I was thinking that you would have detailed stats on your 2 other teammates such as health, mana, condition and for every other group you would only have whether the "group" as a whole is alive or dead.
that would take up minimal room on the screen but provide the information you need. It would also allow you to click on a group to communicate with the leader if you are the group leader over voip.
5 man is bad. 4 man is just flat out dumb. How could 3 man be any better.
IF...
If we are talking about REAL grouping. You know. Roles. Tactics. Strategy.
If you're talking a bunch of do everything soloists with no real structure sharing a chat and instance and THAT'S your idea of a group, ala GW2 or soon to be TESO, then, who cares, since that's not really grouping and is more like a steaming pile of camel dung.
If we're talking real grouping, 3 is a poor choice, because tanks and healers are always in shorter supply than dps. This is why I say 5 is bad and 4 is worse. When you cut the number of dps spots the dpsers just wait longer and longer for groups. The older MMORPGs (which had group heavy play) usually had 6 man groups (or 8 in DAoC). You can easily do tank, healer, support, 3 dps or some variant and get plenty of people involved. As you shrink to 5 and especially 4, you cut down on your options and the legions of dps are kinda screwed. 3 would just be utterly brutal....
IF
If the game has real grouping.
If the game is just soloing and crappy groups of soloists...who cares. It won't be much of an MMORPG.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
you should stop thinking with the trinity in mind. You don't NEED a tank or healer. Instead you have supportive classes that may drop a heal or hot along but they only purpose to heal is not given. You have durable classes that are harder to kill but they don't have a taunt-magnet keeping the enemy always at them, but they will have ways to stop them from moving away from them. Many classes of the 40 wont be pure dps you know from many MMOs. They will have more options then only dps.
and as an example.
You log in and want to explore the world with your friends doing some quests helping in a rally call. for that you may join with your friends a 3-man group of say a Wizard, Archer and Paladin. The wizard and Archer are ranged with some cc to keep the mobs away, while the paladin is in the fray and pulls a heal some times.
then they find a dungeon entry(no one talked about static dungeon location). They know a dungeon is a harder place so they look for another 3-man group out there that wants to join. So they will be a joined 6-man "raid" of two 3-man groups for that harder content.
This other group brings into the this mini raid(or dungeon group) a Shadow Knight, a Rogue and a Cleric. The Shadow Knight is similar to the Paladin but instead of healing other he can leach health from enemies. The rogue is a class centered about alot of movement and maybe poisons. The Cleric is quite supportive with hots and buffs, but also uses some ranged attacks.
to get that clear:
Paladin - Durable with heals (tanky but not a tank with a taunt, supportive but not a healer)
Shadow Knight - Durable with self heals (tanky but not a tank with a taunt)
Wizard - ranged with CC
Archer - ranged with CC
Rouge - melee with dots
Cleric - ranged and supportive (but not a pure healer)
this could be a group without a dedicated tank or healer. Instead you have two classes that are not that easy to get down, two classes that can heal the group a little, two classes who can keep the enemies CCed to reduce the damage on the group and 1 class that is "pure" dps.
this group seems in my eyes far more interesting then 1tank,1 healer, x dps you are used in most games this days. As DPS you are a unimportant and replaceable class compared to tanks and healer. with EQNs new way this could change and everyone will be important not only the tank and healer.
And you can easier make flexible difficulties in dungeons. One dungeon may only need one group of three players. The next maybe 6 or 9. And that can go up to 12,15,18,21,24,27,30. but you wouldn't see all of this 30 players on your ui(we don't want to play the ui) but you see the ten 3-man groups this 30 players are made off.
you should stop thinking with the trinity in mind. You don't NEED a tank or healer. Instead you have supportive classes that may drop a heal or hot along but they only purpose to heal is not given. You have durable classes that are harder to kill but they don't have a taunt-magnet keeping the enemy always at them, but they will have ways to stop them from moving away from them. Many classes of the 40 wont be pure dps you know from many MMOs. They will have more options then only dps.
and as an example.
You log in and want to explore the world with your friends doing some quests helping in a rally call. for that you may join with your friends a 3-man group of say a Wizard, Archer and Paladin. The wizard and Archer are ranged with some cc to keep the mobs away, while the paladin is in the fray and pulls a heal some times.
then they find a dungeon entry(no one talked about static dungeon location). They know a dungeon is a harder place so they look for another 3-man group out there that wants to join. So they will be a joined 6-man "raid" of two 3-man groups for that harder content.
