99. Companion tank wins agility dagger. Companion tank has left your party"
LOL
"Fools! Did you actually believe I wanted to help the Republic!? HA! I was it in just for the agility dagger, which I will sell on the auction house for SEVEN GOLDEN STARCOINS!"
For me, I'd rather see instances scale. Go in with 1, 4, 6, 11, etc. Solo it, group it, as you see fit.
No, I don't think 4 is too small in the least. I'm tired of dungeon design that requires a tank/healer/dps trinity. I want to see dungeons that 4 dpsers or 4 healers or 4 tanks or any combo can viably do.
I will toss my hat into the ring here and agree with posters that content NEEDS to start responding to the number of party members entering the quest and not be static.
This is NOT new tech it has been around since Everquest and maybe before ? There should be some cap on party size to be sure, large party size for Raid content and say up to 12 for non-raid party Questing ..
It would be cool to have Quests modify depending on party make up .. with any party able to complete the quest but possibly miss some Content with a narrow focus group. A well balanced party would be able to FIND more things to do and explore in a Quest instance then a Narrow focus group would .. BOTH would be able to complete the quest and no Penalty would be given to the Narrow focus party but they would be missing out on some of the content by the lack of abilitys the Diverse Group brought to the table.
To get to the orginal Posters question of is 4 enough in a party ? I would say that it depends on what the class make up is like in the game .. if your able to have say DPS Nuke with heals >>? Dps Fighter with Tanking ? Rogue with Heals ? Cleric type with DPS ? It all depends on if that 4 person party is able to function as well as the old standard of 6 peeps in a party.
There are times I feel the 6 person party is too small .. we have 8 friends that would all like to join in on the Quest but saddly only 6 can .. 2 are left out always or rotated into the party on a second run thru. That is why I vote with the larger single Party and have the Dungeon / Quest Instance/ event Scale and modify with the size and Make up of the party ...
Heavy Fighter base >? Mobs get more agility and hit points do more damage maybe ... wizzy heavy party ? mobs get some more range ability and spell resistance, Rogue heavy and the traps get harder and more frequent ... more locked chests or secret entrances to find ... The game has to be a challenge to be fun ... just some thoughts there.
It could be done .. though I would not want to be the one trying to code and balance that.
I would however LOVE to play in a game where that all happens.
Look to the stars to know HE is with us. HE hung them as markers, of times and of seasons.
One of the biggest attractions of an MMO is that I get to play with my friends and make new ones. Now, with groups of only 4 people I will not be able to play with my friends at the same time. There are six of us "RL" friends if you will, that will be playing from launch. I find it very frustrating if two of us are going to be left out of the main content becasue the group is only 4 people. Now we can join up later and play the bigger "raid" type instances but the whole point is to go through the game together. Now some might argue that you can sit in vent together and its the same thing, but it would simply be like playing Black Ops in different games but sitting in party chat. Where is the fun in that, you want to be able to play with the one your talking to so that you can all experiance the game together.
Now you might say that I am compariing apples to oranges here but hang with me, When Battlefield bad company came out, me and my friends were right there to pick it up and we all hopped online and tried to start a squad with the whole group, but alas we could not because we had more than 4. This was so frustrating that we ended up not playing simply because we could not play together. That is the point of a multiplayer game.
I would rather see group sizes of 6, like vanguard, but then have some negatives to it, like reduced xp or somthing, but at least give us the oppertunity to group with our friends so we can enjoy the whole game not just some raid type instances.
One of the biggest attractions of an MMO is that I get to play with my friends and make new ones. Now, with groups of only 4 people I will not be able to play with my friends at the same time. There are six of us "RL" friends if you will, that will be playing from launch. I find it very frustrating if two of us are going to be left out of the main content becasue the group is only 4 people. Now we can join up later and play the bigger "raid" type instances but the whole point is to go through the game together. Now some might argue that you can sit in vent together and its the same thing, but it would simply be like playing Black Ops in different games but sitting in party chat. Where is the fun in that, you want to be able to play with the one your talking to so that you can all experiance the game together.
