What would be the perfect group size for a new MMO.
And what trinity roles would you like to see..
i would say 6 man groups with tank/healer/support/crowd controll Roles. I hope they build classes that can function in several roles depending on specs, i hate one trick ponies.
For classic EQ styled trinity I would go with 6 players as well.
But I would love to see something a bit different, like that Shadowrun kickstarter. 6 players, rigger, decker, physical combat and magic with some possibilities for classes to switch between 2 roles would be awesome.
Most MMO players are a bit too oldfashioned and think trinity or zerging is the only group dynamics possible but there are plenty, the important is that players support eachother and work together in combat. Timing and strategy should always be important.
Well, trinity adds a layer of tactical depth to the group combat, just taking thats away like gw2 did did not work to well in my opinion, the trinity on top of is the part that makes a group a lot stronger then the sum of the individuals...
i dont know shadowrun, but if they actually have a system that replces the old trinity and adds the same depth as the trinity, they would be very welcome
i am a big fan of multi roles myself, znd this might be actually a good change and adding more depth to the game if all classes could switch between 2 roles on the fly... Think offtanking, think extra healing, think bosses where you just need as much dps as possible.. This definately would add more depth and dynamics to group combat.. Which would in my opinion work much better then just stupidly removing the layer...
As said before GW2 did do many things that worked very well.. However some did not work to well, there is major lessons to be learned from GW2, this is one of the mostimportant ones
I think GW2 proved to be a really good combat system without needing dedicated roles.
You could make your life a lot easier having specific "specs" in your group, but you could generally do all content in the game without "needing" any one class.
This let people play with the people* they wanted to play with, and didn't force exclusion due to being the "wrong class".
I expect to see more combat like GW2 in the future. More hectic, realistic combat. Instead of 1 guy pushing a taunt button, a mob standing there laying into the plate w/shield wielder, while ignoring the healer and the mage elves in dresses.
Maybe you didn't actually play the dungeons in GW2 or EQ1.
Dungeons before GW1 or 2 meant that groups of players had to make sure they had several things covered before venturing into a dungeon. There were a few different classes that could fill each roll or overlap with a stretch into other rolls.
Examples of
tank
Shadowknight, Paladin, warrior. Sometimes Ranger, Monk, Bard, or Berserker would fill that roll.
Healer
Shaman, Cleric, Druid
CC
enchanter, Druid, Bard
dps.....every class.
offtank. long list.
buffs/debuffs long list.
point is that groups in EQ worked due to the players and how well they played a class.
In GW2 everyone was the healer, everyone was the tank, everyone was the cc, everyone was the dps, there was a very small class difference in this regard and it made dungeons in GW2 a watered down affair with zerg mechanics and no preparation. GW2 dungeons ended up feeling like I had just dumped a bunch of quarters in an arcade game and played through a brief and frantic game of which I had a small amount of control over and when revives were used felt like I shoved more quarters into the damn game. Ughh....no thanks.
What would be the perfect group size for a new MMO.
And what trinity roles would you like to see..
i would say 6 man groups with tank/healer/support/crowd controll Roles. I hope they build classes that can function in several roles depending on specs, i hate one trick ponies.
I firmly believe 10 man groups for party size should be the norm instead of 5man. Anything larger than 10 man should be raid difficulty . But 10 man is the new party difficulty .
1 tank, 1 sub tank(aka a DPS with the ability to taunt and take a hit, but not as well as a tank), 1 healer, 1support (aka a DPS that heals by damaging .very popular form of healing since its also a DPS role which most people love), 6 DPS (with any combo of cc or debuffers for DPS)
that's 10 man party. Very easy to form the group since 8 of the members are DPS, the other two are the harder to find roles like the tank and healer.
I have to agree about GW2. The lack of trinity in PvP and soloing was great. In dungeons it was a shallow mess, even allowing for some strategy with combos. Its the main reason I am not still playing, aside from the odd PvP match
What would be the perfect group size for a new MMO.
And what trinity roles would you like to see..
i would say 6 man groups with tank/healer/support/crowd controll Roles. I hope they build classes that can function in several roles depending on specs, i hate one trick ponies.
I firmly believe 10 man groups for party size should be the norm instead of 5man. Anything larger than 10 man should be raid difficulty . But 10 man is the new party difficulty .
1 tank, 1 sub tank(aka a DPS with the ability to taunt and take a hit, but not as well as a tank), 1 healer, 1support (aka a DPS that heals by damaging .very popular form of healing since its also a DPS role which most people love), 6 DPS (with any combo of cc or debuffers for DPS)
that's 10 man party. Very easy to form the group since 8 of the members are DPS, the other two are the harder to find roles like the tank and healer.
loot is much harder to split up in a 10 man.
This was the amount in a small raid in certain recent games. This number meant that in a dungeon, out of 5 boss encounters and 1 or 2 random trash drops that there was a 7/10 possibility a player gets anything gear related for their troubles. Add to that random drop rates per boss and specialized gear per class and that possibility of a good drop for a player in this scenario drops to something along the lines of 1/21 that they get a drop that is usable by them. That doesn't factor in if they are going for a specific drop. This could take literally weeks or longer of hanging out in this dungeon for at least a few hours a day to lay hands on a specific upgrade just in a 6 man. if you add in 4 more people extend that process out to months.
I guess that is a good thing in the long run. But really....there is a point at which players ask themselves..."is it worth it?" Now if this item is unique in a way that only 10 or less are allowed on a server at any given time...then the answer is a resounding yes. However if this is just a camped mob and you have 10 people that can all use it....and you change to a new 10 people every time to run the dungeon....your odds go way way down as far as getting it. And maybe the item drops every other time from a specific mob. You could kill that mob 100X over and still not win the roll and become a bitter old gamer who hates 10 person groups and longs for the 6 man to come back again.
What would be the perfect group size for a new MMO.
And what trinity roles would you like to see..
i would say 6 man groups with tank/healer/support/crowd controll Roles. I hope they build classes that can function in several roles depending on specs, i hate one trick ponies.
For classic EQ styled trinity I would go with 6 players as well.
But I would love to see something a bit different, like that Shadowrun kickstarter. 6 players, rigger, decker, physical combat and magic with some possibilities for classes to switch between 2 roles would be awesome.