This other group brings into the this mini raid(or dungeon group) a Shadow Knight, a Rogue and a Cleric. The Shadow Knight is similar to the Paladin but instead of healing other he can leach health from enemies. The rogue is a class centered about alot of movement and maybe poisons. The Cleric is quite supportive with hots and buffs, but also uses some ranged attacks.
to get that clear:
Paladin - Durable with heals (tanky but not a tank with a taunt, supportive but not a healer)
Shadow Knight - Durable with self heals (tanky but not a tank with a taunt)
Wizard - ranged with CC
Archer - ranged with CC
Rouge - melee with dots
Cleric - ranged and supportive (but not a pure healer)
this could be a group without a dedicated tank or healer. Instead you have two classes that are not that easy to get down, two classes that can heal the group a little, two classes who can keep the enemies CCed to reduce the damage on the group and 1 class that is "pure" dps.
this group seems in my eyes far more interesting then 1tank,1 healer, x dps you are used in most games this days. As DPS you are a unimportant and replaceable class compared to tanks and healer. with EQNs new way this could change and everyone will be important not only the tank and healer.
And you can easier make flexible difficulties in dungeons. One dungeon may only need one group of three players. The next maybe 6 or 9. And that can go up to 12,15,18,21,24,27,30. but you wouldn't see all of this 30 players on your ui(we don't want to play the ui) but you see the ten 3-man groups this 30 players are made off.
Exactly, there an inherent flexibility that mmos haven't had before that will actually allow more players to come together in a more organic way.
DPS outnumbers Tanks and Healers 3 to 1 in video games which is why I always though it odd companies were moving to smaller group sizes since 6 seems about right. I am all for scalable content and there are times I really like 2-3 man content but I think the hardest small group content should be 6 person with raids composed of 4-6 6 person groups.
3 people should be required for effective play imo. a group should be min, 5-6 with 7-8 ideal in my mind.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
then you should define for what you need such big groups.
Dungeons? Raids? Open World Exploration? PvP?
with the 3 man system you could do all that.
Open world Exploration - 1x 3-man group
Dungeons - 2x 3-man groups
Raids - 3~10x 3-man groups
PvP - 1~10x 3-man groups
i dont see a problem to have 3 man groups and big groups at the same time.
A 3 man group implies 1 to manage agro, 1 to manage groups health, and 1 to focus on killing the mobs as fast as possible. You expect a 3rd of the player base to play tanks and a 3rd to play healers? Most players these days can't manage to play the dps class well, how do you expect them to master the much more difficult healer and tank classes?
Not mention it leaves no room for specialized mechanics either. You design doesn't really have a space for tier 2 DPS utility classes. And just tacking two groups together and calling it a 6 man group does not solve the issues either since core group mechanics would be around the 3 man group.
I personally hate how group size is decreasing. It's directly responsible (or at least has been side by side) with the muddling of classes into boring non specialized messes. I believe that having each class able to do more than one thing is good but there is a limit and people should have to focus on one thing at a time. You can have a class that it both healer and dps but you shouldn't be able to both heal and dps at the same time.
then you should define for what you need such big groups.
Dungeons? Raids? Open World Exploration? PvP?
with the 3 man system you could do all that.
Open world Exploration - 1x 3-man group
Dungeons - 2x 3-man groups
Raids - 3~10x 3-man groups
PvP - 1~10x 3-man groups
i dont see a problem to have 3 man groups and big groups at the same time.
A 3 man group implies 1 to manage agro, 1 to manage groups health, and 1 to focus on killing the mobs as fast as possible. You expect a 3rd of the player base to play tanks and a 3rd to play healers? Most players these days can't manage to play the dps class well, how do you expect them to master the much more difficult healer and tank classes?
Not mention it leaves no room for specialized mechanics either. You design doesn't really have a space for tier 2 DPS utility classes. And just tacking two groups together and calling it a 6 man group does not solve the issues either since core group mechanics would be around the 3 man group.
I personally hate how group size is decreasing. It's directly responsible (or at least has been side by side) with the muddling of classes into boring non specialized messes. I believe that having each class able to do more than one thing is good but there is a limit and people should have to focus on one thing at a time. You can have a class that it both healer and dps but you shouldn't be able to both heal and dps at the same time.
the problem is that you see dedicated dps as a role and I don't thik that will be the design of EQN. Every player will be able to dps, some a little better than others but nothing off the charts. You see this in how the classes are designed. Everyone has weapon skills, and a mix of utility, movement defense and damage slots.
