Teh, I guess more is too much to ask for in our days or egocentric soloism. My guess is, even with just four, it will be difficult when everything can be soloed. Why have some jerks ruining your story with bad decisions when you can do it all alone?
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Teh, I guess more is too much to ask for in our days or egocentric soloism. My guess is, even with just four, it will be difficult when everything can be soloed. Why have some jerks ruining your story with bad decisions when you can do it all alone?
You'll always have friends and guildies, no matter what MMO you're playing, and people'll always want at least to be playing with those. Personally I think the whole discussion of 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 players is an insanely silly one, at least the majority of arguments that are being used here.
Very little logic or common sense in the arguments in this thread here, it reminds me of the bickering between partners that have been together for years and things aren't alright between them: it isn't about the groceries that haven't been fetched or the dishes that haven't been washed, those arguments that are fought over are just symptoms of the larger pool of negative emotions and gap of lingering dislike that has existed and grown for a far longer time.
Likewise, it isn't really about the 4 man size group, it's about SWTOR and about changes. I mean, really, 1 player less or more in a group, making such a drastic difference, seriously? If people believe that...
Originally posted by Requiamer
Sorry if its a stupid question but is it 4, companions included or not?
Four is the max single group size, companions included.
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."
As a former DAOC player anything less than 8 people is too small.
I assume TOR"s design will be such that it accomodates a variety of group combo's and perhaps one won't even need a particular combo of tank/healer, perhaps 4 DPS can easily be just as successful as 4 healers?
BIOWARE ALWAYS MAKES THE SAME GAME, WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THIS?!
Geeze....
Err ...
Baldurs Gate 1+2 : 6 people party (and btw the by far most tactical of all these titles)
Neverwinter Nights 1 : 2 people party (3 if you count familiars)
Knights of the Old Republic 1 : 3 people party
Mass Effect: 3 people party
Dragon Age: Origins : 4 people party
Also, ALL these games are NOT MMORPGs, so even if it WOULD be true, it would still make no sense whatsoever ... so whats your point, again ?!?
Originally posted by Byrhofen
It really does not matter how you feel about it, or what size party any other MMO has or had.
If group content in SW:ToR is being balanced for a party of 4 players, then a party of 4 players is perfect.
With that attitude, why did you bother answering the thread at all ? Or visit any forums ? If, no matter what we say, no matter what arguments we have, the solution in the game is right, just because its the solution of the game, any argument is superflous.
Originally posted by Adamai
[....blablabla...] so the a whole idea of smaller groups is probably aimed towards makeing you feel a bit more powerful in game. [...much more blablabla...]
Err .. I dont feel powerful when cursing about not being able to find a tank or healer.
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
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.
This is TOR, not GW2. Fortunately, because I will gladly skip over GW2 completely. I managed to play GW1 for like 3 days until I was completely bored out of my mind. GW2 has no feature that suggests it will turn out otherwise.
And yes, TOR has the trinity. I dont know what "soft trinity" is supposed to be. But, if playertester reports are to be believed, you definitely will need a tank and a healer in TOR.
Considering what the Trinity really is - a natural specialization of players that is, in its effect, much more efficient than the non-specialized player - I dont see how your ideas could possibly be implemented, anyway. The only way would be to make the game so easy that parties that actually have tank and healer will find no challenge at all in the game.
Originally posted by Nazgol
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.
You might have known what this thread is about if you would actually have read the initial posting...
Originally posted by gainesvilleg
And we all know how well BioWare progams companion AI. LOL. [...]
Yeah, that sums up my fears about the TOR companions pretty well.
Originally posted by SwampRob
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.
Games without the trinity cant have healers or tanks ... if you have those, you have trinity. And as the trinity is much more effective, a game that still wants to provide a challenge will have to be much harder.
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
Originally posted by Neverdyne
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.
Actually the devs stated that you can. It would be more challenging, but still workable.
Indeed they said that - but playertesters consistently said otherwise and I honestly dont see how this could ever work.