Most MMO players are a bit too oldfashioned and think trinity or zerging is the only group dynamics possible but there are plenty, the important is that players support eachother and work together in combat. Timing and strategy should always be important.
Well, trinity adds a layer of tactical depth to the group combat, just taking thats away like gw2 did did not work to well in my opinion, the trinity on top of is the part that makes a group a lot stronger then the sum of the individuals...
i dont know shadowrun, but if they actually have a system that replces the old trinity and adds the same depth as the trinity, they would be very welcome
i am a big fan of multi roles myself, znd this might be actually a good change and adding more depth to the game if all classes could switch between 2 roles on the fly... Think offtanking, think extra healing, think bosses where you just need as much dps as possible.. This definately would add more depth and dynamics to group combat.. Which would in my opinion work much better then just stupidly removing the layer...
As said before GW2 did do many things that worked very well.. However some did not work to well, there is major lessons to be learned from GW2, this is one of the mostimportant ones
I think GW2 proved to be a really good combat system without needing dedicated roles.
You could make your life a lot easier having specific "specs" in your group, but you could generally do all content in the game without "needing" any one class.
This let people play with the people* they wanted to play with, and didn't force exclusion due to being the "wrong class".
I expect to see more combat like GW2 in the future. More hectic, realistic combat. Instead of 1 guy pushing a taunt button, a mob standing there laying into the plate w/shield wielder, while ignoring the healer and the mage elves in dresses.
Maybe you didn't actually play the dungeons in GW2 or EQ1.
Dungeons before GW1 or 2 meant that groups of players had to make sure they had several things covered before venturing into a dungeon. There were a few different classes that could fill each roll or overlap with a stretch into other rolls.
Examples of
tank
Shadowknight, Paladin, warrior. Sometimes Ranger, Monk, Bard, or Berserker would fill that roll.
Healer
Shaman, Cleric, Druid
CC
enchanter, Druid, Bard
dps.....every class.
offtank. long list.
buffs/debuffs long list.
point is that groups in EQ worked due to the players and how well they played a class.
In GW2 everyone was the healer, everyone was the tank, everyone was the cc, everyone was the dps, there was a very small class difference in this regard and it made dungeons in GW2 a watered down affair with zerg mechanics and no preparation. GW2 dungeons ended up feeling like I had just dumped a bunch of quarters in an arcade game and played through a brief and frantic game of which I had a small amount of control over and when revives were used felt like I shoved more quarters into the damn game. Ughh....no thanks.
Give me EQ depth again over that any day.
Nice opinion. Though I don't know where you get off saying I didn't play the games. Clearly I did. (I'm a 1999 day 1 EQ veteran and I played GW2 for many months)
I personally think standard trinity based games feel fake when it comes to combat. Fake, predictable, slow, boring.
I liked GW2 because everyone was in on the combat. Everyone had to fight to survive, help each other out, and work together at the same time. Mobs didn't stick to the least logical target (tank) while completely avoiding the logical targets to attack (DPS, CC, Healer).
I like combat to feel like combat. Not a board game. It's all personal preference though. I wouldn't mind having dedicated roles (Played and enjoyed more than a few, see below in signature), but the basis of the roles needs to change drastically, especially where tanks and agro are concerned.
I would like to see tanks as "protectors" of a group. Bashing, kicking, slamming, stunning and tackling mobs that are attacking low-defense classes. Having this kind of agro-less combat system would make much more sense. It would feel like combat. Tanks would have to think on their feet and use a wide range of skills/abilities/spells to protect team mates (not just pressing a taunt rotation). Healers would have to actively watch party's health and heal more people than just 1 tank over and over again.
Dps would have to try and quickly take down the largest threats. CC would have to wisely CC the right mobs at the right time.
I just want to see more combat-like, combat. Not 1 guy in plate taking all the damage, while 1 guy spam heals him and 4 others unload DPS into it's back. Wash rinse repeat.
What would be the perfect group size for a new MMO.
And what trinity roles would you like to see..
i would say 6 man groups with tank/healer/support/crowd controll Roles. I hope they build classes that can function in several roles depending on specs, i hate one trick ponies.
For classic EQ styled trinity I would go with 6 players as well.
But I would love to see something a bit different, like that Shadowrun kickstarter. 6 players, rigger, decker, physical combat and magic with some possibilities for classes to switch between 2 roles would be awesome.
Most MMO players are a bit too oldfashioned and think trinity or zerging is the only group dynamics possible but there are plenty, the important is that players support eachother and work together in combat. Timing and strategy should always be important.
Well, trinity adds a layer of tactical depth to the group combat, just taking thats away like gw2 did did not work to well in my opinion, the trinity on top of is the part that makes a group a lot stronger then the sum of the individuals...
i dont know shadowrun, but if they actually have a system that replces the old trinity and adds the same depth as the trinity, they would be very welcome
i am a big fan of multi roles myself, znd this might be actually a good change and adding more depth to the game if all classes could switch between 2 roles on the fly... Think offtanking, think extra healing, think bosses where you just need as much dps as possible.. This definately would add more depth and dynamics to group combat.. Which would in my opinion work much better then just stupidly removing the layer...
As said before GW2 did do many things that worked very well.. However some did not work to well, there is major lessons to be learned from GW2, this is one of the mostimportant ones
I think GW2 proved to be a really good combat system without needing dedicated roles.
You could make your life a lot easier having specific "specs" in your group, but you could generally do all content in the game without "needing" any one class.
This let people play with the people* they wanted to play with, and didn't force exclusion due to being the "wrong class".
I expect to see more combat like GW2 in the future. More hectic, realistic combat. Instead of 1 guy pushing a taunt button, a mob standing there laying into the plate w/shield wielder, while ignoring the healer and the mage elves in dresses.
Maybe you didn't actually play the dungeons in GW2 or EQ1.
Dungeons before GW1 or 2 meant that groups of players had to make sure they had several things covered before venturing into a dungeon. There were a few different classes that could fill each roll or overlap with a stretch into other rolls.
Examples of
tank
Shadowknight, Paladin, warrior. Sometimes Ranger, Monk, Bard, or Berserker would fill that roll.