Each player will be expected to do more. Tank and dps, support and dps, heal and dps. You said it yourself, no one wants to tank or heal, and as a result you no longer have to rely on them anymore. Really what they are doing is eliminating the tank and heal roles and replacing it with softer utility roles, so in effect everyone is the class they want to play...all are dps..by player demand.
by your own admission the 6 man group doesn't work because most wont play the required roles, yet somehow you want the same thing. I think what you really want is a tankbot and healbot and everyone play their dps. in essence..lazy.
then you should define for what you need such big groups.
Dungeons? Raids? Open World Exploration? PvP?
with the 3 man system you could do all that.
Open world Exploration - 1x 3-man group
Dungeons - 2x 3-man groups
Raids - 3~10x 3-man groups
PvP - 1~10x 3-man groups
i dont see a problem to have 3 man groups and big groups at the same time.
A 3 man group implies 1 to manage agro, 1 to manage groups health, and 1 to focus on killing the mobs as fast as possible. You expect a 3rd of the player base to play tanks and a 3rd to play healers? Most players these days can't manage to play the dps class well, how do you expect them to master the much more difficult healer and tank classes?
Not mention it leaves no room for specialized mechanics either. You design doesn't really have a space for tier 2 DPS utility classes. And just tacking two groups together and calling it a 6 man group does not solve the issues either since core group mechanics would be around the 3 man group.
I personally hate how group size is decreasing. It's directly responsible (or at least has been side by side) with the muddling of classes into boring non specialized messes. I believe that having each class able to do more than one thing is good but there is a limit and people should have to focus on one thing at a time. You can have a class that it both healer and dps but you shouldn't be able to both heal and dps at the same time.
the problem is that you see dedicated dps as a role and I don't thik that will be the design of EQN. Every player will be able to dps, some a little better than others but nothing off the charts. You see this in how the classes are designed. Everyone has weapon skills, and a mix of utility, movement defense and damage slots.
Each player will be expected to do more. Tank and dps, support and dps, heal and dps. You said it yourself, no one wants to tank or heal, and as a result you no longer have to rely on them anymore. Really what they are doing is eliminating the tank and heal roles and replacing it with softer utility roles, so in effect everyone is the class they want to play...all are dps..by player demand.
by your own admission the 6 man group doesn't work because most wont play the required roles, yet somehow you want the same thing. I think what you really want is a tankbot and healbot and everyone play their dps. in essence..lazy.
I have tanked and healed both small and large (raid) group content in EQ2 for years so I wouldn't assume that. I have also done the pure DPS thing which I find mind numbly boring. The last couple years I have been playing a tier 2 dps utility class (Bard) and while not quite as difficult as raiding as a tank or healer it is hands down better than button mashing DPS.
What your asking for is dumbed down content. The smaller the group and more interchangeable you make classes the more stupid easy the content becomes because you can't design encounters around specific roles being in place. You can call me wrong if you like and that's your right but I have seen it over and over again in the last 10 years. Games like GW2 and Neverwinter where group content is nothing but a free for all zerg race to the final named and where "difficult" is not wiping because all four of your members went in different directions at the same time to pull more mobs.
I dont mind the group size, as long as they have bigger group content also of course, but I do agree on the defined roles..... One thing this genre has really gotten away from and that is playing a role...This "everyone can do everything" nonsense needs to go bye-bye.
It was said you have dedicated roles but you don't relay on that one healer or tank. so a 3 man group can consist of damage oriented classes only as a durable or support only group. You have to break the thinking of the last ten years and don't think of GW2 Classes of all trade. You have a Role, BUT you are not THE TANK or THE HEALER or THE DPS like in the past. In my example the paladin is a mix of tanky supporter. that's a role. Like the Shadow Knight is more of a self reliant tanky class. That's his role. And not being a tank only and nothing more.
Until the Class roles and mechanics are announced its all just guessing how good/bad it will be. But for now the official statement is, the classical trinity is dead in EQN.
I agree with the GW2 aspect, I don't want everyone to be able to do everything all the time with the change of a weapon. I also don't want no castable powers....or even timers for that matter.
but I do think there will be a lot more fun bringing together the synergies of 3 players to form a fast group on the fly. As above think paladin and shadowknight not warrior or cleric. Also there will also be a new dynamic of bringing two units together like building blocks, and working up from there for harder challenges. 6 has never worked properly and the evidence is the legion of solo oriented games. Its a failure that needs to be addressed.