Its about the same level that devs claimed that hybrids would be a viable choice. Its possible that there are strong synergetic effects that allow some hybrids to actually work pretty well - but the simple fact that you cannot get the top abilities of any skilltree if you run a true hybrid usually makes sure it will be an inferior setup.
So yeah, I dont expect either to work. You will have to specialize into one skilltree and dump the rest of your points in a second one. And you'll need a tank and a healer in any group, and companions will be second choice, especially for the tank.
Originally posted by GMan3
So let me get this straight, you WANT the "Holy Trinity" to stay in the game? [...]
Too late to change that now.
Originally posted by daltanious
I think no raid should be ever larger then 10 man in any game, more is simply silly and a mess. Im ok with 4, meaning every member simply count much more.
Uh-hu. I had absolutely awesome 18 people raids in Vanguard. You really need that many people there, too, for the different mobs, as they really have complicated tactics. And you really needed all classes in the game in the raid, as each of them had unique features needed in raids:
- Warrior - tank with best dps
- Dread Knight - great for general, esp thanks to their debuff
- Paladin - great for special mobs (esp dragon)
- Cleric - great tank heal (instant cast, low mana useage, restores about 60%-80% of a tanks hitpoints), great standard buffs, mana issue
- Shaman - debuff maniac, good buffs
- Disciple - single target heal, manaless heal, wipe survival
- Blood Mage - high dps healer, damage distribution mechanic, good buffs
Wouldn't it be 4 players, each with their own AI companion? Meaning it would actually be 8.
I think if you factor in player companions the party size makes a little more sense. Even if it were limited to say.. 6-10 players per party, that would actually mean there would be 12-20 characters, and personally I feel that would be too much.
Not to mention the slow down it would probably cause me lol, that also might be a reason for it too, to help keep the PC requirements lower so more people are able to play (and pay of course).
And yes, TOR has the trinity. I dont know what "soft trinity" is supposed to be. But, if playertester reports are to be believed, you definitely will need a tank and a healer in TOR.
Considering what the Trinity really is - a natural specialization of players that is, in its effect, much more efficient than the non-specialized player - I dont see how your ideas could possibly be implemented, anyway. The only way would be to make the game so easy that parties that actually have tank and healer will find no challenge at all in the game.
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
Actually the devs stated that you can. It would be more challenging, but still workable.
Indeed they said that - but playertesters consistently said otherwise and I honestly dont see how this could ever work.
Its about the same level that devs claimed that hybrids would be a viable choice. Its possible that there are strong synergetic effects that allow some hybrids to actually work pretty well - but the simple fact that you cannot get the top abilities of any skilltree if you run a true hybrid usually makes sure it will be an inferior setup.
So yeah, I dont expect either to work. You will have to specialize into one skilltree and dump the rest of your points in a second one. And you'll need a tank and a healer in any group, and companions will be second choice, especially for the tank.
Soft trinity is when you don't need a dedicated healer or dedicated tank to be able to survive and handle group mob encounters but if you can manage with other group setups or a class that's considered a hybrid form.
I've read a couple of reports where players managed without a pure tank or pure healer and did alright, iirc also the devs used that kind of non-trinity/soft trinity setups which is the whole reason for them saying that it's doable.
Other MMO's have already shown that it's possible to do team combat without classic trinity setup, it'd be insanity to believe that trinity is the only viable way for team formation in MMORPG's.
As for how things can be done, examples from other MMO's:
crowd controller: if you have a class that is strong in crowd control actions then no dedicated healing is required, because mobs that are CC-ed are not doing damage, so total mob damage will be a hell of a lot lower, of a level that hybrid classes/roles can cope with. A CC class with a few regen skills could cope with the remaining damage, or if most classes had some form of inate healing.
damage prevention class: if a class can put a 1000 HP shield on another player, reduce the mob dmg to 10% for 10s in an area and blind mobs so they can't do melee damage, then that is another way where the actual total dmg the mobs do are of a far lower level than requires any main healer. See the same as above, a hybrid class would be sufficient or inate healing skills that other classes have.
