Fun Group Makeups

Curt2013

So how many of yall will be willing to stray out of the more popular group makeups for example. I'm guessing most peeps will want something like this for their group.

1. tank
2. healer
3. cc
4. dps
5. dps
6. open for w/e

What are some other combos that you think might work, maybe it wont be optimal, but sometimes you might not have another dps available or tank for that matter. Would you dare venture into a dungeon with say 2 tanks, 2 healers, 2 dps, with no true cc? Or how about somthing crazy like a monk, 2 healers, 3 dps with good cc.

Some of the best times I've had is putting together off the wall groups that manged to surpass expectations, hoping unconventional groups will be viable in pantheon as well.

Geeky

Woohoo, tank tank tank tank tank tank.

Keller

Tank + Healer + anything goes


I value play as you like higher than ingenious scripted fights which require specific roles. Sure certain setups are faster or easier, but that's just Invite to Win

Nanfoodle

Seems Pantheon is doing a good job of sharing roles like the Rogue in the last video being the main CCer. Enchanters and Bards most likely will be the main CCers but it will make viable teams easier to make.

That being said it's not a party without a Bard even if they are there as backup CCer. I always like a Paladin tank when you didn't have a cleric. A good paladin can save lives when things go south. 

To be honest I liked mixing things up with teams, small changes in classes changes the team dynamic. I used to love perma camping in guk with people coming and going. They were the good old days. 

cheyane

Bards are the life of a party must not have any group without them !!!

Thebeasttt

kite bard + 5 wizards

Akulas

6 bards or 6 wizards

Amathe

I would amend to say a "technically efficient group." A fun group to me is based on the personalities of who is in it. I would rather have an amusing Shaman than a leet but uptight mage. 

Curt2013

DMKano said:

Amathe said:

I would amend to say a "technically efficient group." A fun group to me is based on the personalities of who is in it. I would rather have an amusing Shaman than a leet but uptight mage. 

I always take the best skilled and geared players, as otherwise its a loss of efficiency and time.

But then again my guild has been like this for over 15 years so thats how we are - min/max at heart.

I don't need the best skilled, it's not like were going to be playing a twitch game were you need uber hand eye coordination but I get it, to me as long as you know your class good should be fine. Then again I do remember peeps from vanguard and eq that seemed to know there class but just made bad choices on a regular basis.

 I think knowledge of the area / encounter, and mob behavior which takes experience will be of more value. Rolling with an unorthodox party is also cool if it only involves guildies or thats your only option. It's when you get that player who not only lacks experience but also doesn't know there class well that it becomes a bad pug like feel.

Mylan12

My static group in EQ was :
Monk
Cleric
Chanter
Ranger
Bard
Bard

We did fine and had fun. I was never a min/maxer.  

Amathe

DMKano said:

I always take the best skilled and geared players, as otherwise its a loss of efficiency and time.

But then again my guild has been like this for over 15 years so thats how we are - min/max at heart.

I always take the people who are able to discuss something while playing other than just their gaming prowess. 

Mylan12

Sort of off topic but I hope this game is like EQ in that guilds have a reputation. For example you knew that if you joined a guild group or added a player from "certain" guilds to your group that chances were very high that it be a fun and good experience. It was like this in early EQ, not sure about later as I left around the 3rd expansion.

ZionBane

Well in EQ, due to the way the zones were set up with dungeons being very different then out-door zones. We would have different set up for each.

Outdoor Set up was.
Necromancer
Druid
Ranger
pity mage invite
token bard
random noob

Dungeon Set Up was.
Warrior
Cleric
Enchanter
cannon fodder
potential sacrifice
token bard

Now in Pantheon, we have set up.. before any actual play.
Ranger
Paladin
Rouge
Hopefully someone that knows what they are doing
^^
^^

Nanfoodle

Mylan12 said:

Sort of off topic but I hope this game is like EQ in that guilds have a reputation. For example you knew that if you joined a guild group or added a player from "certain" guilds to your group that chances were very high that it be a fun and good experience. It was like this in early EQ, not sure about later as I left around the 3rd expansion.

VR has already said it will be a very rare thing to change ones name. Reputation will be a big thing in Pantheon. Fact guilds reps are made by peoples reputation. I am sure it will be very much the same. 

Nightbringe1

My EQ1 Favorite was mage/mage/mage/mage/mage/shaman

You could steamroll even the most difficult zones far faster than the respawn rate.

Eronakis

The absolute best EQ Group I had was Planes of Power expansion, West Wall Camp in Plans of Valor consisted off an unorthodox group...