Does a 3-man group concept 'encourage' the development team to make content that might be too easy?
I think it might. Content tuned for a trio consisting of a tank, healer and dps would probably be significantly different from content tuned for a 7-man group consisting of tank, tank, dps, dps, dps, healer, healer. The larger group gives the players a bit more latitude in building groups, and has some degree of redundancy which can be more tolerant of errors. In a 3-man group, the healer might get a string of fizzles causing the entire group to die. A single healer getting a string of fizzles in a larger group is less likely to endanger the entire group, although there may be some deaths.
Also, players knowing the content is tuned for 3 people might be more likely to attempt to solo that content. Content tuned to a 5+ person group is less likely to invite solo attempts. And the developers do have ears. They might hear the "I couldn't solo Mob X" complaints and introduce expansions with more solo-friendly content, which undermines the premise of grouping.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
you have to keep in mind that there will be no taunt in this game and in addition, while there might be roles, there will be no extreme dedicated ones like eq1 had.
everyone will be a hybrid based on the design of the game. The use of hybrids dictates that either the group size shrink or you have to dramatically change the encounters. Much easier to change the group size. Don't want to end up with GW2 dungeons again.
you have to keep in mind that there will be no taunt in this game and in addition, while there might be roles, there will be no extreme dedicated ones like eq1 had.
everyone will be a hybrid based on the design of the game. The use of hybrids dictates that either the group size shrink or you have to dramatically change the encounters. Much easier to change the group size. Don't want to end up with GW2 dungeons again.
I'm sure the developers are not trying to create zerg mechanics but history shows that's exactly where this path of no role specialization and smaller group sizes is leading them. Maybe they can do it better, who knows but I have zero interest in playing GW2 style group content.
you have to keep in mind that there will be no taunt in this game and in addition, while there might be roles, there will be no extreme dedicated ones like eq1 had.
everyone will be a hybrid based on the design of the game. The use of hybrids dictates that either the group size shrink or you have to dramatically change the encounters. Much easier to change the group size. Don't want to end up with GW2 dungeons again.
I'm sure the developers are not trying to create zerg mechanics but history shows that's exactly where this path of no role specialization and smaller group sizes is leading them. Maybe they can do it better, who knows but I have zero interest in playing GW2 style group content.
me either, which is why they need a different strategy when it comes to grouping. If they try a 6 man group with the GW2 mentality "everyone take care of themselves" it will fail the same way GW2 dungeons did.
I think they need softer hybridized roles (like paladin/shadowknight vs warrior or druid/shaman vs cleric) with more utility and a smaller size group to make the monster function work properly. Bigger groups require more specialization, smaller groups require more utility.
trust me. 3 groups working on different tasks simultaneously will create way more fun grouping than you've ever had before.
you have to keep in mind that there will be no taunt in this game and in addition, while there might be roles, there will be no extreme dedicated ones like eq1 had.
everyone will be a hybrid based on the design of the game. The use of hybrids dictates that either the group size shrink or you have to dramatically change the encounters. Much easier to change the group size. Don't want to end up with GW2 dungeons again.
Very true. Everyone will be a hybrid of some nature. And it will require changes.
I think many people are thinking '3 players vs 1 mob' as the content. But what if mobs come in groups of 4+? Some mobs (bears, for instance) might come in singles, with little 'social' connotations. Some mobs (wolves) might run in packs, and be able to summon nearby wolves to their aid (wolf howl). A solitary bear might be a good fight for a group of 3, but 4 wolves (plus any 'summoned') would be a handful for that same group of 3.
I don't see EQ:N focusing on solitary predators. They've stated that they want to focus on group AI, and that suggests 'social' type mobs as the bulk of the environmental content. Sure, there will be single dragons to raid, but I think it might be a big mistake to assume that a group of 3 will be able to fight single mobs on a consistent basis. Even the 'mini-boss' level mobs will probably have several 'minions' that simply can't be broken apart.
So, I'm thinking that the change that EQ:N will impose might more likely be in the form of increasing the number of mobs that act as a single content 'unit'.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Some one has already pointed out the best max group size, and that number is 8.
Why 8 you ask, well it is a historically accurate number for the smallest organized unit of soldiers in the Roman army (called a Contubernium).