Healer
Shaman, Cleric, Druid
CC
enchanter, Druid, Bard
dps.....every class.
offtank. long list.
buffs/debuffs long list.
point is that groups in EQ worked due to the players and how well they played a class.
In GW2 everyone was the healer, everyone was the tank, everyone was the cc, everyone was the dps, there was a very small class difference in this regard and it made dungeons in GW2 a watered down affair with zerg mechanics and no preparation. GW2 dungeons ended up feeling like I had just dumped a bunch of quarters in an arcade game and played through a brief and frantic game of which I had a small amount of control over and when revives were used felt like I shoved more quarters into the damn game. Ughh....no thanks.
Give me EQ depth again over that any day.
Nice opinion. Though I don't know where you get off saying I didn't play the games. Clearly I did. (I'm a 1999 day 1 EQ veteran and I played GW2 for many months)
I personally think standard trinity based games feel fake when it comes to combat. Fake, predictable, slow, boring.
I liked GW2 because everyone was in on the combat. Everyone had to fight to survive, help each other out, and work together at the same time. Mobs didn't stick to the least logical target (tank) while completely avoiding the logical targets to attack (DPS, CC, Healer).
I like combat to feel like combat. Not a board game. It's all personal preference though. I wouldn't mind having dedicated roles (Played and enjoyed more than a few, see below in signature), but the basis of the roles needs to change drastically, especially where tanks and agro are concerned.
I would like to see tanks as "protectors" of a group. Bashing, kicking, slamming, stunning and tackling mobs that are attacking low-defense classes. Having this kind of agro-less combat system would make much more sense. It would feel like combat. Tanks would have to think on their feet and use a wide range of skills/abilities/spells to protect team mates (not just pressing a taunt rotation). Healers would have to actively watch party's health and heal more people than just 1 tank over and over again.
Dps would have to try and quickly take down the largest threats. CC would have to wisely CC the right mobs at the right time.
I just want to see more combat-like, combat. Not 1 guy in plate taking all the damage, while 1 guy spam heals him and 4 others unload DPS into it's back. Wash rinse repeat.
Zzzzzz.
In EQ this was not always the case. If you were doing a boss encounter it involved all sorts of cc, tank, offtank, heal, offheals, dps.
There was alot going on. Tanks had to position mobs so some of mob abilities didn't kill the others. Then there were adds and dealing with those with cc and burn downs (dps). Everyone usually took some damage and if the tank fell the back-up tank and everyone would go into overdrive just to not totally wipe. I do not have rose colored glasses about this. I lived it from start for about 6 years. It felt better than the Guildwars where no real prep was needed. Just rush in and play whack a mole and zerg. And yes....the Guildwars 2 classes felt great when parading around all the regular areas....just not in dungeons.
I still kind of hope that any shield capable class will be able to hit the shield button and block a huge chunk of incoming damage like in Neverwinter. That would be my idea of addressing some of tanking in a game. But 6 characters oldschool style is still my choice for party size. Raids can go maybe up to 24 (4 groups) for normal raids and 48 (8 groups) for over the top endgame raids.
In EQ this was not always the case. If you were doing a boss encounter it involved all sorts of cc, tank, offtank, heal, offheals, dps.
There was alot going on. Tanks had to position mobs so some of mob abilities didn't kill the others. Then there were adds and dealing with those with cc and burn downs (dps). Everyone usually took some damage and if the tank fell the back-up tank and everyone would go into overdrive just to not totally wipe. I do not have rose colored glasses about this. I lived it from start for about 6 years. It felt better than the Guildwars where no real prep was needed. Just rush in and play whack a mole and zerg. And yes....the Guildwars 2 classes felt great when parading around all the regular areas....just not in dungeons.
I still kind of hope that any shield capable class will be able to hit the shield button and block a huge chunk of incoming damage like in Neverwinter. That would be my idea of addressing some of tanking in a game. But 6 characters oldschool style is still my choice for party size. Raids can go maybe up to 24 (4 groups) for normal raids and 48 (8 groups) for over the top endgame raids.
That's the great thing about opinions, ain't it?
I personally thought GW2's strength was in it's dungeons and group mechanics. Speccing characters to complement others in your group, the down state mechanic, the frantic mobs that bounced around and attacked everyone in the group, forcing everyone to be on their game. Felt much better and was far more challenging than any MMORPG in recent history.
I played EQ from day one till about late 2003, and I disagree with your opinion.
It all played out the same 99% of the time. Puller pulls -> If FD class gets more than one, FD, if no monk/sk/etc, CC the adds. Then the fight was always Tank on one mob, getting spam healed by healer and dps laying into the mob. Wash rinse repeat.
There wasn't much "set up" per fight, outside being basically forced (or highly encouraged) to bring specific classes to groups.
The fighting was cute for 1999, lots of fun even, but I come to expect a lot more excitement and realism in my combat here in 2013.
In EQ this was not always the case. If you were doing a boss encounter it involved all sorts of cc, tank, offtank, heal, offheals, dps.
There was alot going on. Tanks had to position mobs so some of mob abilities didn't kill the others. Then there were adds and dealing with those with cc and burn downs (dps). Everyone usually took some damage and if the tank fell the back-up tank and everyone would go into overdrive just to not totally wipe. I do not have rose colored glasses about this. I lived it from start for about 6 years. It felt better than the Guildwars where no real prep was needed. Just rush in and play whack a mole and zerg. And yes....the Guildwars 2 classes felt great when parading around all the regular areas....just not in dungeons.
I still kind of hope that any shield capable class will be able to hit the shield button and block a huge chunk of incoming damage like in Neverwinter. That would be my idea of addressing some of tanking in a game. But 6 characters oldschool style is still my choice for party size. Raids can go maybe up to 24 (4 groups) for normal raids and 48 (8 groups) for over the top endgame raids.
That's the great thing about opinions, ain't it?
I personally thought GW2's strength was in it's dungeons and group mechanics. Speccing characters to complement others in your group, the down state mechanic, the frantic mobs that bounced around and attacked everyone in the group, forcing everyone to be on their game. Felt much better and was far more challenging than any MMORPG in recent history.