It's already found out that SWTOR will have multiple times the number of CC skills that you'll find in other MMO's and those CC skills are spread out over (as good as?) all the classes. Besides that, every class has several ways to quickly restore their health or give themselves a health boost when needed. The rest is purely a design finetune thing, tweaking the skills and mob encounters to facilitate multiple combination team formations.
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."
Wouldn't it be 4 players, each with their own AI companion? Meaning it would actually be 8.
I think if you factor in player companions the party size makes a little more sense. Even if it were limited to say.. 6-10 players per party, that would actually mean there would be 12-20 characters, and personally I feel that would be too much.
Not to mention the slow down it would probably cause me lol, that also might be a reason for it too, to help keep the PC requirements lower so more people are able to play (and pay of course).
companions will actually take up a group slot now so a group of 4 players would not be able to use any companions
I don't think four person groups are necessarily too small, but I would like to see a large amount of 8-man content, and not just max level stuff, I'm talking 8-man content spread over the full level range and with a wide variety of difficulties, comparable to what I expect to see for 4-man content.
I think no raid should be ever larger then 10 man in any game, more is simply silly and a mess. Im ok with 4, meaning every member simply count much more.
I think no raid should be less than everyone on the server. That would be epic. I would love to see hundreds of players all working toward the same goal instead of remaining cut off in their own small little sections.
Well .. with 40 peopel you actually do not know anything how good ONE player is ... all are usually just blindly button mashing, .... you only know something went wrong when tank(s) is(are) dead. I'm not disturbed at all by possible lag. If somebody is doing something wrong at 5 or max 10 ... will notice pretty soon, any1 matter. For this I will never again step in anything larger then 10. I would actually love to see wow or other raids modified also for 5 persons (or 6, 7, ... not sure why always multiplier of 5 must be used).
I think no raid should be ever larger then 10 man in any game, more is simply silly and a mess. Im ok with 4, meaning every member simply count much more.
I think no raid should be less than everyone on the server. That would be epic. I would love to see hundreds of players all working toward the same goal instead of remaining cut off in their own small little sections.
Well .. with 40 peopel you actually do not know anything how good ONE player is ... all are usually just blindly button mashing, .... you only know something went wrong when tank(s) is(are) dead. I'm not disturbed at all by possible lag. If somebody is doing something wrong at 5 or max 10 ... will notice pretty soon, any1 matter. For this I will never again step in anything larger then 10. I would actually love to see wow or other raids modified also for 5 persons (or 6, 7, ... not sure why always multiplier of 5 must be used).
I like not caring or worrying about every single person doin the absolute best they can every second of the encounter. I play these games mostly for the social interaction, and in that case the more the merrier. Yes it's frustrating when one person screws up and causes everyone else to die. At the same time, I don't enjoy being harped on because my DPS is not good enough.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Standard groups of 4 will be perfect ; IT will offer a lot more tactical play and will not be a win win game.
Bioware sticking to their guns is a great thing ; People should appreciate the integrity they have...
Mmm when ever I think of Star Wars I think of large open battles on the ground and in the air. They may be sticking to the KotoR theme with the small party, but I just get this feeling they are really missing out on what SW+MMo's are about.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
Standard groups of 4 will be perfect ; IT will offer a lot more tactical play and will not be a win win game.
Bioware sticking to their guns is a great thing ; People should appreciate the integrity they have...
Mmm when ever I think of Star Wars I think of large open battles on the ground and in the air. They may be sticking to the KotoR theme with the small party, but I just get this feeling they are really missing out on what SW+MMo's are about.
When I think of Star Wars, I think of indivduals and their story. And how they take part in the larger story. With both the Movies and Books. It is the individual that pulls you in, not the large battles of faceless troops on the ground or in the air.
That is why I like the party size at 4. It will be four individuals interacting together to take on a larger part of the story. Something that can't be done on your own, but also not getting lost in a sea of soldiers. For larger battles they will have raids, but again, still small enough to not get lost in a meaningless battle.