I do not think it is easily possible to "scale" an encounter to a specific # of people in a game that allows for people to multi-class. I think the more programmers try to shoehorn an encounter to a specific groupsize/role definition, then you are also forcing players to certain classes/builds/gear, and that is not a good thing. If you want freedom then you build your creatures for a range of players/skills/abilities/gear, and allow it to change over time. I think it is time for us to go into the world without knowing what the optimized group is or optimized build is and just enjoy the experience each and every time we fight something.
you have to keep in mind that there will be no taunt in this game and in addition, while there might be roles, there will be no extreme dedicated ones like eq1 had.
everyone will be a hybrid based on the design of the game. The use of hybrids dictates that either the group size shrink or you have to dramatically change the encounters. Much easier to change the group size. Don't want to end up with GW2 dungeons again.
Very true. Everyone will be a hybrid of some nature. And it will require changes.
I think many people are thinking '3 players vs 1 mob' as the content. But what if mobs come in groups of 4+? Some mobs (bears, for instance) might come in singles, with little 'social' connotations. Some mobs (wolves) might run in packs, and be able to summon nearby wolves to their aid (wolf howl). A solitary bear might be a good fight for a group of 3, but 4 wolves (plus any 'summoned') would be a handful for that same group of 3.
I don't see EQ:N focusing on solitary predators. They've stated that they want to focus on group AI, and that suggests 'social' type mobs as the bulk of the environmental content. Sure, there will be single dragons to raid, but I think it might be a big mistake to assume that a group of 3 will be able to fight single mobs on a consistent basis. Even the 'mini-boss' level mobs will probably have several 'minions' that simply can't be broken apart.
So, I'm thinking that the change that EQ:N will impose might more likely be in the form of increasing the number of mobs that act as a single content 'unit'.
which, with the addition of crowd control, would enhance the survivability of groups without ultra specialized classes.
Personally, I think the base premise isn't bad at all. 2-3 player groups are small and fun from my experience, and they do have the advantage of what you describe. Though I think they need a certain kind of game to really succeed, something like rift, ff14 or wildstar, where you have the ability to switch your role and skill layout, and adapt it to certain situations.
That way, you can have some 3-player content out in the open world, and encourage people to form these small groups more easily, because people can adopt a sort of "soft trinity". The content won't be hard enough to enforce a tank/heal/dps role, but instead the tank can adopt some self heals, or some more dps, and the heals can dps as well. Or the dps can take some CC to help the situation. Basically allowing more flexibility. And possibly also encouraging players who usually don't enjoy doing anything but easymode-dps to try out other roles and see how it goes for them.
This could be expanded into dungeon groups, which are 6-player, which would cater quite nicely to the idea of there usually being more dps players than anything else. And by giving everyone the ability to adopt support skills like CC or buffs, you could tweak the content to be easier if people actually bring some of those skills over straight-up dps.
FInally, raiding would be 18 or maybe even 36 player content, with up to 6 groups of 6 players taking on big bosses.
It might be wishful thinking, but using those group sizes to both break up the trinity a bit and spreading out the responsibilites sounds nice, as well as having a way to do group content in the open world without requiring a full on 5-player congregation. Plus the open-world 3-man groups can always grow to a 6-people size if more people want to come along, much like any other game.
Personally, I think the base premise isn't bad at all. 2-3 player groups are small and fun from my experience, and they do have the advantage of what you describe. Though I think they need a certain kind of game to really succeed, something like rift, ff14 or wildstar, where you have the ability to switch your role and skill layout, and adapt it to certain situations.
This is what we get with the multi classing. You are never locked to a certain class because you choose in the creation so. But you can change on the fly. Try and learn. and find a setup that fits to that encounter. but this setup could be useless against another encounter. Less static thinking, more flexible
Until the Class roles and mechanics are announced its all just guessing how good/bad it will be. But for now the official statement is, the classical trinity is dead in EQN.
i agree we need more info
but the primary reason the classic trinity is dead is because there will be no taunt
I like the old DAOC Approach to grouping: 1) You get more Exp when grouped 2) Form a Group of 2 to 8 people and go for the content this Group is able to handle - no artifical limits
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
Comments
I was thinking that you would have detailed stats on your 2 other teammates such as health, mana, condition and for every other group you would only have whether the "group" as a whole is alive or dead.
that would take up minimal room on the screen but provide the information you need. It would also allow you to click on a group to communicate with the leader if you are the group leader over voip.