I played EQ from day one till about late 2003, and I disagree with your opinion.
It all played out the same 99% of the time. Puller pulls -> If FD class gets more than one, FD, if no monk/sk/etc, CC the adds. Then the fight was always Tank on one mob, getting spam healed by healer and dps laying into the mob. Wash rinse repeat.
There wasn't much "set up" per fight, outside being basically forced (or highly encouraged) to bring specific classes to groups.
The fighting was cute for 1999, lots of fun even, but I come to expect a lot more excitement and realism in my combat here in 2013.
Yes it is just a matter of tastes, howether i disagree with you.
Like you i have played EQ1 at the start and i m playing GW2, and i havent see in GW2 a real need of coordination between players or class interdependence; you can do all the istances with a random class party, every class can be replaced by another, no one have a real importance in the group.
You have only to think on yourself, dodging attacks, heal yourself and do dps, all the classes are supposed to do the same things and i think that this is real boring.
Futhermore with the GW2 class system i dont think that you can introduce a PvE content for more than 5 players just because there no specialized classes, so the boss fight mechanics have to be very simple and plain.
In my opinion there is no challenging boss fight in GW2, and i m Dungeon Master so i have done all istances of the game (and many fractals too).
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
I dislike tanking. It's a very artificial mechanic that feels similar to exploiting poor AI. I'd prefer a GW1-like approach. It's like a trinity of healer/CC/DPS with very flexible roles. GW2 tried to pull off something similar, but I think it failed to provide solid support/CC options, which is why its combat is usually just a DPS race.
Mobs should be smart and aggressive. They should go after your most vulnerable characters and actually try to kill you, while CC characters use complex and believable skills to stop them. Tanking just makes combat more predictable and less tactical.
I dislike tanking. It's a very artificial mechanic that feels similar to exploiting poor AI. I'd prefer a GW1-like approach. It's like a trinity of healer/CC/DPS with very flexible roles. GW2 tried to pull off something similar, but I think it failed to provide solid support/CC options, which is why its combat is usually just a DPS race.
Mobs should be smart and aggressive. They should go after your most vulnerable characters and actually try to kill you, while CC characters use complex and believable skills to stop them. Tanking just makes combat more predictable and less tactical.
As for group size, I think 6 is fine.
But how you can handle an hard boss fight without a tank especialy in a big raid? If there is no aggro managment the boss will ista kill all healers and your raid will surely wipe.
As tanking i think the exact opposite: i think that is the only thing that can guarantee a tactical combat, cause it allow every class to do their job.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
GW 2 is an example of an idea that sounded good but displayed lack of execution. Even in City of Villains /Heroes you could have unconventional groups but people worked together well because the roles could be defined. Even if those roles overlapped in City of X it had roles not everyone for themselves or doing everything as in GW 2. It is so distressing not to be praised for a role and recognized for it because part of playing a MMORPG is being good at what you do and have others realize that. I found that in the events part of GW 2 nobody cared about roles and it made the combat quite bland. Yes it was fun initially but it got old fast. I prefer roles.
I dislike tanking. It's a very artificial mechanic that feels similar to exploiting poor AI. I'd prefer a GW1-like approach. It's like a trinity of healer/CC/DPS with very flexible roles. GW2 tried to pull off something similar, but I think it failed to provide solid support/CC options, which is why its combat is usually just a DPS race.
Mobs should be smart and aggressive. They should go after your most vulnerable characters and actually try to kill you, while CC characters use complex and believable skills to stop them. Tanking just makes combat more predictable and less tactical.
As for group size, I think 6 is fine.
But how you can handle an hard boss fight without a tank especialy in a big raid? If there is no aggro managment the boss will ista kill all healers and your raid will surely wipe.
As tanking i think the exact opposite: i think that is the only thing that can guarantee a tactical combat, cause it allow every class to do their job.
In GW1, you have lots of ways of dealing with bosses' damage output. If it's a physical boss, you can blind it, cripple it, knock it down and debuff it until it's no longer a threat, while your anti-caster characters prevent its healer minions from removing those negative effects by interrupting their spells and debuffing them. If it's a caster, you can use the aforementioned anti-caster measures and various protective buffs like Wards (long-term stationary AoE effects) to defend your party from its attacks.
You can also use durable/expendable targets to body block mobs and they do give priority to nearby targets, so a Warrior could gain aggro by meleeing a boss. However, the bosses attack melee characters because it's smart ("There's a huge guy next to me who keeps crippling me and knocking me down. I'll kill him first.") or because they have no choice ("That damn Necromancer surrounded me with minions that body block me. I've got to kill them first.") and not because some guy who barely does damage is "taunting" them.
Tactics are all about predicting what your enemy will do and trying to counter that. Being able to mind control your enemy into doing a specific task can't be called tactics.
I can't think of a raid-focused MMO with similar mechanics (GW1 has a max party size of 12), but I think they'd work well enough. Besides, I don't think EQN will be raid-focused in a traditional sense, anyway. That's be pretty emberrassing, considering all their statements about being unlike anything we've seen.
I dislike tanking. It's a very artificial mechanic that feels similar to exploiting poor AI. I'd prefer a GW1-like approach. It's like a trinity of healer/CC/DPS with very flexible roles. GW2 tried to pull off something similar, but I think it failed to provide solid support/CC options, which is why its combat is usually just a DPS race.
Mobs should be smart and aggressive. They should go after your most vulnerable characters and actually try to kill you, while CC characters use complex and believable skills to stop them. Tanking just makes combat more predictable and less tactical.
As for group size, I think 6 is fine.
But how you can handle an hard boss fight without a tank especialy in a big raid? If there is no aggro managment the boss will ista kill all healers and your raid will surely wipe.
As tanking i think the exact opposite: i think that is the only thing that can guarantee a tactical combat, cause it allow every class to do their job.
In GW1, you have lots of ways of dealing with bosses' damage output. If it's a physical boss, you can blind it, cripple it, knock it down and debuff it until it's no longer a threat, while your anti-caster characters prevent its healer minions from removing those negative effects by interrupting their spells and debuffing them. If it's a caster, you can use the aforementioned anti-caster measures and various protective buffs like Wards (long-term stationary AoE effects) to defend your party from its attacks.
You can also use durable/expendable targets to body block mobs and they do give priority to nearby targets, so a Warrior could gain aggro by meleeing a boss. However, the bosses attack melee characters because it's smart ("There's a huge guy next to me who keeps crippling me and knocking me down. I'll kill him first.") or because they have no choice ("That damn Necromancer surrounded me with minions that body block me. I've got to kill them first.") and not because some guy who barely does damage is "taunting" them.
Tactics are all about predicting what your enemy will do and trying to counter that. Being able to mind control your enemy into doing a specific task can't be called tactics.
I can't think of a raid-focused MMO with similar mechanics (GW1 has a max party size of 12), but I think they'd work well enough. Besides, I don't think EQN will be raid-focused in a traditional sense, anyway. That's be pretty emberrassing, considering all their statements about being unlike anything we've seen.
In the games i have played, bosses were normaly immune to special player's attack like stuns or cripples, but the idea to kite a boss and let them costantly away from players using blind, chain stuns, cripples and safely kills him from the distance dont appeal me. Personaly i like to play melee classes and charge enemy directly, i like to take bosses on me and to use taunt if someone in the group takes aggro , i like to have a really important role that makes the difference in my raid/party (as other roles like healer, crowd controller etc.).
I dont think that taunt is weird skill, in a fantasy word you can intend it like a magical power that force enemy to attack you, i dont think that this skill is more strange than someone that throw lightnings or fireballs from the hands.
About tatics: using taunt skill give you the ability to control enemies reactions, and in my opinion this made the combat tactical.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
What would be the perfect group size for a new MMO.
And what trinity roles would you like to see..
i would say 6 man groups with tank/healer/support/crowd controll Roles. I hope they build classes that can function in several roles depending on specs, i hate one trick ponies.
For classic EQ styled trinity I would go with 6 players as well.
But I would love to see something a bit different, like that Shadowrun kickstarter. 6 players, rigger, decker, physical combat and magic with some possibilities for classes to switch between 2 roles would be awesome.
Most MMO players are a bit too oldfashioned and think trinity or zerging is the only group dynamics possible but there are plenty, the important is that players support eachother and work together in combat. Timing and strategy should always be important.
Well, trinity adds a layer of tactical depth to the group combat, just taking thats away like gw2 did did not work to well in my opinion, the trinity on top of is the part that makes a group a lot stronger then the sum of the individuals...
i dont know shadowrun, but if they actually have a system that replces the old trinity and adds the same depth as the trinity, they would be very welcome
i am a big fan of multi roles myself, znd this might be actually a good change and adding more depth to the game if all classes could switch between 2 roles on the fly... Think offtanking, think extra healing, think bosses where you just need as much dps as possible.. This definately would add more depth and dynamics to group combat.. Which would in my opinion work much better then just stupidly removing the layer...
As said before GW2 did do many things that worked very well.. However some did not work to well, there is major lessons to be learned from GW2, this is one of the mostimportant ones
There is NO tactical depth to the trinity. You know your role and the roles of the other players and that is what you play. It is a very simplistic model and hence why early games went that way. The problem is, you see debuffers only work when you can debuff a mob or other player. If there is environmental or a mob (read boss cannot be debuffed) it is a waste of a role. Rift was really good at that - where you couldn't debuff boss mobs to make it harder.
If it has PvP at all and PvP dynamics such as asset destruction, then groups of 10 that can be combined into larger groups of 50. If it's not PvP centric then I could care less.
In EQ this was not always the case. If you were doing a boss encounter it involved all sorts of cc, tank, offtank, heal, offheals, dps.
There was alot going on. Tanks had to position mobs so some of mob abilities didn't kill the others. Then there were adds and dealing with those with cc and burn downs (dps). Everyone usually took some damage and if the tank fell the back-up tank and everyone would go into overdrive just to not totally wipe. I do not have rose colored glasses about this. I lived it from start for about 6 years. It felt better than the Guildwars where no real prep was needed. Just rush in and play whack a mole and zerg. And yes....the Guildwars 2 classes felt great when parading around all the regular areas....just not in dungeons.
I still kind of hope that any shield capable class will be able to hit the shield button and block a huge chunk of incoming damage like in Neverwinter. That would be my idea of addressing some of tanking in a game. But 6 characters oldschool style is still my choice for party size. Raids can go maybe up to 24 (4 groups) for normal raids and 48 (8 groups) for over the top endgame raids.
That's the great thing about opinions, ain't it?
I personally thought GW2's strength was in it's dungeons and group mechanics. Speccing characters to complement others in your group, the down state mechanic, the frantic mobs that bounced around and attacked everyone in the group, forcing everyone to be on their game. Felt much better and was far more challenging than any MMORPG in recent history.
I played EQ from day one till about late 2003, and I disagree with your opinion.
It all played out the same 99% of the time. Puller pulls -> If FD class gets more than one, FD, if no monk/sk/etc, CC the adds. Then the fight was always Tank on one mob, getting spam healed by healer and dps laying into the mob. Wash rinse repeat.
There wasn't much "set up" per fight, outside being basically forced (or highly encouraged) to bring specific classes to groups.
The fighting was cute for 1999, lots of fun even, but I come to expect a lot more excitement and realism in my combat here in 2013.
Yes it is just a matter of tastes, howether i disagree with you.
Like you i have played EQ1 at the start and i m playing GW2, and i havent see in GW2 a real need of coordination between players or class interdependence; you can do all the istances with a random class party, every class can be replaced by another, no one have a real importance in the group.
You have only to think on yourself, dodging attacks, heal yourself and do dps, all the classes are supposed to do the same things and i think that this is real boring.
Futhermore with the GW2 class system i dont think that you can introduce a PvE content for more than 5 players just because there no specialized classes, so the boss fight mechanics have to be very simple and plain.
In my opinion there is no challenging boss fight in GW2, and i m Dungeon Master so i have done all istances of the game (and many fractals too).
Well Gallus is right and so are you.
Here's the thing. GW2 does have benefits for working together. Such as strong sustain, higher damage, more mobility and so on. But where you're right is that GW2 *just* missed the mark because they gave each class the ability to take on a flexible role.