You will still be a part of thousands in a faction fighting for their side in the overall story. And can be a part of a large cooperating group in a guild. But being able to be an indiviual in these stories with a group of 4 will feel right to me.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them? R.A.Salvatore
Mmm when ever I think of Star Wars I think of large open battles on the ground and in the air. They may be sticking to the KotoR theme with the small party, but I just get this feeling they are really missing out on what SW+MMo's are about.
Be reasonable, think. Do you really think that a 5 or 6 man sized group would have given you the feeling of 'large open battle' and 'what SW+MMO's are about' ?
Because of, what, that 5 or 6 person size groups have become so often used in MMO's that people aren't able to accept or imagine any other kind of size for groups? Just like some have lost the ability to imagine other kind of group formation in MMO's except for trinity setup, because it has been used this frequently?
Sorry, but that argument just makes no sense at all. As for large open battles, just like in other games like Aion, DAoC, etc you'll be able to have battles that are far larger than the maximum group size, by having raid formation size of groups and even more players involved in open world PvP. Large open battles and maximum group size have nothing to do with each other.
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."
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."
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick Originally posted by Foomerang I thought it was 16 per party?
16 is what we've seen as raid formation size so far, yes. The max size might be larger but the largest we saw so far was 16. ok so what is the op complaining about?
He's talking purely about the max size of a single team, not a raid size party that's formed up by 4 (or more) teams. You can't go with a raid group into Flashpoints that have a single team limit.
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."
Mmm when ever I think of Star Wars I think of large open battles on the ground and in the air. They may be sticking to the KotoR theme with the small party, but I just get this feeling they are really missing out on what SW+MMo's are about.
Be reasonable, think. Do you really think that a 5 or 6 man sized group would have given you the feeling of 'large open battle' and 'what SW+MMO's are about' ?
Because of, what, that 5 or 6 person size groups have become so often used in MMO's that people aren't able to accept or imagine any other kind of size for groups? Just like some have lost the ability to imagine other kind of group formation in MMO's except for trinity setup, because it has been used this frequently?
Sorry, but that argument just makes no sense at all. As for large open battles, just like in other games like Aion, DAoC, etc you'll be able to have battles that are far larger than the maximum group size, by having raid formation size of groups and even more players involved in open world PvP. Large open battles and maximum group size have nothing to do with each other.
I guess that's the problem I'm having, Trying to seperate the movies from the mmo. I understand all your saying and it's true but I still can't get the the star wars vision that I grew up watching, It really was the first of it's kind that was so large in scope, that made it so epic at the time.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
I'm looking forward to only 4 man parties. I've been raid leading in WoW for years and the thought of having a more personal experience is a HUGE attraction to me. In WoW all there really is to do is raid and thats probably 30-35 people over a couple months that you are playing with. It's impersonal and distant. Having 4 players (or 1 other player and 2 companions) is something I am really looking forward to.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also looking forward to 24man raids but questing and levelling is a whole other part of the game that is actually part of the game instead of a pre-requisite to the game.
Standard groups of 4 will be perfect ; IT will offer a lot more tactical play and will not be a win win game.
Bioware sticking to their guns is a great thing ; People should appreciate the integrity they have...
Mmm when ever I think of Star Wars I think of large open battles on the ground and in the air. They may be sticking to the KotoR theme with the small party, but I just get this feeling they are really missing out on what SW+MMo's are about.
When I think of Star Wars, I think of indivduals and their story. And how they take part in the larger story. With both the Movies and Books. It is the individual that pulls you in, not the large battles of faceless troops on the ground or in the air.
That is why I like the party size at 4. It will be four individuals interacting together to take on a larger part of the story. Something that can't be done on your own, but also not getting lost in a sea of soldiers. For larger battles they will have raids, but again, still small enough to not get lost in a meaningless battle.
You will still be a part of thousands in a faction fighting for their side in the overall story. And can be a part of a large cooperating group in a guild. But being able to be an indiviual in these stories with a group of 4 will feel right to me.