5 man is bad. 4 man is just flat out dumb. How could 3 man be any better.
IF...
If we are talking about REAL grouping. You know. Roles. Tactics. Strategy.
If you're talking a bunch of do everything soloists with no real structure sharing a chat and instance and THAT'S your idea of a group, ala GW2 or soon to be TESO, then, who cares, since that's not really grouping and is more like a steaming pile of camel dung.
If we're talking real grouping, 3 is a poor choice, because tanks and healers are always in shorter supply than dps. This is why I say 5 is bad and 4 is worse. When you cut the number of dps spots the dpsers just wait longer and longer for groups. The older MMORPGs (which had group heavy play) usually had 6 man groups (or 8 in DAoC). You can easily do tank, healer, support, 3 dps or some variant and get plenty of people involved. As you shrink to 5 and especially 4, you cut down on your options and the legions of dps are kinda screwed. 3 would just be utterly brutal....
IF
If the game has real grouping.
If the game is just soloing and crappy groups of soloists...who cares. It won't be much of an MMORPG.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
you should stop thinking with the trinity in mind. You don't NEED a tank or healer. Instead you have supportive classes that may drop a heal or hot along but they only purpose to heal is not given. You have durable classes that are harder to kill but they don't have a taunt-magnet keeping the enemy always at them, but they will have ways to stop them from moving away from them. Many classes of the 40 wont be pure dps you know from many MMOs. They will have more options then only dps.
and as an example.
You log in and want to explore the world with your friends doing some quests helping in a rally call. for that you may join with your friends a 3-man group of say a Wizard, Archer and Paladin. The wizard and Archer are ranged with some cc to keep the mobs away, while the paladin is in the fray and pulls a heal some times.
then they find a dungeon entry(no one talked about static dungeon location). They know a dungeon is a harder place so they look for another 3-man group out there that wants to join. So they will be a joined 6-man "raid" of two 3-man groups for that harder content.
This other group brings into the this mini raid(or dungeon group) a Shadow Knight, a Rogue and a Cleric. The Shadow Knight is similar to the Paladin but instead of healing other he can leach health from enemies. The rogue is a class centered about alot of movement and maybe poisons. The Cleric is quite supportive with hots and buffs, but also uses some ranged attacks.
to get that clear:
Paladin - Durable with heals (tanky but not a tank with a taunt, supportive but not a healer)
Shadow Knight - Durable with self heals (tanky but not a tank with a taunt)
Wizard - ranged with CC
Archer - ranged with CC
Rouge - melee with dots
Cleric - ranged and supportive (but not a pure healer)
this could be a group without a dedicated tank or healer. Instead you have two classes that are not that easy to get down, two classes that can heal the group a little, two classes who can keep the enemies CCed to reduce the damage on the group and 1 class that is "pure" dps.
this group seems in my eyes far more interesting then 1tank,1 healer, x dps you are used in most games this days. As DPS you are a unimportant and replaceable class compared to tanks and healer. with EQNs new way this could change and everyone will be important not only the tank and healer.
And you can easier make flexible difficulties in dungeons. One dungeon may only need one group of three players. The next maybe 6 or 9. And that can go up to 12,15,18,21,24,27,30. but you wouldn't see all of this 30 players on your ui(we don't want to play the ui) but you see the ten 3-man groups this 30 players are made off.
Exactly, there an inherent flexibility that mmos haven't had before that will actually allow more players to come together in a more organic way.
quadrupel this.
3 people should be required for effective play imo. a group should be min, 5-6 with 7-8 ideal in my mind.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
then you should define for what you need such big groups.
Dungeons? Raids? Open World Exploration? PvP?
with the 3 man system you could do all that.
Open world Exploration - 1x 3-man group
Dungeons - 2x 3-man groups
Raids - 3~10x 3-man groups
PvP - 1~10x 3-man groups
i dont see a problem to have 3 man groups and big groups at the same time.
A 3 man group implies 1 to manage agro, 1 to manage groups health, and 1 to focus on killing the mobs as fast as possible. You expect a 3rd of the player base to play tanks and a 3rd to play healers? Most players these days can't manage to play the dps class well, how do you expect them to master the much more difficult healer and tank classes?