Strict classes that can only bring their particular aspect would have made GW2 dungeons much more interesting. It's about a matter of degree in it's current state. A Guardian can bring a host of abilities to support a group, while a thief can bring a smaller degree of buffing/debuffing, but still bring something.
What they needed to do with give exclusivity of certain things to certain classes. This would maintain the free flow combat, but also make roles much more meaningful.
So while you can build a group to fit more traditional roles, it's typically more efficient to just bring a group decked in zerker's and blast through content. I do think one of the downfalls of gw2 dungeons is that mobs lose aggro. People literally skip everything and just do bosses. It's one of the weirdest experiences and one which really limits the need for roles. When you don't have to do content and face a variety of challenges, the group can be as singleminded as possible.
What would be the perfect group size for a new MMO.
And what trinity roles would you like to see..
i would say 6 man groups with tank/healer/support/crowd controll Roles. I hope they build classes that can function in several roles depending on specs, i hate one trick ponies.
For classic EQ styled trinity I would go with 6 players as well.
But I would love to see something a bit different, like that Shadowrun kickstarter. 6 players, rigger, decker, physical combat and magic with some possibilities for classes to switch between 2 roles would be awesome.
Most MMO players are a bit too oldfashioned and think trinity or zerging is the only group dynamics possible but there are plenty, the important is that players support eachother and work together in combat. Timing and strategy should always be important.
Well, trinity adds a layer of tactical depth to the group combat, just taking thats away like gw2 did did not work to well in my opinion, the trinity on top of is the part that makes a group a lot stronger then the sum of the individuals...
i dont know shadowrun, but if they actually have a system that replces the old trinity and adds the same depth as the trinity, they would be very welcome
i am a big fan of multi roles myself, znd this might be actually a good change and adding more depth to the game if all classes could switch between 2 roles on the fly... Think offtanking, think extra healing, think bosses where you just need as much dps as possible.. This definately would add more depth and dynamics to group combat.. Which would in my opinion work much better then just stupidly removing the layer...
As said before GW2 did do many things that worked very well.. However some did not work to well, there is major lessons to be learned from GW2, this is one of the mostimportant ones
I think GW2 proved to be a really good combat system without needing dedicated roles.
You could make your life a lot easier having specific "specs" in your group, but you could generally do all content in the game without "needing" any one class.
This let people play with the people* they wanted to play with, and didn't force exclusion due to being the "wrong class".
I expect to see more combat like GW2 in the future. More hectic, realistic combat. Instead of 1 guy pushing a taunt button, a mob standing there laying into the plate w/shield wielder, while ignoring the healer and the mage elves in dresses.
Maybe you didn't actually play the dungeons in GW2 or EQ1.
Dungeons before GW1 or 2 meant that groups of players had to make sure they had several things covered before venturing into a dungeon. There were a few different classes that could fill each roll or overlap with a stretch into other rolls.
Examples of
tank
Shadowknight, Paladin, warrior. Sometimes Ranger, Monk, Bard, or Berserker would fill that roll.
Healer
Shaman, Cleric, Druid
CC
enchanter, Druid, Bard
dps.....every class.
offtank. long list.
buffs/debuffs long list.
point is that groups in EQ worked due to the players and how well they played a class.
In GW2 everyone was the healer, everyone was the tank, everyone was the cc, everyone was the dps, there was a very small class difference in this regard and it made dungeons in GW2 a watered down affair with zerg mechanics and no preparation. GW2 dungeons ended up feeling like I had just dumped a bunch of quarters in an arcade game and played through a brief and frantic game of which I had a small amount of control over and when revives were used felt like I shoved more quarters into the damn game. Ughh....no thanks.
Give me EQ depth again over that any day.
You have oversimplified GW2 combat and over-complicated EQ combat. In GW2, depending on the boss and damage, that is who tanks, or depending on skills used by the boss - that is WAY more complicated than what you said. EQ on the other hand (using your over-simplification method) - you - TANK ; Y1- heal; Y2,Y3, Y4 - DPS - how complicated is that? not at all.
I want to see all roles active from tanking, dps, heals, cc, buffs, debuffs, dots and hybrids.. The hell with PvP balance and let the class roles grow.. I want the old EQ classes back.. and let fun begin..
What would be the perfect group size for a new MMO.
And what trinity roles would you like to see..
i would say 6 man groups with tank/healer/support/crowd controll Roles. I hope they build classes that can function in several roles depending on specs, i hate one trick ponies.
4 players Swtor have is just great. No matter group size (of course up to certain number) with trinity you will need 1 healer, 1 tank ... and x dps. More dps you need in group harder is to find enough tanks and healer and more will dps wait. And harder job for them. So I'm absolutely pro small group size.
I like 6 the best because it allows for the most amount of flexibility to play with you group of friends. With 5 or 4 mans, if you are a healer adn your friend is also a healer you have to stop and say sorry buddy we already have a healer. In a six man you can have 2 healers or 2 tanks, and the group still works pretty well. One of the reasons for that is also because everyone DPS's too even the healers. So from a pure social (and not tatical) standpoint I really like 6.
btw for those who think it will be scalable content - i do not believe we will see that because of the fact it is supposed to be a sanbox. The only thing I think that would leave me to think that they can do scalable content is that in EQ2 they have open world raids that scale depending on how many people were fighting. The loot also then adjusts accordingly.
6 sounds like a decent sized group. Mostly I would like all classes and builds to be viable and useful. I have to many bad flashbacks from my EQ1 Ranger who could only get a group with friends until they balanced and fixed the class.
Comments
Maybe you didn't actually play the dungeons in GW2 or EQ1.
Dungeons before GW1 or 2 meant that groups of players had to make sure they had several things covered before venturing into a dungeon. There were a few different classes that could fill each roll or overlap with a stretch into other rolls.
Examples of
tank
Shadowknight, Paladin, warrior. Sometimes Ranger, Monk, Bard, or Berserker would fill that roll.
Healer
Shaman, Cleric, Druid
CC
enchanter, Druid, Bard
dps.....every class.
offtank. long list.
buffs/debuffs long list.
point is that groups in EQ worked due to the players and how well they played a class.
In GW2 everyone was the healer, everyone was the tank, everyone was the cc, everyone was the dps, there was a very small class difference in this regard and it made dungeons in GW2 a watered down affair with zerg mechanics and no preparation. GW2 dungeons ended up feeling like I had just dumped a bunch of quarters in an arcade game and played through a brief and frantic game of which I had a small amount of control over and when revives were used felt like I shoved more quarters into the damn game. Ughh....no thanks.
Give me EQ depth again over that any day.
I firmly believe 10 man groups for party size should be the norm instead of 5man. Anything larger than 10 man should be raid difficulty . But 10 man is the new party difficulty .
1 tank, 1 sub tank(aka a DPS with the ability to taunt and take a hit, but not as well as a tank), 1 healer, 1support (aka a DPS that heals by damaging .very popular form of healing since its also a DPS role which most people love), 6 DPS (with any combo of cc or debuffers for DPS)
that's 10 man party. Very easy to form the group since 8 of the members are DPS, the other two are the harder to find roles like the tank and healer.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
loot is much harder to split up in a 10 man.
This was the amount in a small raid in certain recent games. This number meant that in a dungeon, out of 5 boss encounters and 1 or 2 random trash drops that there was a 7/10 possibility a player gets anything gear related for their troubles. Add to that random drop rates per boss and specialized gear per class and that possibility of a good drop for a player in this scenario drops to something along the lines of 1/21 that they get a drop that is usable by them. That doesn't factor in if they are going for a specific drop. This could take literally weeks or longer of hanging out in this dungeon for at least a few hours a day to lay hands on a specific upgrade just in a 6 man. if you add in 4 more people extend that process out to months.
I guess that is a good thing in the long run. But really....there is a point at which players ask themselves..."is it worth it?" Now if this item is unique in a way that only 10 or less are allowed on a server at any given time...then the answer is a resounding yes. However if this is just a camped mob and you have 10 people that can all use it....and you change to a new 10 people every time to run the dungeon....your odds go way way down as far as getting it. And maybe the item drops every other time from a specific mob. You could kill that mob 100X over and still not win the roll and become a bitter old gamer who hates 10 person groups and longs for the 6 man to come back again.
20 man groups, every person is responsible for one single ability. They must each time that ability to perfection or you get a complete party wipe.
It's the only possible way.
Nice opinion. Though I don't know where you get off saying I didn't play the games. Clearly I did. (I'm a 1999 day 1 EQ veteran and I played GW2 for many months)
I personally think standard trinity based games feel fake when it comes to combat. Fake, predictable, slow, boring.
I liked GW2 because everyone was in on the combat. Everyone had to fight to survive, help each other out, and work together at the same time. Mobs didn't stick to the least logical target (tank) while completely avoiding the logical targets to attack (DPS, CC, Healer).
I like combat to feel like combat. Not a board game. It's all personal preference though. I wouldn't mind having dedicated roles (Played and enjoyed more than a few, see below in signature), but the basis of the roles needs to change drastically, especially where tanks and agro are concerned.
I would like to see tanks as "protectors" of a group. Bashing, kicking, slamming, stunning and tackling mobs that are attacking low-defense classes. Having this kind of agro-less combat system would make much more sense. It would feel like combat. Tanks would have to think on their feet and use a wide range of skills/abilities/spells to protect team mates (not just pressing a taunt rotation). Healers would have to actively watch party's health and heal more people than just 1 tank over and over again.
Dps would have to try and quickly take down the largest threats. CC would have to wisely CC the right mobs at the right time.
I just want to see more combat-like, combat. Not 1 guy in plate taking all the damage, while 1 guy spam heals him and 4 others unload DPS into it's back. Wash rinse repeat.
Zzzzzz.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
In EQ this was not always the case. If you were doing a boss encounter it involved all sorts of cc, tank, offtank, heal, offheals, dps.
There was alot going on. Tanks had to position mobs so some of mob abilities didn't kill the others. Then there were adds and dealing with those with cc and burn downs (dps). Everyone usually took some damage and if the tank fell the back-up tank and everyone would go into overdrive just to not totally wipe. I do not have rose colored glasses about this. I lived it from start for about 6 years. It felt better than the Guildwars where no real prep was needed. Just rush in and play whack a mole and zerg. And yes....the Guildwars 2 classes felt great when parading around all the regular areas....just not in dungeons.
I still kind of hope that any shield capable class will be able to hit the shield button and block a huge chunk of incoming damage like in Neverwinter. That would be my idea of addressing some of tanking in a game. But 6 characters oldschool style is still my choice for party size. Raids can go maybe up to 24 (4 groups) for normal raids and 48 (8 groups) for over the top endgame raids.
That's the great thing about opinions, ain't it?
I personally thought GW2's strength was in it's dungeons and group mechanics. Speccing characters to complement others in your group, the down state mechanic, the frantic mobs that bounced around and attacked everyone in the group, forcing everyone to be on their game. Felt much better and was far more challenging than any MMORPG in recent history.
I played EQ from day one till about late 2003, and I disagree with your opinion.
It all played out the same 99% of the time. Puller pulls -> If FD class gets more than one, FD, if no monk/sk/etc, CC the adds. Then the fight was always Tank on one mob, getting spam healed by healer and dps laying into the mob. Wash rinse repeat.
There wasn't much "set up" per fight, outside being basically forced (or highly encouraged) to bring specific classes to groups.
The fighting was cute for 1999, lots of fun even, but I come to expect a lot more excitement and realism in my combat here in 2013.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Yes it is just a matter of tastes, howether i disagree with you.
Like you i have played EQ1 at the start and i m playing GW2, and i havent see in GW2 a real need of coordination between players or class interdependence; you can do all the istances with a random class party, every class can be replaced by another, no one have a real importance in the group.
You have only to think on yourself, dodging attacks, heal yourself and do dps, all the classes are supposed to do the same things and i think that this is real boring.
Futhermore with the GW2 class system i dont think that you can introduce a PvE content for more than 5 players just because there no specialized classes, so the boss fight mechanics have to be very simple and plain.
In my opinion there is no challenging boss fight in GW2, and i m Dungeon Master so i have done all istances of the game (and many fractals too).
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
I dislike tanking. It's a very artificial mechanic that feels similar to exploiting poor AI. I'd prefer a GW1-like approach. It's like a trinity of healer/CC/DPS with very flexible roles. GW2 tried to pull off something similar, but I think it failed to provide solid support/CC options, which is why its combat is usually just a DPS race.
Mobs should be smart and aggressive. They should go after your most vulnerable characters and actually try to kill you, while CC characters use complex and believable skills to stop them. Tanking just makes combat more predictable and less tactical.
As for group size, I think 6 is fine.
But how you can handle an hard boss fight without a tank especialy in a big raid? If there is no aggro managment the boss will ista kill all healers and your raid will surely wipe.
As tanking i think the exact opposite: i think that is the only thing that can guarantee a tactical combat, cause it allow every class to do their job.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Fine, we'll compromise. I'll get my way & you'll find a way to be okay with that.
GW 2 is an example of an idea that sounded good but displayed lack of execution. Even in City of Villains /Heroes you could have unconventional groups but people worked together well because the roles could be defined. Even if those roles overlapped in City of X it had roles not everyone for themselves or doing everything as in GW 2. It is so distressing not to be praised for a role and recognized for it because part of playing a MMORPG is being good at what you do and have others realize that. I found that in the events part of GW 2 nobody cared about roles and it made the combat quite bland. Yes it was fun initially but it got old fast. I prefer roles.
Well 6 group and 25 or 30 perhaps for raid
In GW1, you have lots of ways of dealing with bosses' damage output. If it's a physical boss, you can blind it, cripple it, knock it down and debuff it until it's no longer a threat, while your anti-caster characters prevent its healer minions from removing those negative effects by interrupting their spells and debuffing them. If it's a caster, you can use the aforementioned anti-caster measures and various protective buffs like Wards (long-term stationary AoE effects) to defend your party from its attacks.
You can also use durable/expendable targets to body block mobs and they do give priority to nearby targets, so a Warrior could gain aggro by meleeing a boss. However, the bosses attack melee characters because it's smart ("There's a huge guy next to me who keeps crippling me and knocking me down. I'll kill him first.") or because they have no choice ("That damn Necromancer surrounded me with minions that body block me. I've got to kill them first.") and not because some guy who barely does damage is "taunting" them.
Tactics are all about predicting what your enemy will do and trying to counter that. Being able to mind control your enemy into doing a specific task can't be called tactics.
I can't think of a raid-focused MMO with similar mechanics (GW1 has a max party size of 12), but I think they'd work well enough. Besides, I don't think EQN will be raid-focused in a traditional sense, anyway. That's be pretty emberrassing, considering all their statements about being unlike anything we've seen.
In the games i have played, bosses were normaly immune to special player's attack like stuns or cripples, but the idea to kite a boss and let them costantly away from players using blind, chain stuns, cripples and safely kills him from the distance dont appeal me. Personaly i like to play melee classes and charge enemy directly, i like to take bosses on me and to use taunt if someone in the group takes aggro , i like to have a really important role that makes the difference in my raid/party (as other roles like healer, crowd controller etc.).
I dont think that taunt is weird skill, in a fantasy word you can intend it like a magical power that force enemy to attack you, i dont think that this skill is more strange than someone that throw lightnings or fireballs from the hands.
About tatics: using taunt skill give you the ability to control enemies reactions, and in my opinion this made the combat tactical.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
There is NO tactical depth to the trinity. You know your role and the roles of the other players and that is what you play. It is a very simplistic model and hence why early games went that way. The problem is, you see debuffers only work when you can debuff a mob or other player. If there is environmental or a mob (read boss cannot be debuffed) it is a waste of a role. Rift was really good at that - where you couldn't debuff boss mobs to make it harder.
Well Gallus is right and so are you.
Here's the thing. GW2 does have benefits for working together. Such as strong sustain, higher damage, more mobility and so on. But where you're right is that GW2 *just* missed the mark because they gave each class the ability to take on a flexible role.
Strict classes that can only bring their particular aspect would have made GW2 dungeons much more interesting. It's about a matter of degree in it's current state. A Guardian can bring a host of abilities to support a group, while a thief can bring a smaller degree of buffing/debuffing, but still bring something.
What they needed to do with give exclusivity of certain things to certain classes. This would maintain the free flow combat, but also make roles much more meaningful.
So while you can build a group to fit more traditional roles, it's typically more efficient to just bring a group decked in zerker's and blast through content. I do think one of the downfalls of gw2 dungeons is that mobs lose aggro. People literally skip everything and just do bosses. It's one of the weirdest experiences and one which really limits the need for roles. When you don't have to do content and face a variety of challenges, the group can be as singleminded as possible.
You have oversimplified GW2 combat and over-complicated EQ combat. In GW2, depending on the boss and damage, that is who tanks, or depending on skills used by the boss - that is WAY more complicated than what you said. EQ on the other hand (using your over-simplification method) - you - TANK ; Y1- heal; Y2,Y3, Y4 - DPS - how complicated is that? not at all.
Group size 8 which includes pets..
I want to see all roles active from tanking, dps, heals, cc, buffs, debuffs, dots and hybrids.. The hell with PvP balance and let the class roles grow.. I want the old EQ classes back..
and let fun begin..
4 players Swtor have is just great. No matter group size (of course up to certain number) with trinity you will need 1 healer, 1 tank ... and x dps. More dps you need in group harder is to find enough tanks and healer and more will dps wait. And harder job for them. So I'm absolutely pro small group size.
I like 6 the best because it allows for the most amount of flexibility to play with you group of friends. With 5 or 4 mans, if you are a healer adn your friend is also a healer you have to stop and say sorry buddy we already have a healer. In a six man you can have 2 healers or 2 tanks, and the group still works pretty well. One of the reasons for that is also because everyone DPS's too even the healers. So from a pure social (and not tatical) standpoint I really like 6.
btw for those who think it will be scalable content - i do not believe we will see that because of the fact it is supposed to be a sanbox. The only thing I think that would leave me to think that they can do scalable content is that in EQ2 they have open world raids that scale depending on how many people were fighting. The loot also then adjusts accordingly.