I find the group starter will make the game thoroughly enjoyable with just a few friends, with not many more we can all scale this up a little. I think you will get the scale of the Star Wars with respect to the worlds and teh immense wildernesses. Battles will be included but you cannot have a battle a day how would we all survive.....
I think we will get the scale variety and some fantastic new canon ; What more to ask for...
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
I'm looking forward to only 4 man parties. I've been raid leading in WoW for years and the thought of having a more personal experience is a HUGE attraction to me. In WoW all there really is to do is raid and thats probably 30-35 people over a couple months that you are playing with. It's impersonal and distant. Having 4 players (or 1 other player and 2 companions) is something I am really looking forward to.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also looking forward to 24man raids but questing and levelling is a whole other part of the game that is actually part of the game instead of a pre-requisite to the game.
Pretty much sums it up for me too. Having smaller Group/party size will make it easyer to do missions,instances/flashpoints,and all the other stuff in-between.
Comments
Teh, I guess more is too much to ask for in our days or egocentric soloism. My guess is, even with just four, it will be difficult when everything can be soloed. Why have some jerks ruining your story with bad decisions when you can do it all alone?
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Sorry if its a stupid question but is it 4, companions included or not?
You'll always have friends and guildies, no matter what MMO you're playing, and people'll always want at least to be playing with those. Personally I think the whole discussion of 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 players is an insanely silly one, at least the majority of arguments that are being used here.
Very little logic or common sense in the arguments in this thread here, it reminds me of the bickering between partners that have been together for years and things aren't alright between them: it isn't about the groceries that haven't been fetched or the dishes that haven't been washed, those arguments that are fought over are just symptoms of the larger pool of negative emotions and gap of lingering dislike that has existed and grown for a far longer time.
Likewise, it isn't really about the 4 man size group, it's about SWTOR and about changes. I mean, really, 1 player less or more in a group, making such a drastic difference, seriously? If people believe that...
Four is the max single group size, companions included.
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."
1 - 4 players = group mechanic
5 + players = party mechanic
OMG what happend ? So many new postings ??
Err ...
Baldurs Gate 1+2 : 6 people party (and btw the by far most tactical of all these titles)
Neverwinter Nights 1 : 2 people party (3 if you count familiars)
Knights of the Old Republic 1 : 3 people party
Mass Effect: 3 people party
Dragon Age: Origins : 4 people party
Also, ALL these games are NOT MMORPGs, so even if it WOULD be true, it would still make no sense whatsoever ... so whats your point, again ?!?
With that attitude, why did you bother answering the thread at all ? Or visit any forums ? If, no matter what we say, no matter what arguments we have, the solution in the game is right, just because its the solution of the game, any argument is superflous.
Err .. I dont feel powerful when cursing about not being able to find a tank or healer.
This is TOR, not GW2. Fortunately, because I will gladly skip over GW2 completely. I managed to play GW1 for like 3 days until I was completely bored out of my mind. GW2 has no feature that suggests it will turn out otherwise.
And yes, TOR has the trinity. I dont know what "soft trinity" is supposed to be. But, if playertester reports are to be believed, you definitely will need a tank and a healer in TOR.
Considering what the Trinity really is - a natural specialization of players that is, in its effect, much more efficient than the non-specialized player - I dont see how your ideas could possibly be implemented, anyway. The only way would be to make the game so easy that parties that actually have tank and healer will find no challenge at all in the game.
You might have known what this thread is about if you would actually have read the initial posting...
Yeah, that sums up my fears about the TOR companions pretty well.
Games without the trinity cant have healers or tanks ... if you have those, you have trinity. And as the trinity is much more effective, a game that still wants to provide a challenge will have to be much harder.
Indeed they said that - but playertesters consistently said otherwise and I honestly dont see how this could ever work.
Its about the same level that devs claimed that hybrids would be a viable choice. Its possible that there are strong synergetic effects that allow some hybrids to actually work pretty well - but the simple fact that you cannot get the top abilities of any skilltree if you run a true hybrid usually makes sure it will be an inferior setup.