Now you might say that I am compariing apples to oranges here but hang with me, When Battlefield bad company came out, me and my friends were right there to pick it up and we all hopped online and tried to start a squad with the whole group, but alas we could not because we had more than 4. This was so frustrating that we ended up not playing simply because we could not play together. That is the point of a multiplayer game.
I would rather see group sizes of 6, like vanguard, but then have some negatives to it, like reduced xp or somthing, but at least give us the oppertunity to group with our friends so we can enjoy the whole game not just some raid type instances.
6 is easy 3 and 3 with one companion. You can swap around who is in each group.
Are you guys telling me that you can go on to a Flashpoint without a tank? Without a healer? No, you can't. So unless companions are good enough to fill those roles, having groups of 4 will only make wait times worse, because then you need a healer and tank for every 2 DPS, instead of 3 DPS.
Now some might argue that you can sit in vent together and its the same thing, but it would simply be like playing Black Ops in different games but sitting in party chat. Where is the fun in that, you want to be able to play with the one your talking to so that you can all experiance the game together.
But that way you can embelish how well you are actually doing: "Dude, you should have seen that 360 double headshot. Man, I just called in the dogs for the second time this match! Another kill cam: AWESEOME!!! MVP once again!"
LOL.
Maybe BioWare, being the kings of the nerds, couldn't imagine a scenario where anybody actually had more than 3 friends. Maybe they should implement different servers:
1) "Normal" Server (aka Galaxy o' Nerds) where nobody has more than 3 friends
2) "Cool" Server where you can have parties of up to 20 of your closest friends. Also all the characters say "Righteous!" after a hard kill
LOL
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
One of the biggest attractions of an MMO is that I get to play with my friends and make new ones. Now, with groups of only 4 people I will not be able to play with my friends at the same time. There are six of us "RL" friends if you will, that will be playing from launch. I find it very frustrating if two of us are going to be left out of the main content becasue the group is only 4 people. Now we can join up later and play the bigger "raid" type instances but the whole point is to go through the game together. Now some might argue that you can sit in vent together and its the same thing, but it would simply be like playing Black Ops in different games but sitting in party chat. Where is the fun in that, you want to be able to play with the one your talking to so that you can all experiance the game together.
I can't be sure about it, but regarding the problem I can imagine that you'll be able to form raid formations like in other MMO's. You won't be able to do 1-team instances like that, but you can do Heroic Quests and group PvE content like that, of which there's enough abundance to keep you entertained and leveling.
Originally posted by Drakxii
4 is too small. You think it's hard to get in a group at high level as a dps in games like WoW and Rift just wait till they need less DPS.
Even more, they won't even need healers or tanks to form viable groups, all kinds of team setups will be possible.
Originally posted by gainesvilleg
Maybe BioWare, being the kings of the nerds, couldn't imagine a scenario where anybody actually had more than 3 friends. Maybe they should implement different servers:
1) "Normal" Server (aka Galaxy o' Nerds) where nobody has more than 3 friends
Hey, but what about if someone has six friends and guildies he wants to play with, or more?! Fuck it, every MMO is doing it wrong, we need 10 and 12-size groups as minimal groups!
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
One of the biggest attractions of an MMO is that I get to play with my friends and make new ones. Now, with groups of only 4 people I will not be able to play with my friends at the same time. There are six of us "RL" friends if you will, that will be playing from launch. I find it very frustrating if two of us are going to be left out of the main content becasue the group is only 4 people. Now we can join up later and play the bigger "raid" type instances but the whole point is to go through the game together. Now some might argue that you can sit in vent together and its the same thing, but it would simply be like playing Black Ops in different games but sitting in party chat. Where is the fun in that, you want to be able to play with the one your talking to so that you can all experiance the game together.
Now you might say that I am compariing apples to oranges here but hang with me, When Battlefield bad company came out, me and my friends were right there to pick it up and we all hopped online and tried to start a squad with the whole group, but alas we could not because we had more than 4. This was so frustrating that we ended up not playing simply because we could not play together. That is the point of a multiplayer game.
I would rather see group sizes of 6, like vanguard, but then have some negatives to it, like reduced xp or somthing, but at least give us the oppertunity to group with our friends so we can enjoy the whole game not just some raid type instances.