Mage - Tank via his Earth pet
Wizard - (me) puller/DPS
Necromancer - DPS
Enchanter - Slower/CC
Bard - Buffs/CC
Druid - Healer/Buffs

The Mage also healed his pet as well. It was quite the consistent group. I think we were there for like 4 hours and got a half of dozen AA's out of it if I remember right. That was one of my favorite groups, it was fantastic. 

*It was unconventional to play a Wizard and main pull. After figuring out pathing and spacing I was pretty good at it. Couldn't split mobs for crap but I could single pull in a crowded area! 

The Best Dungeon Group I had was the following...

Shadow Knight - Tank
Wizard (me) - DPS
Necromancer/Beastlord - DPS
Bard - Puller/Buffer/CC
Enchanter - CC/slower
Cleric - Healer

That was a pretty consistent group and believe it or not we downed mobs pretty quickly. Sure you can say that group was mana/dmg buff for the Wizard and it was. I produced some decent damage output back in the day with my Ethereals

svann

Nightbringe1 said:

My EQ1 Favorite was mage/mage/mage/mage/mage/shaman

You could steamroll even the most difficult zones far faster than the respawn rate.

IMO that represents the opposite of what we want.  If one class is so OP that many people want to make a group consisting of all that class + a healer then its broken.  Interesting group makeup means interesting ways of putting together different classes - not just taking the most OP class and calling it a day.

Scott23

In EQ1 I played a bard so it was anything with a bard   Bards just made groups better...

ste2000

Ideally I would go:

1- Guardian/SK = Tank
2- Cleric = Heals
3- Shaman (Druid) = Buffs
4- Chanter (Bard) = Buffs/CC
5- Wizard = DPS
6- Necromancer = DPS

But in EQ you could mix and match lots of different set ups and get the job done, so I hope Pantheon will be the same.

TwoTubes

svann said:

Nightbringe1 said:

My EQ1 Favorite was mage/mage/mage/mage/mage/shaman

You could steamroll even the most difficult zones far faster than the respawn rate.

IMO that represents the opposite of what we want.  If one class is so OP that many people want to make a group consisting of all that class + a healer then its broken.  Interesting group makeup means interesting ways of putting together different classes - not just taking the most OP class and calling it a day.

That's not actually how it was anyway.  People who say things like that didn't play EQ high end during its prime.

Beyorn

I hope they get the balancing right or we will end up with the trinity again which I hated.  You couldn't do anything without a tank, enchanter, cleric, the rest of the group was just fluff.

svann

LegotheHutt said:

svann said:

Nightbringe1 said:

My EQ1 Favorite was mage/mage/mage/mage/mage/shaman

You could steamroll even the most difficult zones far faster than the respawn rate.

IMO that represents the opposite of what we want.  If one class is so OP that many people want to make a group consisting of all that class + a healer then its broken.  Interesting group makeup means interesting ways of putting together different classes - not just taking the most OP class and calling it a day.

That's not actually how it was anyway.  People who say things like that didn't play EQ high end during its prime.

Maybe you didnt read the post I was responding to:
"You could steamroll even the most difficult zones far faster than the respawn rate."

Yes that IS how it was.  Maybe not at day 1, but at the time he was talking about and I was responding to that is exactly how it was.  He is talking about the times when mage was so overpowered that people frequently made groups of all mages and a healer (like he said), and that is not a good thing IMO.

Nightbringe1

svann said:

Nightbringe1 said:

My EQ1 Favorite was mage/mage/mage/mage/mage/shaman

You could steamroll even the most difficult zones far faster than the respawn rate.

IMO that represents the opposite of what we want.  If one class is so OP that many people want to make a group consisting of all that class + a healer then its broken.  Interesting group makeup means interesting ways of putting together different classes - not just taking the most OP class and calling it a day.

Mage was typically the DPS class left sitting lfg, because rogues/wizards/berserkers were better. I cannot count the number of times my request to join an lfp group with declined with "sorry, looking for a wizard." 

Shamans, likewise, were typically left sitting out because they were not "real" healers and enchanters/bards/beastlords were preferred for buffs/slows/CC.

I used to take great pleasure in inviting my fellow lfg mages to a group with my wife, the shaman, and blowing past a group that turned down our request to join, because they only had room for "real" healers and DPS.

You really did have to be there to understand just how crazy that group makeup could get. It took a very skilled shaman to be the puller/CC in a place like The Hive when it first released.