Not mention it leaves no room for specialized mechanics either. You design doesn't really have a space for tier 2 DPS utility classes. And just tacking two groups together and calling it a 6 man group does not solve the issues either since core group mechanics would be around the 3 man group.
I personally hate how group size is decreasing. It's directly responsible (or at least has been side by side) with the muddling of classes into boring non specialized messes. I believe that having each class able to do more than one thing is good but there is a limit and people should have to focus on one thing at a time. You can have a class that it both healer and dps but you shouldn't be able to both heal and dps at the same time.
the problem is that you see dedicated dps as a role and I don't thik that will be the design of EQN. Every player will be able to dps, some a little better than others but nothing off the charts. You see this in how the classes are designed. Everyone has weapon skills, and a mix of utility, movement defense and damage slots.
Each player will be expected to do more. Tank and dps, support and dps, heal and dps. You said it yourself, no one wants to tank or heal, and as a result you no longer have to rely on them anymore. Really what they are doing is eliminating the tank and heal roles and replacing it with softer utility roles, so in effect everyone is the class they want to play...all are dps..by player demand.
by your own admission the 6 man group doesn't work because most wont play the required roles, yet somehow you want the same thing. I think what you really want is a tankbot and healbot and everyone play their dps. in essence..lazy.
I have tanked and healed both small and large (raid) group content in EQ2 for years so I wouldn't assume that. I have also done the pure DPS thing which I find mind numbly boring. The last couple years I have been playing a tier 2 dps utility class (Bard) and while not quite as difficult as raiding as a tank or healer it is hands down better than button mashing DPS.
What your asking for is dumbed down content. The smaller the group and more interchangeable you make classes the more stupid easy the content becomes because you can't design encounters around specific roles being in place. You can call me wrong if you like and that's your right but I have seen it over and over again in the last 10 years. Games like GW2 and Neverwinter where group content is nothing but a free for all zerg race to the final named and where "difficult" is not wiping because all four of your members went in different directions at the same time to pull more mobs.
No thanks,
I dont mind the group size, as long as they have bigger group content also of course, but I do agree on the defined roles..... One thing this genre has really gotten away from and that is playing a role...This "everyone can do everything" nonsense needs to go bye-bye.
It was said you have dedicated roles but you don't relay on that one healer or tank. so a 3 man group can consist of damage oriented classes only as a durable or support only group. You have to break the thinking of the last ten years and don't think of GW2 Classes of all trade. You have a Role, BUT you are not THE TANK or THE HEALER or THE DPS like in the past. In my example the paladin is a mix of tanky supporter. that's a role. Like the Shadow Knight is more of a self reliant tanky class. That's his role. And not being a tank only and nothing more.
Until the Class roles and mechanics are announced its all just guessing how good/bad it will be. But for now the official statement is, the classical trinity is dead in EQN.
I agree with the GW2 aspect, I don't want everyone to be able to do everything all the time with the change of a weapon. I also don't want no castable powers....or even timers for that matter.
but I do think there will be a lot more fun bringing together the synergies of 3 players to form a fast group on the fly. As above think paladin and shadowknight not warrior or cleric. Also there will also be a new dynamic of bringing two units together like building blocks, and working up from there for harder challenges. 6 has never worked properly and the evidence is the legion of solo oriented games. Its a failure that needs to be addressed.
Thirded or fourthed...etc.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Let me ask a followup question.
Does a 3-man group concept 'encourage' the development team to make content that might be too easy?
I think it might. Content tuned for a trio consisting of a tank, healer and dps would probably be significantly different from content tuned for a 7-man group consisting of tank, tank, dps, dps, dps, healer, healer. The larger group gives the players a bit more latitude in building groups, and has some degree of redundancy which can be more tolerant of errors. In a 3-man group, the healer might get a string of fizzles causing the entire group to die. A single healer getting a string of fizzles in a larger group is less likely to endanger the entire group, although there may be some deaths.
Also, players knowing the content is tuned for 3 people might be more likely to attempt to solo that content. Content tuned to a 5+ person group is less likely to invite solo attempts. And the developers do have ears. They might hear the "I couldn't solo Mob X" complaints and introduce expansions with more solo-friendly content, which undermines the premise of grouping.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
you have to keep in mind that there will be no taunt in this game and in addition, while there might be roles, there will be no extreme dedicated ones like eq1 had.
everyone will be a hybrid based on the design of the game. The use of hybrids dictates that either the group size shrink or you have to dramatically change the encounters. Much easier to change the group size. Don't want to end up with GW2 dungeons again.