6 is easy 3 and 3 with one companion. You can swap around who is in each group.
Kind of missing the point though...we want all six to play togther, not 3 and 1 c in two groups. But if this is how it must be done than we will obviously do it because we have no choice. The desire to play this game will out weigh the group size. With battlefield it was simply play one of the other 100 military FPS's, but with this, there is not a good substitute so we will play.
Imo, a 4 person group limit combined with the fact that you can have companions, kind of takes away the need for groups for normal gameplay it sounds like.
I don't really like that at all, for an MMO. Seems that kind of situation just makes a big single player game where everyone runs around solo.
I'm hoping there is enough "real group content" to keep people grouping, and it not be a total solo zerg fest.
If you are inclinced to group with real people; the more people that solo, the harder it would be to put a group of 4 together, even though it's a small number.
Now some might argue that you can sit in vent together and its the same thing, but it would simply be like playing Black Ops in different games but sitting in party chat. Where is the fun in that, you want to be able to play with the one your talking to so that you can all experiance the game together.
But that way you can embelish how well you are actually doing: "Dude, you should have seen that 360 double headshot. Man, I just called in the dogs for the second time this match! Another kill cam: AWESEOME!!! MVP once again!"
LOL.
Maybe BioWare, being the kings of the nerds, couldn't imagine a scenario where anybody actually had more than 3 friends. Maybe they should implement different servers:
1) "Normal" Server (aka Galaxy o' Nerds) where nobody has more than 3 friends
2) "Cool" Server where you can have parties of up to 20 of your closest friends. Also all the characters say "Righteous!" after a hard kill
LOL
haha i can get behind that! I can see both sides arguments and I do belive that the 4 man groups will fit the content best. But again I am just throwing my opinion in the pot
Comments
SWTOR isn't a game for you that you will enjoy, why can't you see this and accept it?!
Geez.
It seems your mind is stuck in only able to imagine hardcore trinity team setups, MMO's have been able to provide team setups and team combats outside of 'hard trinity', in fact GW2 will even be using a completely non-trinity setup. So no, groups aren't forced to use hard trinity in group setups, and MMO's in the past 10 years have already shown that it's possible.
Here's what I mean with more flexibility:
- to form a group of 4 players is faster and easier than to form a group of 5 or 6 players
- they already mentioned that 'soft trinity' groups or however you want to call it are possible and workable, so you can have a team without a pure healer or pure tank and still do group encounters, it would be more challenging but it would be doable.
Combine this with the current build that you can bring along a healer or tank companion when you're with 3 and you can't find another player, and those elements taken together lead to a more flexible way ot team forming than is common in MMO's.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
No. It's a healer, tank, dps dps and since everyone has a out of combat self heal and rez ability then whats the point of an extra dps, heal or off tank.
In Bioware we trust!
Classes and trinity have the advantage that ppl can pick right from the start which role they want to play and what will be expected of them. I'm sure even GW2 will have some roles to fill even if they arent holy trinity. There will surely be some "LF this and that build/skill" etc even in that game. If not, is it fun to just run around and do your thing with no role to fill? Will ppl feel less special? =P Just of the top of my head.
I think they would be better off with allowing Companion Characters and scaling Instances for Full Groups to a max of 8...I totally agree 4 is too small when you take Companion Characters into consideration...If it was 4 WITH CC's then I think it would be OK...But 4 max? That's too small IMHO...
No, I think it's great.
The 4 base classes / faction support it and I think smaller groups are also simply better to get social interaction out of people.
Interpersonal communication gets jammed when you pack a lot of random people together: any more than 3-4 and you get a lot of people who are left out of the communication while a couple are doing all the talking.
You can simply observe this when sitting together around a campfire: either a couple of people are talking and the rest is shutting up, or small groups form to talk to each other. Big groups don't allow people to communicate at the same time, it gets too confusing and you get in each others way.
6+ is way too much.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
If you realized this, then I'm sure the devs have aswell and are balancing accordingly....
edit: also agree with poster above. a group of 4 could possibly be better for socializing and goes well with the 4 class/faction setup.
4 person groups does seem rather small for a dungeon. It's possible Bioware is sticking to this size because their content designers are so used to working with parties of 3 (Mass Effect) or 4 (Dragon Age) in their single player games.
I would prefer dungeon encounters to be designed for 5-6 players in a group. This way a really well coordinated 4 man group could complete the encounter.
4 is NOT ENOUGH! OMG OUTRAGE! WORLD IS ENDING!
Wait. There are operations (raids) that let you play with more than 4 people?
CRISIS AVERTED!
-Azure Prower
http://www.youtube.com/AzurePrower
Haha! So apt.
I am also happy about it because smaller groups are just more fun, more focussed. I remember all the 3-man dungeons I did in LOTRO and it had a much different and better feel than the usual tired formula of 5-6 people trudging through a dungeon only half paying attention.
I think I tend to agree with you Vonatar. With the exception of RVR in WAR and DAOC I prefer smaller groups. In this game in particular I am already in a guild but will most often be teaming up with my son and brother. If we can;t find a 4th we will only have to pull in 1 companion character.
Obvsiously we will not know exactly how well balanced it is for different party mixes until launch but I think 4 should be a great number.
And we all know how well BioWare progams companion AI. LOL.
I envision me as a DPS being joined by my AI/companion tank, healer, and 2nd DPS:
1) Tank gets stuck behind a rock and is unable to grab aggro
2) Healer ends up walking the wrong direction and goes 3 miles around the corridor before turning back
3) The other DPS charges straight into a firestorm and burns to a crisp
Me, as the main DPS, now have to do everything while cursing under my breath, just like in Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect, Baldurs Gate, etc.
I just hope these "companions" don't become loot ninjas when the loot drops: "Companion tank rolls need on agility dagger. Companion tank rolls 99. Companion tank wins agility dagger. Companion tank has left your party"
LOL
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
wait what? lol i'm going with your joking, at least i hope you are :P
If by some strange reason your not.
you can only have 1 companion out at a time, plus companions can't loot gear let alone roll on it and if they can loot gear it will be you telling them to do it.
I will state i don't think your serious on this but i'd figure i'd throw those out there just in the case that you are serious.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
"Fools! Did you actually believe I wanted to help the Republic!? HA! I was it in just for the agility dagger, which I will sell on the auction house for SEVEN GOLDEN STARCOINS!"
A bit like that.
For me, I'd rather see instances scale. Go in with 1, 4, 6, 11, etc. Solo it, group it, as you see fit.
No, I don't think 4 is too small in the least. I'm tired of dungeon design that requires a tank/healer/dps trinity. I want to see dungeons that 4 dpsers or 4 healers or 4 tanks or any combo can viably do.
I will toss my hat into the ring here and agree with posters that content NEEDS to start responding to the number of party members entering the quest and not be static.
This is NOT new tech it has been around since Everquest and maybe before ? There should be some cap on party size to be sure, large party size for Raid content and say up to 12 for non-raid party Questing ..
It would be cool to have Quests modify depending on party make up .. with any party able to complete the quest but possibly miss some Content with a narrow focus group. A well balanced party would be able to FIND more things to do and explore in a Quest instance then a Narrow focus group would .. BOTH would be able to complete the quest and no Penalty would be given to the Narrow focus party but they would be missing out on some of the content by the lack of abilitys the Diverse Group brought to the table.
To get to the orginal Posters question of is 4 enough in a party ? I would say that it depends on what the class make up is like in the game .. if your able to have say DPS Nuke with heals >>? Dps Fighter with Tanking ? Rogue with Heals ? Cleric type with DPS ? It all depends on if that 4 person party is able to function as well as the old standard of 6 peeps in a party.
There are times I feel the 6 person party is too small .. we have 8 friends that would all like to join in on the Quest but saddly only 6 can .. 2 are left out always or rotated into the party on a second run thru. That is why I vote with the larger single Party and have the Dungeon / Quest Instance/ event Scale and modify with the size and Make up of the party ...
Heavy Fighter base >? Mobs get more agility and hit points do more damage maybe ... wizzy heavy party ? mobs get some more range ability and spell resistance, Rogue heavy and the traps get harder and more frequent ... more locked chests or secret entrances to find ... The game has to be a challenge to be fun ... just some thoughts there.
It could be done .. though I would not want to be the one trying to code and balance that.
I would however LOVE to play in a game where that all happens.
Look to the stars to know HE is with us. HE hung them as markers, of times and of seasons.
Scaling content based on the party size like diablo 2 or even AO missions would be ultimate for any mmo..
As far as 4 being to small it is actually just right for quick pickup and go as long as the content is adjusted for 4..
Playing GW2..
One of the biggest attractions of an MMO is that I get to play with my friends and make new ones. Now, with groups of only 4 people I will not be able to play with my friends at the same time. There are six of us "RL" friends if you will, that will be playing from launch. I find it very frustrating if two of us are going to be left out of the main content becasue the group is only 4 people. Now we can join up later and play the bigger "raid" type instances but the whole point is to go through the game together. Now some might argue that you can sit in vent together and its the same thing, but it would simply be like playing Black Ops in different games but sitting in party chat. Where is the fun in that, you want to be able to play with the one your talking to so that you can all experiance the game together.
Now you might say that I am compariing apples to oranges here but hang with me, When Battlefield bad company came out, me and my friends were right there to pick it up and we all hopped online and tried to start a squad with the whole group, but alas we could not because we had more than 4. This was so frustrating that we ended up not playing simply because we could not play together. That is the point of a multiplayer game.
I would rather see group sizes of 6, like vanguard, but then have some negatives to it, like reduced xp or somthing, but at least give us the oppertunity to group with our friends so we can enjoy the whole game not just some raid type instances.
6 is easy 3 and 3 with one companion. You can swap around who is in each group.
4 is too small. You think it's hard to get in a group at high level as a dps in games like WoW and Rift just wait till they need less DPS.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
Are you guys telling me that you can go on to a Flashpoint without a tank? Without a healer? No, you can't. So unless companions are good enough to fill those roles, having groups of 4 will only make wait times worse, because then you need a healer and tank for every 2 DPS, instead of 3 DPS.
But that way you can embelish how well you are actually doing: "Dude, you should have seen that 360 double headshot. Man, I just called in the dogs for the second time this match! Another kill cam: AWESEOME!!! MVP once again!"
LOL.
Maybe BioWare, being the kings of the nerds, couldn't imagine a scenario where anybody actually had more than 3 friends. Maybe they should implement different servers:
1) "Normal" Server (aka Galaxy o' Nerds) where nobody has more than 3 friends
2) "Cool" Server where you can have parties of up to 20 of your closest friends. Also all the characters say "Righteous!" after a hard kill
LOL
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
I can't be sure about it, but regarding the problem I can imagine that you'll be able to form raid formations like in other MMO's. You won't be able to do 1-team instances like that, but you can do Heroic Quests and group PvE content like that, of which there's enough abundance to keep you entertained and leveling.
Even more, they won't even need healers or tanks to form viable groups, all kinds of team setups will be possible.
Hey, but what about if someone has six friends and guildies he wants to play with, or more?! Fuck it, every MMO is doing it wrong, we need 10 and 12-size groups as minimal groups!
Some people...
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Kind of missing the point though...we want all six to play togther, not 3 and 1 c in two groups. But if this is how it must be done than we will obviously do it because we have no choice. The desire to play this game will out weigh the group size. With battlefield it was simply play one of the other 100 military FPS's, but with this, there is not a good substitute so we will play.
Imo, a 4 person group limit combined with the fact that you can have companions, kind of takes away the need for groups for normal gameplay it sounds like.
I don't really like that at all, for an MMO. Seems that kind of situation just makes a big single player game where everyone runs around solo.
I'm hoping there is enough "real group content" to keep people grouping, and it not be a total solo zerg fest.
If you are inclinced to group with real people; the more people that solo, the harder it would be to put a group of 4 together, even though it's a small number.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
haha i can get behind that! I can see both sides arguments and I do belive that the 4 man groups will fit the content best. But again I am just throwing my opinion in the pot