So yeah, I dont expect either to work. You will have to specialize into one skilltree and dump the rest of your points in a second one. And you'll need a tank and a healer in any group, and companions will be second choice, especially for the tank.
Too late to change that now.
Uh-hu. I had absolutely awesome 18 people raids in Vanguard. You really need that many people there, too, for the different mobs, as they really have complicated tactics. And you really needed all classes in the game in the raid, as each of them had unique features needed in raids:
- Warrior - tank with best dps
- Dread Knight - great for general, esp thanks to their debuff
- Paladin - great for special mobs (esp dragon)
- Cleric - great tank heal (instant cast, low mana useage, restores about 60%-80% of a tanks hitpoints), great standard buffs, mana issue
- Shaman - debuff maniac, good buffs
- Disciple - single target heal, manaless heal, wipe survival
- Blood Mage - high dps healer, damage distribution mechanic, good buffs
- Rogue - aggro feeding for tank, second best dps
- Ranger - stance kicking, very good dps
- Monk - aggro feeding for tank, stance kicking, raid pulling, wipe survival
- Bard - extreme group dps buff (need 3 per raid), lesser enchants
- Sorcerer - best dps, sleep, disenchant, shorttimed elemental immunity group buff
- Druid - best spike dps, emergency healing, various utility (raid wide manaless casting, complete aggro drop)
- Psionicist - enchanting specialist (sleep, charm), mana feeding, aggro feeding for tank
- Necomancer - good dps, wipe survival, best hitpoint buff in game
I have honestly no clue what you're talking about.
Wouldn't it be 4 players, each with their own AI companion? Meaning it would actually be 8.
I think if you factor in player companions the party size makes a little more sense. Even if it were limited to say.. 6-10 players per party, that would actually mean there would be 12-20 characters, and personally I feel that would be too much.
Not to mention the slow down it would probably cause me lol, that also might be a reason for it too, to help keep the PC requirements lower so more people are able to play (and pay of course).
Soft trinity is when you don't need a dedicated healer or dedicated tank to be able to survive and handle group mob encounters but if you can manage with other group setups or a class that's considered a hybrid form.
I've read a couple of reports where players managed without a pure tank or pure healer and did alright, iirc also the devs used that kind of non-trinity/soft trinity setups which is the whole reason for them saying that it's doable.
Other MMO's have already shown that it's possible to do team combat without classic trinity setup, it'd be insanity to believe that trinity is the only viable way for team formation in MMORPG's.
As for how things can be done, examples from other MMO's:
crowd controller: if you have a class that is strong in crowd control actions then no dedicated healing is required, because mobs that are CC-ed are not doing damage, so total mob damage will be a hell of a lot lower, of a level that hybrid classes/roles can cope with. A CC class with a few regen skills could cope with the remaining damage, or if most classes had some form of inate healing.
damage prevention class: if a class can put a 1000 HP shield on another player, reduce the mob dmg to 10% for 10s in an area and blind mobs so they can't do melee damage, then that is another way where the actual total dmg the mobs do are of a far lower level than requires any main healer. See the same as above, a hybrid class would be sufficient or inate healing skills that other classes have.
It's already found out that SWTOR will have multiple times the number of CC skills that you'll find in other MMO's and those CC skills are spread out over (as good as?) all the classes. Besides that, every class has several ways to quickly restore their health or give themselves a health boost when needed. The rest is purely a design finetune thing, tweaking the skills and mob encounters to facilitate multiple combination team formations.
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."
companions will actually take up a group slot now so a group of 4 players would not be able to use any companions
I don't think four person groups are necessarily too small, but I would like to see a large amount of 8-man content, and not just max level stuff, I'm talking 8-man content spread over the full level range and with a wide variety of difficulties, comparable to what I expect to see for 4-man content.
Hopefully they deliver.
Well .. with 40 peopel you actually do not know anything how good ONE player is ... all are usually just blindly button mashing, .... you only know something went wrong when tank(s) is(are) dead. I'm not disturbed at all by possible lag. If somebody is doing something wrong at 5 or max 10 ... will notice pretty soon, any1 matter. For this I will never again step in anything larger then 10. I would actually love to see wow or other raids modified also for 5 persons (or 6, 7, ... not sure why always multiplier of 5 must be used).
I like not caring or worrying about every single person doin the absolute best they can every second of the encounter. I play these games mostly for the social interaction, and in that case the more the merrier. Yes it's frustrating when one person screws up and causes everyone else to die. At the same time, I don't enjoy being harped on because my DPS is not good enough.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Standard groups of 4 will be perfect ; IT will offer a lot more tactical play and will not be a win win game.
Bioware sticking to their guns is a great thing ; People should appreciate the integrity they have...
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Bioware wont consider going to a 6 man party, because they will be accused of being a "WoW clone". lol
Mmm when ever I think of Star Wars I think of large open battles on the ground and in the air. They may be sticking to the KotoR theme with the small party, but I just get this feeling they are really missing out on what SW+MMo's are about.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
When I think of Star Wars, I think of indivduals and their story. And how they take part in the larger story. With both the Movies and Books. It is the individual that pulls you in, not the large battles of faceless troops on the ground or in the air.
That is why I like the party size at 4. It will be four individuals interacting together to take on a larger part of the story. Something that can't be done on your own, but also not getting lost in a sea of soldiers. For larger battles they will have raids, but again, still small enough to not get lost in a meaningless battle.
You will still be a part of thousands in a faction fighting for their side in the overall story. And can be a part of a large cooperating group in a guild. But being able to be an indiviual in these stories with a group of 4 will feel right to me.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?
R.A.Salvatore
Be reasonable, think. Do you really think that a 5 or 6 man sized group would have given you the feeling of 'large open battle' and 'what SW+MMO's are about' ?
Because of, what, that 5 or 6 person size groups have become so often used in MMO's that people aren't able to accept or imagine any other kind of size for groups? Just like some have lost the ability to imagine other kind of group formation in MMO's except for trinity setup, because it has been used this frequently?
Sorry, but that argument just makes no sense at all. As for large open battles, just like in other games like Aion, DAoC, etc you'll be able to have battles that are far larger than the maximum group size, by having raid formation size of groups and even more players involved in open world PvP. Large open battles and maximum group size have nothing to do with each other.
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."
I thought it was 16 per party?
16 is what we've seen as raid formation size so far, yes. The max size might be larger but the largest we saw so far was 16.
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."
ok so what is the op complaining about?
He's talking purely about the max size of a single team, not a raid size party that's formed up by 4 (or more) teams. You can't go with a raid group into Flashpoints that have a single team limit.
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."
Doesn't WoW have 5 man parties?
EQ & Aion have 6 man parties.
I guess that's the problem I'm having, Trying to seperate the movies from the mmo. I understand all your saying and it's true but I still can't get the the star wars vision that I grew up watching, It really was the first of it's kind that was so large in scope, that made it so epic at the time.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
I'm looking forward to only 4 man parties. I've been raid leading in WoW for years and the thought of having a more personal experience is a HUGE attraction to me. In WoW all there really is to do is raid and thats probably 30-35 people over a couple months that you are playing with. It's impersonal and distant. Having 4 players (or 1 other player and 2 companions) is something I am really looking forward to.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also looking forward to 24man raids but questing and levelling is a whole other part of the game that is actually part of the game instead of a pre-requisite to the game.
SithWarrior.com
I find the group starter will make the game thoroughly enjoyable with just a few friends, with not many more we can all scale this up a little. I think you will get the scale of the Star Wars with respect to the worlds and teh immense wildernesses. Battles will be included but you cannot have a battle a day how would we all survive.....
I think we will get the scale variety and some fantastic new canon ; What more to ask for...
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Pretty much sums it up for me too. Having smaller Group/party size will make it easyer to do missions,instances/flashpoints,and all the other stuff in-between.