I'm sure the developers are not trying to create zerg mechanics but history shows that's exactly where this path of no role specialization and smaller group sizes is leading them. Maybe they can do it better, who knows but I have zero interest in playing GW2 style group content.
me either, which is why they need a different strategy when it comes to grouping. If they try a 6 man group with the GW2 mentality "everyone take care of themselves" it will fail the same way GW2 dungeons did.
I think they need softer hybridized roles (like paladin/shadowknight vs warrior or druid/shaman vs cleric) with more utility and a smaller size group to make the monster function work properly. Bigger groups require more specialization, smaller groups require more utility.
trust me. 3 groups working on different tasks simultaneously will create way more fun grouping than you've ever had before.
Very true. Everyone will be a hybrid of some nature. And it will require changes.
I think many people are thinking '3 players vs 1 mob' as the content. But what if mobs come in groups of 4+? Some mobs (bears, for instance) might come in singles, with little 'social' connotations. Some mobs (wolves) might run in packs, and be able to summon nearby wolves to their aid (wolf howl). A solitary bear might be a good fight for a group of 3, but 4 wolves (plus any 'summoned') would be a handful for that same group of 3.
I don't see EQ:N focusing on solitary predators. They've stated that they want to focus on group AI, and that suggests 'social' type mobs as the bulk of the environmental content. Sure, there will be single dragons to raid, but I think it might be a big mistake to assume that a group of 3 will be able to fight single mobs on a consistent basis. Even the 'mini-boss' level mobs will probably have several 'minions' that simply can't be broken apart.
So, I'm thinking that the change that EQ:N will impose might more likely be in the form of increasing the number of mobs that act as a single content 'unit'.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Some one has already pointed out the best max group size, and that number is 8.
Why 8 you ask, well it is a historically accurate number for the smallest organized unit of soldiers in the Roman army (called a Contubernium).
I do not think it is easily possible to "scale" an encounter to a specific # of people in a game that allows for people to multi-class. I think the more programmers try to shoehorn an encounter to a specific groupsize/role definition, then you are also forcing players to certain classes/builds/gear, and that is not a good thing. If you want freedom then you build your creatures for a range of players/skills/abilities/gear, and allow it to change over time. I think it is time for us to go into the world without knowing what the optimized group is or optimized build is and just enjoy the experience each and every time we fight something.
which, with the addition of crowd control, would enhance the survivability of groups without ultra specialized classes.
Personally, I think the base premise isn't bad at all. 2-3 player groups are small and fun from my experience, and they do have the advantage of what you describe. Though I think they need a certain kind of game to really succeed, something like rift, ff14 or wildstar, where you have the ability to switch your role and skill layout, and adapt it to certain situations.
That way, you can have some 3-player content out in the open world, and encourage people to form these small groups more easily, because people can adopt a sort of "soft trinity". The content won't be hard enough to enforce a tank/heal/dps role, but instead the tank can adopt some self heals, or some more dps, and the heals can dps as well. Or the dps can take some CC to help the situation. Basically allowing more flexibility. And possibly also encouraging players who usually don't enjoy doing anything but easymode-dps to try out other roles and see how it goes for them.
This could be expanded into dungeon groups, which are 6-player, which would cater quite nicely to the idea of there usually being more dps players than anything else. And by giving everyone the ability to adopt support skills like CC or buffs, you could tweak the content to be easier if people actually bring some of those skills over straight-up dps.
FInally, raiding would be 18 or maybe even 36 player content, with up to 6 groups of 6 players taking on big bosses.
It might be wishful thinking, but using those group sizes to both break up the trinity a bit and spreading out the responsibilites sounds nice, as well as having a way to do group content in the open world without requiring a full on 5-player congregation. Plus the open-world 3-man groups can always grow to a 6-people size if more people want to come along, much like any other game.
This is what we get with the multi classing. You are never locked to a certain class because you choose in the creation so. But you can change on the fly. Try and learn. and find a setup that fits to that encounter. but this setup could be useless against another encounter. Less static thinking, more flexible
i agree we need more info
but the primary reason the classic trinity is dead is because there will be no taunt
i'm expecting to see many roles - without taunt
EQ2 fan sites
I like the old DAOC Approach to grouping:
1) You get more Exp when grouped
2) Form a Group of 2 to 8 people and go for the content this Group is able to handle - no artifical limits
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM