Arctic Mud

NEWS => Development News => Topic started by: Hoss on February 13, 2014, 08:33:11 PM

Title: Group Size
Post by: Hoss on February 13, 2014, 08:33:11 PM
As a part of our game development we are taking a in-depth look into group size and how it effects the overall game in regards to creation and overall game balance. I wanted to layout a proposal of why we want to make some changes with group size, explain a proposed design we are thinking will fit in well and get some pointed feedback from the players.

We want to make changes to group size for a numerous reasons and have been monitoring group size for some time so that we had some data to support the change. One of the main factors is that we want to allow groups to do more with less. The current 10 man group limit forces creators to design based on having 10 of the most powerful characters available. From the last few wipes of group size data, this seems to limit a lot of players to be able to play content unless they are completely overpowered for it. This isn't a regime that we want to continue with, we would rather change things up and allow more players to enjoy more of the game without forcing everyone to have a 10 man group of legendary characters with low limit gear. Not to worry, we are planning on making changes to elite end game as well to keep that challenging.

The proposed design up for discussion is as follows: We would like to lower the group size to 5. This is based on a few factors; group size data and the idea of having 1 tank, 1 healer and 3 dps/utility to round out a group. One of the things we would like to do in the lube release is to rebalance a lot of the zones to this 5 man group size. This would be done dynamically (mostly) and allow creators to design to a known standard. It would also allow us to rebalance zones that are passed over do to the last 5 or so years of power-inflation. We still want to allow for 10 man groups, but we would like to have 5 the ideal man power needed to rock and roll.

Once a group grows in size from 6-10, certain restrictions would come into play. We are still kicking around ideas but what we have in mind so far are the following: Coins would no longer drop, experience would no longer be gained, rank points would not be earned.
We hope that a system like this would still allow a 10 man group to overpower a zone, but not gain the full reward. We understand that players want to group with their friends and not exclude that 6th person so we do not want to have the penalty be so harsh that grouping from 6-10 never occurs.

Another change would be what I have been calling 'elite zones'. These zones would be power scaled with a 10 man group in mind and be very challenging for any groups that enter them. Nothing is set in stone, but I did want to get some feedback going so that we have multiple views on the subject. I would like to ask you all the following questions.

1. Would having a 5 man group be acceptable if it was the norm?
2. Would you still group up with 6-10 if the penalty wasn't too harsh?
3. What other affects would you place on a 6-10 man group if any?
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Jorquin on February 13, 2014, 08:44:38 PM
1)  five is pretty small! but if it works well then thats all that matters
2)  yes, more usually = merrier (unless they're dipshits)
3)  lowered damage dealt, increased damage received
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: remi on February 13, 2014, 08:47:20 PM
One problem I have seen with smaller groups from other muds I have played is when you limit groups to smaller sizes you get a few super elite groups running around and owning all kinds of content that other groups can't manage.

You could increase the drop rate if the group is smaller in size

ie....spells/gear, etc make it all load on death and if you have say

5 man group 40% to load
6 man group 35%
7 man group 30%
8 man group 25%
9 man group 15%
10 man group 5%

These are just randomly thought out numbers---and I know mages won't like the idea of no locate object spamming--but then people would do lots of zones based on the gear that loads in the zone and not what is loaded at current time.

Also you don't get completely screwed for having a larger group you just have a lower % chance to get gear/books etc to drop.

Just my 2 cents.

Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Mieren on February 13, 2014, 08:50:56 PM
With the size of the playerbase, I think you should just set a max cap of 6 on group size and just scale all the zones down from there. Taking away the coins and xp/rank xp isn't that much of a setback. You still get the gear and spell drops. Keeping the max size at 10 still would keep the gear with the largest clans, whereas decreasing the overall group size would balance the field somewhat and allow more people to compete for gear, while rewarding the skill of the player.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: reed23 on February 13, 2014, 10:53:10 PM
To really understand and answer this question, I would have to know about how legendary is going to change, if at all, next wipe.

The proposal is to make it so a 5 man can basically conquer most of arctic.  Is That Not Already The Case???  The post references 1 healer, 1 Tank, 3 DPS/Utility.  What % of arctic could a legend healer, legend barb, and 3 legend hitters take down currently?  If i had to guess, I would  say that that 5 man group could do 85-90% of the game and load tons of elite gear.  They could plow through most mid/upper level older zones (i.e. storms, ft, dko, sanction, cv, luni, bluff, spire, etc etc etc).  There are only a handful of fights that i am aware of that they probably could not do.

In my opinion, you immortals have already achieved what you are trying to accomplish - make the game playable for clans/groups of friends that don't always have a 10 man on.  You did this through legendary.

If I understand the proposed changes, zones would become "easier" to suit the 5 man change, but yet a 10 man could still go steamroll the zones.  So a 10 man would plow through zones even Easier/Quicker than they are now???

Finally, I agree 100% with Remi's post.  I can tell you what would happen with RISE clan.  People would be kicked out of the clan and an even more elitest attitude would happen.  That is sad, but I would anticipate be the case in most top-tier clans.  I think the current setup with legends allows a small group to have fun and do a ton of stuff in the game, but the current challenge in arctic is developing your clan so you have 10 qualified chars to do the final arctic fights.

Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Anfi on February 13, 2014, 11:48:20 PM
> 2. Would you still group up with 6-10 if the penalty wasn't too harsh?

I would try to avoid it if penalties affect drive/fun from the game (when every good stuff you know is loaded (and deeprented), it's often rank and cash all you get)

> 3. What other affects would you place on a 6-10 man group if any?

That would be probably not quite easy to implement, but, more aggressive AI, i.e. bashing up to every round, use specs, skills, spells more often in general. Especially area hits. It won't allow to overpower the zone though.

Some continuous flag set to players grouping more than 5, maybe lasting even after leaving group.

Make % of items loaded zap everyone. Except quest ones (or not?) That one would lead to some butthurt. It's almost the same as to lower item load rate but funnier + knowledge that that particular item is loading.

>I can tell you what would happen with RISE clan.
like if anyone cares

>The proposal is to make it so a 5 LEGEND man can basically conquer most of arctic.
Not a bad proposal still

If drop exp/rank, shouldn't the group leader still receive it? One often thinks about how easy is to be legend being a dumb assister in the same time, but that's another question.
On the other hand, in large group, especially if you are not in the leader's clan, all you get is ranks/exp, and without it there would be little sense to zone.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: snax on February 13, 2014, 11:54:00 PM
This is a really big issue and you hit on a lot of topics in it Boss man. so editing down your original post so i can throw out some thoughts.

One of the main factors is that we want to allow groups to do more with less. ... without forcing everyone to have a 10 man group of legendary characters with low limit gear. Not to worry, we are planning on making changes to elite end game as well to keep that challenging.

The proposed design up for discussion is as follows: We would like to lower the group size to 5. ... but we would like to have 5 the ideal man power needed to rock and roll.

[a lot of your post truncated]

1. Would having a 5 man group be acceptable if it was the norm?
2. Would you still group up with 6-10 if the penalty wasn't too harsh?
3. What other affects would you place on a 6-10 man group if any?

1) a 5 man is the norm for smaller clans. 5 mans are quite often the norm for bigger and smaller clans, bot groups -- the only groups that don't run the "average" zone with 5 or 6 are simply not fodder-filled and/or bot-master groups.  So to complicate the issue here is my big question:

does the game have enough good leaders to really break down the groupsize to 5 as a semi-unwritten rule?  I know if i'm bored of doing stuff I can lead I tend to try to get one of those slots 6-10 in another neutral clan's groups.  This change probably is a non incentive to include anyone who wouldn't be a prime pick for a zone, which might be a great change for certain clans that don't outsource their members, but i don't think it fosters anything other than more cliques.

The playerbase rather self-regulates group size (smaller groups are more nimble, easier to watch over without advanced scripts/triggers/etc) and people tend to have more fun in smaller groups.

So I'ld just say simply that #2 really is a touchy subject.

What affects i'ld place on a 6-10 man is that no lim 3 or under can load and spell loads are cut by 50%  Simply put that would extend the wipe "rush" and make for a really interesting wipe.  But that might be really out of favor with the general playerbase.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: mpriki on February 14, 2014, 02:12:28 AM
BAD IDEA!!!

atm 6 or 7 well equiped legendaries can kill anything. i dont think that you need to reduce group size.
1. if you set group size 5 in hard fights if healer CCed = wipe
2. small group size will "disable" some classes from grouping, setups will be like barb/pala basher cleric mage thief/mtn/sky but mostly thief due to pick
3. penalties on group size of 10 will make ppl avoid grouping in large groups and most of zones will be done at all times, i want to group with my friends

where is challenge in all this? Just hit 30 -> kill all
i remember BIGGGGG groups now 10ish or less, in future? solo cyan?

In my opinion

leave max group size as it is
if you want groups do more with less then add more good/useful items, increase limit on lim items.
buff groups through equipment and make them available to all ppl. keep some elite elite items lim on 1 or 2
that way smaller groups will able to acquire better equipment then move to a harder zone for better equipment and so on.
Give a reason to ppl to explore all zones. Challenging! After all this is a multiplayer game, group of 5 is like a LAN game

i see hundreds of different items useless that dont even worth to sell to a shop. make them useful or remove them and add cash to that mob. i prefer the idea of making most items useful.

this is a drop ... 1 among hundreds

Item Type: ARMOR       
 Mat Class: wood         Material: pine
 Weight   : 5            Value   : 3

 Apply    : 4

Why?!?? you want to fill floors?
i believe you can use as a tool what posted on "Stats -- Next Wipe" buffing items and solve the problem
I like the big range of items exists all players wont look the same, so dont really remove them just make them useful "force" a 10 lvl player go look for those items, also a 20lvl and so on 

an example (random numbers or bonuses)
crap items +1-2 stat bonus
avg items +3-5 stat bonus
good items +5-10 stat bonus
elite/lim items +8-10 stat bonus and something special
 
i read that you plan to remove legendaries. just note that non-legendary shamans and druids are support healers not healers
and some other classes are almost useless without legendary status, u plan to remove legendary status and add perks to normal status?
You trying to scale down difficulty and then removing legendaries so after some time you will need scale down dificulty again because 5 man groups wont be able to do more again, and all that time half MUD remains unexplored because it doesnt even worth to be explored it and all that time some classes wont able to find a group because there are better replacements
do i miss something here?

Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Bunsen on February 14, 2014, 02:14:02 AM
1. Yes, definitely. As someone who has a lot of free time outside of the traditional 'peak' times (living in Australia), I feel this would give the off-peak player base more to do.
2. Yep, as long as you don't adjust the EQ / Spell loads (or mess with the % chance)
3. Reduce the damage output of the group above 5 in PvP (though not sure how realistic this would be to implement). I like the idea of 5v5 pk battles. Would make things much more interesting.

I also like the idea of 'elite' zones that would require a strong 10 Legendary group.

Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Doug on February 14, 2014, 02:42:13 AM
1) Make 5 man the baseline
2) This is the problem....you never want to make it so ppl are not getting grouped cause the group is getting penalized.  I'd say just a subtle change to offset the extra groupies.
3) Slight damage increase for each groupie >5

If the goal is to do more with less/make more content accessible then make more classes able to main tank/heal.  Instead of thinking "well we can't do that zone cause we don't have a barb/healer" it should be "well its a little rough without a barb/healer but we can manage". 

Elite zones are pretty cool and should have most of the limit gear.

Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Terk on February 14, 2014, 02:44:39 AM
I don't like the proposed penalty to groups larger than 5 or 6. I think it should just be a hard limit.

People zone primarily for gear, spells, and ranks.

The best metric for zoning effectiveness is a rate gear/time, spells/time, ranks/time.

If you take mild punishment (coins/xp) for increased speed, nobody is going to change play style. Most players are too time constrained. Zones, once known, should be done fastest and most effectively at or below the group limit. Otherwise there is no incentive to stay small.

Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: octan on February 14, 2014, 03:16:11 AM
Some random ramblings:
* Assuming your 5 legendaries can do 90% of the zones/fights known in existence.  The question is, how about players who are casual and cannot reach legendary by themselves?  Or just players who don't have the time or zone knowledge of the elites, how can they rank effectively to reach legendary status?
* Instead of putting penalties on ranks/xp/coins if over a certain # in group, why not put bonuses instead of penalties?  Putting penalties just makes the game harder for casual player.
* A good point is in 5 man groups when the healer is stunned (in hard mobs/fights) its a wipe.  Can you imagine a 5 man non elite/average joe group doing void beast?
* Since we're already having a review of all the items, I'd like to point the big elephant in the room, namely item decays.  Doesn't anyone find it annoying to have someone pop a limit 1 item, deeprent it for 5 weeks, log in on week 5.1, destroy the item and repop it and rinse repeat?  There has to be a better way to have low limit items more accessible to the people that actually log on more than have these items deeprented for the whole wipe.




Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Joseph Norton on February 14, 2014, 03:36:17 AM
1. I enjoy a 5 man group more. The group seems better in tune and you never feel like the guy brought along just for fodder.
2.The penalty is a good idea as long as zones built for 10 man groups didn't have a penalty in place. 
3. I would just cut the spell loads to 25% and gear less than limit 3 (like limit 1 gear)would not load.still have the xp/ranks in place. Don't they get split in a big group anyway? (not sarcasm) All of these penalties should only be in place if the 10 man goes into a zone they are too big for.

Brad
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Lyam on February 14, 2014, 04:47:14 AM
instead of going through every zone and redoing it to suit 5man groups, wouldnt increasing a zone to legendary status be quicker?
surely buffing zones like shoal, silvi, pax, sleet,etc would be easier and quicker to suit a 10man legendary group.. also readding skullcap???

players seem to go thru ebbs and flows with logging already.. so reducing groups to 5 will probably make a lot of people quit.. i know i dont have the patience anymore to sit in a zone for 3hours to figure out hidden kws or paths... i enjoy being a useless assist spammer or whatever.. you will make clans reduce sizes (which isnt necessarily a bad thing) to a about 12 of their best players/ppl who can log a lot..

if this group size limit does come into play...
making a penalty for a group that goes over 5 would be harsh anyway.. clans already spam zones cause of horrible % loads.. making those loads even lower cause they bring in 6-10 ppl would be mind numbing..
ranking is already a burden after about 25.. with the longer uptime of the game, most ranks arent resetting, so zoning for 2hours for 1% is too time consuming already, nevermind if you die.. would need to change it so ranks reset on zone resets
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: kanu on February 14, 2014, 05:20:28 AM
My first thought is that pkill will be a lot more interesting. 10 on 10 is very challenging to keep balanced. My guess is that 5 on 5 is a lot easier.

What will happen in my clan is that we will attempt to run two groups. I wonder how useful a second curer type will be in these groups? With 5 players is a healer and a shaman overkill? I guess that depends a lot on current mechanics, which is pretty useless speculation.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Nasredin on February 14, 2014, 06:13:37 AM
I'm strongly against ANY group size limits (as well as "1 zoning group per zone" limit or any other limitations like that).

Look,

I'm a semi-regular player playing less and less every year. Approximately half of our player-base are like me. The other half are hardcore 24/7 players.

Now, when I join a zoning group, there is usually a core of 3-5 super-elite super-legendary hardcore players in shiny armor. Usually, the leader is one of those hardcore players. Usually, they could do whatever zones they had in mind on their own, but they accept me and other auxiliary chars to run along and get some xp, money, skills and secondary loads. They get little to no benefit from our assistance, the weak chars don't make the group noticeably faster or safer. In fact, taking "neutrals" (including the members of the minor clans) to an elite group is a pure act of charity.

I can't count the number of times last wipe when a friend told me: we would gladly accept you, but we already have a 10-person group. Too bad! Yet another day of soloing ahead.

Certainly, I can form and lead myself, but I'm not very great at it and it takes time. By the time I get enough ppl, I usually have just enough time for 1 zone, maybe 2. And once again, first I sit for an hour trying to get some ppl and then I get 5 tells in 5 minutes and I have to reject some of them because my group is already over-limit.


Now, if there are penalties for having a large group (let alone a hard group limit), the "real" groups will simply stop accepting neutrals at all.

Thus, reducing the group limit to 5 (or whatever; I dislike 10 almost just as much as 5) makes the game even more elitish and less friendly to a newbie or an occasional player.


One other important thing is that the _number_ of players in a group has nothing to do with the challenge of doing a zone. Not everybody is level30 and not everyone is legend and not every legend is rank 30. Trying to do Toede with a group of 15 level5 chars may be extremely fun and very challenging. For a lev30 char, there is neither challenge nor fun here, whatever is the group limit. Run in, kill the mob, loot it, go ahead.

And yes, I like zoning maza-style (maybe not all the time, but certainly on occasions). And for a group of occasional players who zone for fun the numbers make sense - what a major clan can do on 5, a minor clan can try on 15 (and still fail, but at least get some fun in the process). Even trying on 10 isn't worth the effort - the group dies way too fast.

However, once the group limit and other penalties are in place, we no longer have the choice - either zone like a professional or die immediately.


Now, as to balancing issues, there are certainly better ways to deal with it. One of the most obvious things is to add area damage (you need more heals to keep 20 chars alive rather than 10).

Another solution which is fairly simple to implement is dynamic mob loads (the more ppl are in the group and the higher level/rank are they, the more guards summon the king).

Certainly, the creative creators can come up with a lot more ideas.


Conclusion:

We don't need no stinking group limits. If the players start steam-rolling some end-game zone way too easily, let the creator take care of the setup of that particular zone.


Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: btown on February 14, 2014, 06:47:19 AM
I love the 5man group size idea.  would bring a lot more competition back. 
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Shannow on February 14, 2014, 07:26:23 AM
I see what Naserdin is saying as I am a player like him. Not an elite one. I don't lead the big zones so unless I'm a healer or tank I'm basically just along for the ride (christ I used to fall asleep on some large zones and no one would notice..:D)

However I disagree with his conclusions, I think the limit will make it better for casual players.

First off, 10 mans...are SO F'ING BORING. Gawd it sucks. The tank, the healer and the leader are the only ones who are doing anything. Its so spammy you stop paying attention. It sucks.

I love 2-3 man groups. If more of the mud is doable by 5 mans, then more of it will be doable by 2-3 mans.

Smaller groups = more groups. More leaders = more zoning. More activity = more fun.

I'm down for this change. MAKE IT HARDCODED.

Healers are gonna be in demand.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: btown on February 14, 2014, 07:30:18 AM
YA WHAT HE SAID  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Dyl on February 14, 2014, 08:49:10 AM
The only change I would consider to group sizes is to increase/scale damage to members of the group based on size after a certain number.  By putting hard caps on groups someone will be excluded.  Just like when groups went down to 10, plenty of people were logging off or doing timesink stuff because there was no room.  Just because #6 or #7 doesn't mind the penalty doesn't mean the entire group already formed is willing to take the group penalty.  Sometimes, you just want to log and bullshit except instead of hanging out in room 2, you are in a group in a shitty zone you know you are overpowered for.  It also seems like the idea would push towards more people being forced to play multiple characters/roles.  We have a shaman healer druid on, but they are all in the 5 man so we just sit here the additional barbarian and thief with no cures.  There shouldn't be a reason a player logs on and has to/wants to log off because they aren't having fun.

I like the idea of 'legendary zones' that are incredibly hard and may have group limit restrictions in place to enter.  Taking someones fun out of a pointless/useless but social run through theiwar or whatever makes no sense.  Pick a few (perhaps those that lyam suggested) and significantly increase difficulty... make these epic zones a creator focus?  Dynamic load number of mobs/hps/damage of mobs based on the group size that first entered the zone on that particular reset?  Have some zones with kws at zone entrance that allow the group if they want to run a regular or epic run of the current area?  (push green loads standard zone, push red loads epic version)....  Have more reboots, and have zones randomly made epic/one run for the reboot... would force a rush towards the harder areas for bonuses rather than inflict penalties on the little guys?
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Hoss on February 14, 2014, 09:34:18 AM
One quick note that might be helpful for your feedback.

Legendary is going to be a topic of heavy discussion, we are not sold that we like how it works today and it creates a large gap in creation of zones. I am not saying it will be removed, I am saying it is up in the air and is difficult to balance the game around so it WILL change.

Another item to note is that while I am seeing folks say people will be excluded, we are actually hoping that is the opposite and that when a 5 man group fills up, a new group would be created. I know folks are passionate about their views, so please keep posting them this is good stuff.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: eli on February 14, 2014, 10:04:58 AM
There may not be enough leaders with good zone knowledge to make this happen.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Dyl on February 14, 2014, 10:22:21 AM
"..5 man group fills up, a new group would be created. "

Which requires a leader, and four more assholes looking for a group who hopefully didn't get bored while sitting around waiting for cures because the only one anyone knows is busy 5manning.  Wishful thinking, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: reed23 on February 14, 2014, 10:47:00 AM
I would be totally fine with the change to 5 man, but I think you are going down a path where people will be excluded from groups and the mud will shrink even faster than it is now.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Zozen on February 14, 2014, 11:09:52 AM
If you change group size:

1) Hard code size
2) A lot of zones need to be edited
3) Take away the huge disparity between legend and non-legend. It shouldn't be a game breaker (as it is now,) just a nice little boost.
4) I realize that you're working on class adjustments but you'll have to edit a lot of the "secondary" classes. Would a group take a shaman, druid, thief, or mage? If you're talking 5 man group: 1 tank, 1 healer, 3 dps...as the classes stand now I'd probably use a war/pal/dk (or some combo of those 3) for those dps slots.. if it was 6 I'd add a druid or shaman.  As was said: 1 disable of cleric and the group can fall apart pretty fast, hence you'd want backup tanks that have durability.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Aristox on February 14, 2014, 11:24:49 AM
Please keep in mind we haven't started talking class design yet, beyond a few basic principles:

There will be 3 or 4 classes that can main heal a zone.
There will be 3 to 5 classes that can tank a zone.

We want to make the class you play fill multiple roles so you don't need to wait for a cleric or a barb to show up.  This needs to be done such that a tank can't be hardest to kill and top damage at the same time, but we don't necessarily want them to have to carry 2 sets of gear as well.  So there are some design decision in our future, but this group size discussion needs to take class changes into account.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Zozen on February 14, 2014, 11:44:59 AM
So it's difficult for us to really say what group size would be optimal without knowing how the classes/ranks will affect things. If we're talking purely from a playerbase # perspective then yes, for the most part it's rare that you'll see 10 man groups except right after a pwipe and the month or two that follows. Maybe 1 clan currently can field a 10 man group for more than 2-3 hours in a day. The rest of us are around 4-8 during our logon periods.

The tanking part I can understand--it's fairly easy to make it so dk/pal/war/barb can tank right now, but the healing part? I'm not sure how to make it so a shaman/druid can heal without making them way too strong. It's true that currently you can do most zones with regen/healing cloud but in the end you need heal and adding that spell to their repertoire would probably then make clerics obsolete.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: shiboleth on February 14, 2014, 11:53:16 AM
how would these changes affect a solo person running through zones?

would it cause more % for loads, would it make currently soloable zones non-solo or just harder?
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Doug on February 14, 2014, 12:26:34 PM
This would encourage a lot more people to try leading, which is way better for the game.  If figuring out the keywords is such a big hindrance then post some zone info in the forums....make it common knowledge to lead a handful of high zones like sanction/dko/storms, ect so all these would be leaders have some lube to start with.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Tour on February 14, 2014, 12:50:59 PM
5 man groups and raise the amount of groups in a zone to 2.

that would give the game a new edge.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Kronos on February 14, 2014, 01:03:28 PM
As a player that has been around since the late 90's I feel that I should throw my hat into the ring considering these massive changes coming to Arctic.


1. Who is the MUD pandering too? Hardcore players or players who play a few hours a week? With reducing the group size, you are drastically hurting the hardcore player base. As it exists, the current purpose of a major clan is to create the best 10 man you can if you want to finish end game and be dominant in the PK arena. So, our clan is consistently spreading out the equipment to everyone in the clan and helping each person become a better player to compete in PvE and PvP. Having 10 people in your group allows for leaders to see more of their clan at one time and identify and fix play problems. Having 5 reduces that.

2. I have been in many clans and with many different leaders. Leaders that equip 2-5 members of a clan and leave everyone else with fodder is a poor way of playing this game. It creates dissension, jealousy and does not help anyone progress in game knowledge... and that is exactly what will happen with 5 player groups. Every clan leader will realize that having 5 characters with all their elite eq will drastically increase their chances of winning pk and finishing end game. A 5 man "elite" group would be created in every clan, and ranking/xping/equipping them is all that will be important, leaving all the progressing players and newer players sitting in the cleric guild of every city hoping someone from the elite group has to rent. "I'm next in the group and %1 is after me." Take a number because that is how the top level clans will exist.

3. Typically the top 2-3 leaders in any clan are friends and want to zone together. Those three people are not going to spend the entire wipe separated running three different groups. It won't happen. Even if the mult-group idea worked in clans, imaging having 10 people in a voice chat that were in separate groups. Each group with their own agendas and be prepping for fights. It would be mayhem and eventually you would have 2-3 different voice chats one for each group. That is not how I want to play this game. WE have a lot of fun all being together in one chat, all working together to accomplish one goal.  I can see your logic, trying to give incentive to players to start new groups and learn zones. But as you said, the player base is getting older. (Some of us) have jobs, children, wives or spouses. Having a ten man group allows for someone to log on, join the group for a zone or two and get back to RL without having to scour for a group, shout for a specific needed member or lead when they don't have the time.

The way I see this playing out is you would have a bunch of 5 man groups leveling as fast as possible, running just XP zones...not for rank/gear, just experience. Then when everyone is level 30, come together form a 10 man group and blast through high level zones. Even if you created a MASSIVE negative bonus, we would all still want to zone together....splitting up takes all the fun out of the game.

Honestly, from what I have read I feel like the game is going down a slippery slope. I understand things change and the game needs to evolve but what is causing the need for change? I honestly feel like the code is strong, PvP needs to be tweaked, for sure, but other than that I do not think it's the code that is making the player base shrink. And I do understand that when there are 30 players, this idea is probably a good one...but we start the wipe with 120+....Where do all the players go? They do not leave because of group sizes, that's for sure...its something else entirely.

All of these changes are scary in a game where balance dictates enjoyment. There are just so many moving parts to consider....This seems like this is a pretty massive change, I think its bigger than most of us realize.......can you be sure that your loyal players will be here once the dust settles and the game balances once more....

Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: gulca on February 14, 2014, 01:26:40 PM
Another item to note is that while I am seeing folks say people will be excluded, we are actually hoping that is the opposite and that when a 5 man group fills up, a new group would be created.

You are assuming that everyone is a leader and anyone can start a 5 man group when players are around.

That is probably not the case. We have a handful of "leaders" and many tag-alongs. Solo'ers aren't necessary group leaders and even if they are, they probably would not lead a 5-man.

So when you have a 5-man clan/group, chances are the leaders are in that one group (efficient use of limited group space). The tag alongs would probably idle or go solo mode or log-off.

Of course I'm a pessimist, and everyone might just turn up and start zoning 5-man style. 
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: corey on February 14, 2014, 03:18:19 PM
I'm going to go ahead and reply before I read the rest of the comments in this thread so my mind doesn't get warped from them. Keep in mind (looking at you Hoss) my comments are going to be based off any news we've received in the game so far or the current game in its entirety because I'M NOT A MIND READER HOSS OKAY!??

So...

Bob (shaman) and I (paladin) likely had the two most powerful characters this wipe. His gear was 1 away from "the perfect set" and mine was 2 pieces away. We were both rank 27-29 or something.

There wasn't much we couldn't 2man. Name a mob in the game and unless it high-level stunned -every- round (Sleet) or was tuned for the buffest of the buff groups (Cyan, other mobs that some of you might know about), we killed it or at the very least had more than enough capacity to kill it (but not the willingness). Not only did we kill a lot of things that people seem to want the best groups for, but we routinely got through zones a lot quicker than with a full 10man.

I just want to throw in a random comment about my last sentence there...this could possibly have a ripple effect of having the elite of the elite clans cut the slack off the ends and let the newbies fly on their own. This could be good or bad depending how you look at it.

Back on topic - subtracting those few fights from the equation (which would obviously need changes), you could do a straight 5man limit right now and the PvE would be a lot more balanced. PvP, on the other hand, would still need work. I think lower group limits is something that definitely needs to be explored as it might be the only end-all solution to AoE damage. I realise the hp pools will be changed but it's definitely going to have to be looked at closely.

The only other thing that comes to mind right now, and I think it's been mentioned in another thread, is specific spells in the game. Heal has really, REALLY lost its shine these past few wipes. I'm not saying heal is a bad spell or isn't necessary - it's amazing. That being said, lowering the group limit is going to have some kind of effect on its strength again. Right now, heal is either used for bot healing or main tank healing / "oh shit" healing. No other classes have a real "oh shit" button as strong as this. If group sizes go lower, other healers will have to be accounted for in all situations and not just the niches they're put into currently.

This means that every healer is going to have to at least have a little piece of what every other healer has. Clerics need a hot, druids/shaman need a cooldown or super low limit heal-type spell, clerics will need a stoneskinnish/limdam spell, druids need minor mag/gas res, cleric/shaman needs minor elemental resists etc. I could go on but I think you get the picture.

I'm going to post again but I wanted to get what was going through my head down now before I forgot.

Edit* quick after-thought... I know aligns are going to Evil, Neutral, Good and only those three. I'd like to see the align restrictions to gear be removed ENTIRELY from being able to carry them in your inventory. Zap needs to go. Limit the equipment by alignment in the lore saying something like.. "USABLE BY: GOOD, NEUTRAL". With lower man groups, looting gear in PvP is really going to become an issue.

Another quick after-thought...charmies for all healers and their damage output also will need to even out and become more reliable or they're going to start to be excluded. I can tell you from experience I'd take a shaman over anything else every time if the game stayed as it currently is and went to limit5. I'd even take half a shaman.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Hoss on February 14, 2014, 03:48:10 PM
Quote
I'm not sure how to make it so a shaman/druid can heal without making them way too strong.
Oh, I have ideas, crazy insane and fun ideas.

Quote
Having 10 people in your group allows for leaders to see more of their clan at one time and identify and fix play problems. Having 5 reduces that.
Does it? Wouldn't that be like saying having a huge class size is easier for a teacher, when in fact it is proven that smaller class sizes give the student a much better learning rate?

Quote
Bob (shaman) and I (paladin) likely had the two most powerful characters this wipe.
Cool story bro :) Just kidding I appreciate the feedback

Quote
I don't like the proposed penalty to groups larger than 5 or 6. I think it should just be a hard limit.
I don't like beets
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Dyl on February 14, 2014, 03:52:12 PM
Not everyone wants to learn.  Some people want to just play with their friends.  Unless we are becoming the montessori school of fast typers that is
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: corey on February 14, 2014, 04:02:40 PM
Quote
Bob (shaman) and I (paladin) likely had the two most powerful characters this wipe.

Cool story bro :) Just kidding I appreciate the feedback

Hey now, not everyone knows who we were and the first response if I hadn't said that would have been "yea, but what gear did you have". At least this sets the stage!

See I just have to put exclamation points and I don't sound like an asshole!
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Zozen on February 14, 2014, 04:16:46 PM
Corey: As the strongest Order of the Rose Paladin ever on the mud, I think Paladins are weak.

How does this play into your story?

edit: forgot the !!!!
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: corey on February 14, 2014, 04:23:11 PM
Corey: As the strongest Order of the Rose Paladin ever on the mud, I think Paladins are weak.

How does this play into your story?

edit: forgot the !!!!

In PvP, they are! But let's stay on topic.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: reed23 on February 14, 2014, 04:37:26 PM
Quote
Having 10 people in your group allows for leaders to see more of their clan at one time and identify and fix play problems. Having 5 reduces that.
Does it? Wouldn't that be like saying having a huge class size is easier for a teacher, when in fact it is proven that smaller class sizes give the student a much better learning rate?

If a teacher had 2 classes of 5 people, and spent 99% with Class 1 and 1% on class 2, class 2 would continue to be retarded.  If teacher spent 100% of the time with 1 class of 10, the retards would get smarter.

I was obviously in class 2 because I can't figure out how to do the quote thing.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: gnua on February 14, 2014, 07:30:17 PM
a group of 5 legends can probably do most of the content up, probably including 5 headed dragon. but it might be rough getting healing cloud a and/or holy word on a 5 man so it might be tough to become legendary on a 5man. maybe legendary characters should occupy two group slots.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Hoss on February 14, 2014, 07:51:54 PM
@reed23 http://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Quote
Title: Re: Group Size, after 24 hours a second thought.
Post by: snax on February 14, 2014, 09:01:56 PM
I'm at my best one of the "better" zone leaders [of a VERY select few zones], and at my worst well i'm good for a laugh [and make no mistake you WILL DIE, more than an endless hunting, I can kill my groups that i lead daily with an unmatched finesse].   I make no claim to being awesome.  I have a mentality of okay let's find the zone entrance, never memorize the zone, and beat the hell out of it and stumble through keywords every single time for all but like 8-10 zones on game.

So i was thinking, if we did go with a 5 limit man group size, how many people would be jealous of the (insert name here) ilya/tim/wild/cheating imm named xxxx groups and do nothing than bitch about being "stuck in randy's group, spamming the same shit or dying everytime they got to the zone" and I'm still not sold on the smaller group size, but you know what....

if you force it upon the playerbase I might actually learn a few more zones, cause I can fill up the 5 slots pretty easily based on my long-term relationships that haven't gotten sick of my leading.

...just something for you and adam to consider.

Kthxbai.
-randy
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Ezio on February 15, 2014, 05:55:38 AM
1. If 5 was the norm, 5 would be fine. A day or two of adjustments, finding the best combo, etc. I do no believe it would affect the majority of players as suggested.  I feel like there is a segment of the player base that (generally) prefers to follow for various reasons (insert wife nag), but could lead a group with some 85% efficiency.  I do agree with previous posters that we only see half the puzzle right now, so it is hard to really forecast.

2. If you want a strong group, you need strong characters.  Therefore, I would encourage 5 man groups right up until I was max strength (Legend). If there is no legend (or equivalent), then you don't (mostly) need ranks....at 1x experience doesn't matter either..so yeah stack the groups to max.  At that point, who cares?  Get your clan the strongest max group, in order to pop whatever you need fastest. In either case, I'm looking to get the most out of my time.  What I'm looking to do most times is load spells/gear for myself/friends, learn something, pkill enemies, pkill friends.  If I only have 2 hours to play, I want to do as much of those things as I can, and progress as far as possible. I don't know about the 2 man faster zoning than 10 propaganda, sounds made up.

3. This is where I might be missing something. There is going to be a level of grouping that is best, from the sounds of it.  If you WANT only 5 man groups, it should be coded that way.  If we are talking about increasing lag or saves or skill/dam mods for more people than really what is the point of allowing it? Just scale down the game to 5 man stuff and we can all start up a freshnew game.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Malaki on February 15, 2014, 08:35:11 AM
I would work it so there are no group size limits for a zone, they would actually scale based on the number of players in the group and potentially their levels/rank number.

I would also work instances into more of the more popular zones, like the heal quest has.  So more than 1 group can do the same zones, and not have to kill time just waiting for a zone to pop.

The first example that comes to mind is the mechanics from WoW on Instances/Raids.  How the difficulty scales with the number and level of the group members, being able to do the same zones/instances on 1 really beefy character all the way up to 25+ Raid of high end characters.

I think putting any deterrent to how many want to group and play together is a huge negative, even at the current 10 limit, leaving some people out, decreasing the limit even more so.

If your goals is to only have groups of 5, then putting any negative on it above 5 will accomplish that.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Anthony on February 15, 2014, 11:59:00 AM
Last I heard, the current implementation of the heal quest was not real instancing. It is three different znums with a spec to push a PC into the right starting room based on which znums have people in them. Start going too far down the rabbit hole of instancing, scaling equipment (and zones) dynamically, etc. and it is going to push Arctic even further away from what so many old veterans enjoy and even closer to the MMORPG experience we are dodging in the first place.

The idea that more leaders will emerge is probably sound... but without taking the sort of measures that some clans take by handing out detailed zone walkthroughs, most folks are going to be pretty frustrated having their character advancement gated by the fact that the majority of these new "leaders" can't completely finish the zone/unlock the last vault/open the last mob room/etc. Folks will pretty much follow anyone around when they are leveling but once they get to the point where they need specific spells, equipment, etc. spending hours idling in zones while a new "leader" tries to figure out the kw is anything but fun.

As far as players coming/going, I think as it was said elsewhere in this thread, there are a lot of dynamics at play. I started and abruptly stopped this wipe and last wipe for many of the same reasons. I can level multiple characters to 30 really quickly but the frustration of advancing your character past that point adds up quickly even when you are running around with a competent clan. Spending inordinate amounts of time to load spells, empty zones with no equipment, etc. is all stuff that makes the whole game feel like a waste of time with no advancement aspect. Every RPG-type game deals with this to some degree, there are a number of approaches WoW tries to take to deal with it (like daily quests), separating out character skill/spell acquisition from zoning, etc.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Hoss on February 15, 2014, 01:21:26 PM
Quote
* A good point is in 5 man groups when the healer is stunned (in hard mobs/fights) its a wipe.
You bring up a really good point with this. We cannot disclose too much (because we haven't fleshed it all out yet) but we are hoping that with the "do more with less" class approach more classes will have counters to stuns and affects of that nature won't be as punishing. Something to watch out for though so I appreciate you bringing it up.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: gulca on February 15, 2014, 02:38:02 PM
In short, I'm against the idea of limiting group size and putting %load penalties based on group size. The first is because I like being a tag-along to catch up with old friends, and the 2nd is %load is already a huge time sink.

This a bit long, so read on for some ideas to discourage (not stop) huge group.
We cannot disclose too much (because we haven't fleshed it all out yet) but we are hoping that with the "do more with less" class approach more classes will have counters to stuns and affects of that nature won't be as punishing. Something to watch out for though so I appreciate you bringing it up.
I kept asking myself in a real situation, what would be the disadvantages of bringing the numbers? I hate the idea of limiting the group size, when the benefit of a MUD is to interact with 100 other people in the same environment.

In the ancient days, why wouldn't a general just conquer the continent with soldiers? Overwhelm everything with numbers?

1. Some terrains are bad for huge numbers. See "300".
2. Long drawn battles, you will need to get your logistics (food rationing, clean water, medicines etc)
3. Huge cost of keeping a huge number of active soldiers.
4. Efficient leading, ie assigning ppl to the right jobs.

So translating the above to Arctic mechanics,
1. Zone creators can limit huge numbers using limited rooms (like max 5), so a huge group will need to walk in 5s. Or entrance to the zone island are limited by boats/carts/griffons that only take 5 at a time with 2 to 3 ticks delay. The first group will have to defend themselves till the next group arrives. Or traps are triggered with more people in the room.

2. Supplies are never a concern in this game. So we'll focus on "medicines" aka cure/heal spells. Cures/heals mechanics would have to change a bit. Instead of "casting" everytime you want to cure someone in your group, you can "focus" your cures on selected number of group members.
For example at lvl 30, you can focus on 5 members. These 5 will be all auto-cured whenever they are hurt, assuming the caster is not busy or disabled or out of spells. So bringing in more members than the curer can focus means that if the curer spend 1 round manually curing the 6th member, the 5 members would miss their group cures.
This change brings 2 things to the table. Less stress when you have no backup curers. Discourages big group numbers.

I like the idea of having more area damage to discourage group size. Castle lich fight is one of the best example of having more isn't better.

3. Cost. Another thing that creators can put in. If you want to enter a zone or a specific part of a zone, you have to pay huge money per person. The more people you bring, the more it cost you to zone. This somewhat is self-regulated. The more you bring, the less each will get in terms of coins/xp/items.
I don't like the idea of items % being a function of group size. If there is a spellbook in a dragon's stomach in a cave, I should have the choice of going in solo, or bring 100 friends along. That book should stay there regardless.

4. Miscommunication is self-regulated. I still remember the days when there are 15 ppl in my group and 5 other people telling me at the same time in telnet. So the more you have in group, isn't necessary the best thing.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Hoss on February 15, 2014, 02:52:48 PM
@Gulca I will try to parse your post after a few bourbons.

@Thymorical your posts were deleted because they had no value to this thread.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: enochvey on February 15, 2014, 05:06:32 PM

To prevent excessive wall of text-to face damage, please refer to the TLDR section if you just want my suggestions without the background info

I have mixed ideas about this and could see it either being very good or very bad depending on the implementation.

As others have pointed out, I'm not sure we have enough leaders, or those who want to be leaders in the player base for this to work out well. I, for example, generally hate grouping before level 30, and having played the game since the late 90's have come to know a large portion of the soloable xp zones pretty well.

That doesn't mean I like leading groups through xp zones. At higher level it's still the same. I can lead a few mid-high zones, and at legend can solo zones I used to see 12 mans fail at "back in the day". This doesn't mean I want to take the time/effort to rally people up and look at anyones health, etc. other than my own. I find soloing relaxing... leading.. not so much.

My main concern is that a void will be created and there won't be enough people who want to lead (nvmnd keywords etc) to fill that void.

Also, having raid led, main-tanked, etc for large guilds in other MMO's I agree with other posters here that the inevitable result will be groups/clans formed out of the best performing players, and that it will become very difficult for people to bring their friends etc simply for the fun, the lulz, and decapping other group members. When zones are fine tuned for a specific number of people/gear level, playtime becomes a lot more about the numbers than the people.

TLDR USEFUL SUGGESTIONS PART OF THE POST. PVE SECTION

(A) Do NOT hardcode a 5 man group limit. This will cause more problems than it solves. The answer is in soft capping, not hard capping.

(B) Dynamic mob/zone scaling:  Create hidden buffs for mobs that activate depending on the number of people in the room or zone, and if possible, a second buff for each legendary char.

This rewards groups that stay in the intended 5 man limit, challenges groups that don't, and doesn't entirely destroy chances for gear, ranks, etc. To further deter 10 man steamrolling, you can make these buffs become exponentially more powerful if needed

(C) Dynamic penalties/rewards:  5% bonus/penalty to coins/ranks/whatever for each person below/above the 5 man limit for zones tuned for 5 man groups. 

Show up with 5, no change from normal. Show up with 1, get a 20% bonus (great for legendary soloers). Show up with 10, get a 25% penalty.

The relationship between the increased difficulty of mobs for groups over 5, and the bonus/penalty for groups above/below 5 is the core of my idea for a pve solution

PVP section

(A) I would suggest a similar, but not identical buff/penalty system to saves, attributes, etc when there is an uneven number of pvp combatants if we want to create more fair fights or enable escape with differences in group size. 

I think a 10 man would double check thier intentions to jump a 5 man if they knew the 5 man would recieve a 25% bonus to their stats and the 10 man would recieve a 25% penalty for a total of a 50% adjustment for example.

It doesn't have to be 5% per person, thats just a number thrown out for discussion, but for fights when it is 10 vs 5 ... or even 5 vs 3 etc, having dynamic buffs/penalties I think would make for a much more enjoable pk element that what exists currently. 


Also for the record... MOO
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Myte on February 15, 2014, 06:36:24 PM
I think a hard 5 limit is a good idea at this point. People would be more able to lead/learn zones since there would be less people to whine, and much easier to form a solid group. There are several solid 5 man groups floating around mud right now that just don't have quite the edge needed to do the high level zones, but with some buffing and tweaking from the proposed changes would be really great. I know I would probably get up off my ass and study some logs for once if this happened.

It would be really great to be able to actually do zones like silva and mithas again without needing support from a bunch of botters.

Oh but the botters. They will bask in this 5man change. You'll have 1 guy solo botting cyan. Kind of a downside but whatever. Botters gonna bot.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: muddeer on February 15, 2014, 08:55:55 PM
maybe legendary characters should occupy two group slots.

I think this idea will solve many of the problems without having to re-invent the mud.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: reed23 on February 15, 2014, 08:58:05 PM
Let me clarify one thing.  More leaders will only develop depending on the amount of info other leaders share with them.  I know 90% of what i know because of people helping me, not because of exploration.  Zones are very complicated and if someone were try to learn to lead several upper tier zones by exploring those zones, it will be years until they are caught up to the current leaders in the game.  So unless Imms start handing out zone info to people trying to figure out zones, which i don't doubt would happen, then don't assume that fodder will develop into good zone leaders overnight.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Chisul on February 15, 2014, 10:13:05 PM
I think a 5 man hard limit would make racing on wipe day pretty interesting.

To the heart of the discussion.

I think a 5 man scaled zone group limit would be fine. Every time I lead more than 6 I get us all killed anyway.

Currently, I don't mind joining an 8-10 man group even knowing I'm not going to get any decent eq, or spells. Because the exp, rank, and coins make it worth the time. Plus it's just fun. If we take away the passive bonus (exp, rank, and coins) the ONLY reason to join a 10 man is for EQ, or fun. Now this increases the perceived worth of items distribution in the group. In a clan setting, there is mutual benefit and individual benefit when popping eq and spells for clan members. Clan gets X gear or Y spell or Z instinct, and I get 1mil exp and a couple thousand gold so it's all good. Logging a 10 man to pop a single book or limited item, spending an hour in zone, and getting nothing for myself would really suck.

Outside the box thinking, but what if a group sized larger than 6 had a mud wide echo applied to the location they are in. If group size is bigger than 6 they automatically must pick a group name, then every 10 ticks or so the mud gets an echo of the zone name the group is in.

Javaki's Slayers are in Bloodshoal

Then we make group disband tied to aggressive flags so if a 10 man jumps someone, they can't disband and the whole mud gets to know every 10 ticks where they are hiding. :)
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Gahris on February 16, 2014, 06:00:07 AM
Having load percent based on group size seems a little tricky. Couldn't some just follow self just before the mob dies? Or for example a warrior group could just follow each other and not be grouped. I think with the new 100stat system, a lot of these overlooked zones will be more active, since they could foreseeably load useful things now.  I think if anything remove the group size limit all together, and use creative zone mechanics to punish larger or smaller groups as desired. For example the zone could be dynamic, have mobs spawn as zone progresses. If the zone sees 10pcs present, it loads 10man version of the mob.  Could this mean if another 5man group 'snuck' into zone while a 5man was already there and the zone starts to spawn 10man content.  I wouldn't see this as necessarily a bad thing.  Might even prevent zone stealing per say.  Make the content dynamic and don't restrict the group size.  There are plenty of  game mechanics that are anti zerg, while at the same time not being anti small group.


Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Jorake on February 16, 2014, 07:06:26 AM
I personally enjoy small groups! Just me and a few pals doing stuff. So I like the idea of lowering the group size. The problem I see which is the same others have mentioned is you now have a ton of low man groups. If zones are geared towards these 5mans so they are still able to explore and learn stuff then I think it'll work just fine.

Adding a penalty to anything bigger than a 5man is a bad move. Just make 5 the base. Or how about 8. As said before with a 5man group you'll see a LOT less of different classes.

If we did this. Could we get rid of shamans and add some of their spells to clerics?

I have played muds where the group size entering a zone sets the difficulty of the zone. I see that as being abused easily, but it sounds interesting.

Also! A 5man group standard would make PK alot more fun I think. The battles wouldnt be so 1 sides all the time. You have more of a chance to get away. You have to pick your battle group really carefully (5 mages lol).
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: SteveO on February 16, 2014, 07:45:56 AM
I believe this proposed change will just create a bigger gap between the higher tiered more knowledgeable players and the casual players with less leadership and knowledge.

If I say have to choose between 4 more knowledgeable/skilled players and some people who afk and could care less about zoning effectively and solving things, why would I ever include them in my groups ?

As it is now in a 10 man there's usually 1-4 other people who are more knowledgeable leader types in the group and we bring other people with us who may otherwise not have such an opportunity to do higher end zones. Limiting group size will eliminate the "filling out" of a group, and leave a lot of people wandering doing lower end content. 
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Stride on February 16, 2014, 02:52:12 PM
I think it would be nice to keep % low but have it create an instance for the groups who enter a zone.  This way multiple groups can do the same zone and just have an invisible flag that goes away after 15-20 minutes for the people who enter that zone.  As far as group size.  I'm ok either way.  Personally I think it would be more interesting limiting clan sizes to just a certain number (15 or so) that way it creates new clans and possibly some new interactions between them.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Tromiko on February 17, 2014, 02:17:00 AM
Mpriki nailed it.  Just give +stats to the 75% of items in the game that are completely useless, and keep legendaries.  If you take away legendaries, it takes away a major goal for your character.  Having something like legendary as a goal instead of scrounging for items day in and day out gives a real sense of accomplishment for those who achieve it, and is something well earned, and if it were removed a major part of the game would go along with it.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Nasredin on February 17, 2014, 03:12:06 AM
Well, since it looks like most people love the idea of having the hardcoded group size, what about a compromise:

A group can't include more than 5 legendary players (but may include an arbitrary number of non-legendary ones).


With this setup, when there are exactly 6 chars online and 5 of them are already grouped, soloing is no longer my single option. I can just log on my secondary (tertiary or whatever) level 25.5 and join the group to get some xp.

Similarly, less powerful clans where not every player have a legendary char at all may bring more chars to the zone and compensate for the missing power by numbers. Certainly, the major clans can do it, too - but they will likely prefer to use a smaller group of 5 super-heroes.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: hanlon on February 17, 2014, 07:30:09 AM
I'm all for it make the group size 5. I mean even if you don't like it would be interesting to see how it plays out. On another side maybe off topic remove spells like locate object completely from the game if your not willing to run the zone then that equipment doesn't deserve to be yours.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: kanu on February 17, 2014, 08:38:18 AM
If you eliminate locate object, my guess is that there will be 5 or 6 "easy and fast" zones that will be powered through non-stop. One advantage of locate object is that it encourages people to skip over zones that have nothing in them, which encourages people to do other zones, and hence encourages diversity.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Hoodoo on February 17, 2014, 08:54:06 AM
Also, like everything else in this game, there is a knowledge base associated with locate.  Those who hate the spell are the people who make level 22 mages to port around 3 zones with and wonder why nothing ever shows on locate. :)

As my previous note  got deleted, I'll say here what I said there, with slightly less detail.  Insofar as a 5 person group limit: yes, because it will help remove the glass ceiling of 10 man runs for 1 mage spell that occurs at the Big 4 level.  Neutral/smallclan mages with the knowledge needed should be able to fully spell a mage. 

Jason
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Hoss on February 17, 2014, 11:27:02 AM
@Hoodoo your post was deleted because it was solely focused on mage spells, not the topic.

We have received a lot of great feedback on this subject and I would like to keep the conversation moving forward. A lot of you have told us that you would prefer to see the limit be a hard one at 5 instead of flexible 5-10. Based on that feedback I wanted to throw this out there:

What if the group limit was established by zone? Most zones would have a limit of 5, but those elite zones would have a limit of 10. This we think would remove the ambiguity of the group system as well as allow us to remove any penalty imposed on the group. One thing we were struggling with was not wanting to create additional rules for PvP vs. PvE and we think this might put us in a good spot.

For example: Aristox forms a group of 5 swarthy pirates in Balifor and heads to Silvanesti. After entering Silvanesti he can add an addition 5 players to a max of 10. If the mage in the group recalls back to Balifor, the group either disbands or the mage is ejected from the group (details to come later).
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: corey on February 17, 2014, 11:41:25 AM
@Hoodoo your post was deleted because it was solely focused on mage spells, not the topic.

We have received a lot of great feedback on this subject and I would like to keep the conversation moving forward. A lot of you have told us that you would prefer to see the limit be a hard one at 5 instead of flexible 5-10. Based on that feedback I wanted to throw this out there:

What if the group limit was established by zone? Most zones would have a limit of 5, but those elite zones would have a limit of 10. This we think would remove the ambiguity of the group system as well as allow us to remove any penalty imposed on the group. One thing we were struggling with was not wanting to create additional rules for PvP vs. PvE and we think this might put us in a good spot.

For example: Aristox forms a group of 5 swarthy pirates in Balifor and heads to Silvanesti. After entering Silvanesti he can add an addition 5 players to a max of 10. If the mage in the group recalls back to Balifor, the group either disbands or the mage is ejected from the group (details to come later).

Hopefully this doesn't come out too shoddy as I'm typing on my phone but...

Wow as an example did this for years. Different player amounts for different types of content. This was workable for them for so long because of the type of game they had. It was great in player numbers as well as the money to keep was seemed like 4 different versions of the game running at once.

They recently changed the hard mode raiding to 20 man only. Their reasons are their reasons and I won't go into that. Our reasons will be different. We have limited players and, unlike wow, everyone is on the same playing field no matter what. We can't cater to those who want to stick to 5 man only content when the best gear will always be from the 10 mans. Different group sizes, I think, will stray away from what you're assuming for with the group size changes in the first place. My thoughts are if there's a group size limit of 5, all content will be tuned to 5. Everyone's on the same playing field all the time.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: reed23 on February 17, 2014, 11:50:00 AM
Can Hoss or anyone explain to me why this is such a big issue and needs to be changed?  If people want to group with 5 players, go ahead!  As was previously discussed, 85%+ of the game can be done on a 5 man atm.  And under the proposed changes, the remaining 15% will still allow 10 man groups!!!  So if I read between the lines, "5-man" zones will get debuffed from where they are currently to make them 5-mannable and legendary will be probably be removed.  All that sounds like to me is 0 +100 - 100 = 0.  We are taking away here, adding there, and we are back to the same spot we were before only that we now have to leave people sitting on the side-lines and not get to group when doing the 5 man areas.

Why do we want to exclude people from zoning groups?  It doesn't make sense to me.  Look at the zoning groups right now.  I would say a lot of groups on a day to day basis have more than 5.  Why in the hell would we want to shrink the mud anymore than it already is?  I don't understand the logic.  Please, someone, explain.  Hopefully i'm missing the whole point of this.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Hoss on February 17, 2014, 12:26:10 PM
@reed Your benchmarks of what can be accomplished today will not remain constant tomorrow. The new development will be shifting those lines so try to keep an open mind and not hang on to what a group can or cannot do today. I know it can be difficult to conceptualize without all the information but hang in there.

10 man groups are by far not the normal group size, they are the exception.

We want to do a lot better job at balancing the game content, both existing and new. In order to do this we must have a baseline for power, the first building block of that baseline is the size of the group.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: reed23 on February 17, 2014, 12:54:46 PM
Thank you for the reply.  Sounds good to me.  The only other comment I will throw in is I agree that 10 man groups are definitely not the normal group size, they are the exception.  Going from 10 to 5 seems a bit drastic to me, but again, I don't have all the info.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Doug on February 17, 2014, 12:55:39 PM
It seems the biggest argument for not changing group size is that some people will be left behind/not enough leaders.  Would a group limit of 6-8 be better than 5?  It would be interesting to see stats on average group size from a wipe.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Zozen on February 17, 2014, 02:04:27 PM
I think we need more info on the class changes before feedback on group sizes. I like change though and I remember all the rage arguments when group limits were first put in and then the decreases each time..'how can we do cyan on 20?!' Game evolves and we still play.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: jingo on February 18, 2014, 11:01:24 AM
Hard limit variable group sizes based upon zone sounds pretty clunky.  It also sounds pretty bad that if your group, or someone in it, has to recall from a zone that they get ejected.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Ezio on February 18, 2014, 12:57:40 PM
I am nervous that we are making multi/bottling decidedly more powerful here
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: breiner on February 18, 2014, 04:00:08 PM
To begin with I'd like to say I don't like the concept of reducing group sizes because it reduces the social aspect of the game.
Currently people are left on the sidelines with groupsize of 10. This might not be the case for all clans, but it most certainly is the case for clans who want to be able to kill all mobs in the game.

For clans consisting of casual players imposing limits on group size would not benefit them whether it be through hardcoded groupsize limits or reduced loot/xp whatever. It would simply mean that they'd get less out of the few hours a week that they do manage to get a full 10 man.

The thing I see breaking content is not group size but legendary status. It's very hard to scale a game where there is such a huge difference between the easiest '10 man' zone and the hardest. Instead of imposing limitations to group size I have a completely different idea:
- Keep groups exactly the way they are now
- Make it easier(less time consuming) to get to legendary, so casual players can get legendary characters within a reasonable timeframe.
- Make performing at a legendary level a straining activity. Ie, make it something you cannot have active constantly

This way casual players can form up the 5-6 people they are when they are on and get a big performance boost by all turning on pushing for a legendary performance. Enabling them to do and explore content suited for a 10 man group.
Hardcore players can steamroll through 10 man content with 5-10 players without legendary performance simply due to gear.
Endgame content hardcore players can do with gear and legendary performance.

This way you change the game for everyone without really changing anything.
To keep performing at legendary beyond the standard limitations I suppose you could impose an actual cost. Like a drain of rank%.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Jorake on February 18, 2014, 07:14:26 PM
I think removing legendary is a horrible idea. What do you work for then? I was frowning when they took out legendary races! Because it was a rank you achieved and it paid off because you could then make a legend race character. GO DARGONESTI!!! So now if you remove legend whats the point? When has anyone ever said "damn if you had trained your turn skill we could of done that easier" That is the only reason i would ever train turn to superb as a goal; to get legendary status. This also goes along with the group size factor. Being a legendary group of 5man is very powerful with the right classes.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Alecto on February 18, 2014, 07:15:03 PM
Tier group size based on zone difficulty

low - 3 man
low-mid - 4 man
mid - 5 man
mid-high - 6 man
high - 7 man
elite - 10 man

Now we won't have 10 man laying down the smack in Druid's Nook anymore!
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: mpriki on February 19, 2014, 03:41:05 AM
i feel like its already decided that group size will be reduced, i dont like the idea at all, but anyways
why group max size should go from 10 to 5 and not 10 to 8? a 5 group max size should change arctic totaly

also i ll post the same thing as i did before beacause i feel it is the solution to all this.

buff classes through equipment and make them available to all ppl. keep some elite elite items lim on 1 or 2
that way smaller groups will able to acquire better equipment then move to a harder zone for better equipment and so on.

it will be possible do hard zones to group as a 5 man if you spend time on lower zones and gather equiment or make a group of 10 and skip lower zones.

really most of us are old, married and some have babies etc. when i zone i am not focused 100%, if baby cries =afk in groups of 10 there is always a back up, in groups of 5 there is no room for that. so zoning will be like 80% afk because every single member is valuable to be focused. Always there is some1 in groups semi-afk or afk.

Speaking of my self i dont think i will be able to zone at all in 5 man runs because i cant really be focused on pc for 1-2 hours. Soloing is boring after some time.... So....
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Rhak on February 20, 2014, 04:21:35 AM
I think having a flexible group size would cause a lot of problems for pvp, partly because the line for a new zone can be pretty ambiguous.  You will have one group behind that line with ten people waiting for another on the other side to walk in with five, or have to walk in with two five person groups and form after entering, or have a large group pass that line and suddenly find themselves disbanded.  Also there are zones that are mixed up, with small sections or rooms taken from another zone number that could cause problems with normal zoning.  Personally I think a scaling penalty beyond a certain number of people would be the fairest and least complicated way, if it were balanced correctly.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: fulloflife on February 20, 2014, 10:39:24 AM
before the group size becomes mandatory, some volunteers should try to complete every "non-elite" zone with 5 man and log it and email it to the staff so they have some sense of how to tweak things.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Zozen on February 20, 2014, 12:06:15 PM
We can't accurately test until class changes are implemented.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: gnua on February 20, 2014, 12:36:26 PM
I am nervous that we are making multi/bottling decidedly more powerful here

You think Tim and Lottie will force everyone else into the inn?
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Jarrad on March 04, 2014, 03:12:07 PM
I am still not really clear on the motivation behind lowering the group limit. Is it intended to create more leaders? Is it due to diminishing playerbase? Is it because characters are too powerful? Is the intention to create more smaller clans?

I think if you want to lower group limit it is fine. Go with a hard coded group limit or it will have all sorts of knock on effects for pvp. I would suggest you think of ideas along the lines of allowing multiple groups to tackle particular zones together. Possibly consider changing area effect spells so that they dont automatically engage the casters giving a possibility of 2 5 man groups working together in pvp, they might damage each other, but they can still engage targets intentionally. Zones that it is possible to bring multiple groups into should be clearly flagged firstly in a news post and then in the help files of the zones, and possibly even a sticky on the forum so that there can be no confusion...

Cyan on two 5 man groups? Why not? But if your relying on bots instead of communication between players its going to be significantly more challenging...
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: eddiex on March 10, 2014, 05:50:42 AM
Hoss originally stated that the group size has been monitored over the last few wipes.  Streamlining the content of the game to fit the average group size makes perfect sense.  A fully equipped elite clan can steamroll cyan on a daily basis vs a lesser clan hoping to possibly do it once in a wipe.  This is a huge disparity and in my opinion not a level playing field.

I am certain in the current game a 5 man of the proper legendary characters can complete almost any zone (with the exception of a few fights).  I think scaling the game to fit an average group of 5 would only result greater class diversity in those capable of achieving these results.

In regards to the lesser skilled players being trimmed from the elite due to group size:  These players are being mindlessly foddered anyway.  Some of these players have egos > skill level from being babied along, handed shinies, and backed by the elite.  It is only when they learn to fish themselves that they become something more than a hungry mouth to feed.  These players may have done themselves a disservice by whoring themselves to accompany the elite in hopes of getting hand-me-down damage.

I see players every wipe, taking the opportunity to become better leaders.  I think many people limit themselves severely with the belief that they are under-powered to complete certain areas.  Having the foresight knowing you are capable of completing the vast majority of the game with only 4 others to me only increase the lesser experienced player's knowledge and ability.

Final thought: If you had never seen a group of 2 people (when most use 10) easily kill a buff dragon would you ever think to try that? Most would simply avoid it.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Chisul on March 10, 2014, 12:36:18 PM
Eddie,

I completely agree. A few wipes ago a buddie helped me two man cupelix with a scout and a shaman. Basically we couldn't get a group together to do it so I could legend my scout, on a lark we ran to the zone and killed it.

Though cupelix is far from the hardest fight in the game, doing it two man with no prep totally changed the way I look at playing the mud. Getting smaller groups to actually try these zones/fights is a great way to get players playing more confidently...even if you die a time or two in the process.

Matt
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Alecto on March 10, 2014, 05:28:26 PM
If the idea behind LUBE is to force players to make decisions (and sacrifices) in the building of their characters it seems like a 5 group limit might be counter-intuitive.

Say you have a mage who specializes in critical hits and another who focuses purely on spellpower - in a 5 man group there probably won't be room for both of these.  However, everyone will need the warrior/paladin/barb who has built up huge hp/damage resist (but you will only need one, of course).

Seems like the group limit idea is a plus to back-to-basics group strategies (tank, heals, 3 damagers) and a minus for characters who specialize but aren't necessarily a vital commodity.

On the other hand, the new specialization will mean there will be less effective soloing (that huge tank will do really crappy damage; that melee monster damager is always a bash away from dying) so there will be more grouping.

I don't mind either way, its just a big change from the current game structure.  I think the challenge and the tactical planning for big fights might make arctic even more interesting.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Gramm on March 24, 2014, 01:43:42 PM
If you make the group size smaller, there will be a higher demand for leaders, meaning more people will have to step up and take charge and become more active, i love doing 3-5 man zoning as the game currently is as each group member is 100% useful for what i can lead personally. Your gonna have elitist groups with 5 OR 10 man limits theres no way to stop that from happening, dont bother, just try becoming elite yourselves, some of you will. Personally i think anyone who can get themselves to rank 20 and gear themselves is elite enough already! then u just need to make friends to explore new things.
Anyways i ramble but before i stray too far from what i was trying to say, two 5 man groups has. 2x the fun going on as just one 10 man in terms of tanking healing and text adventure!
and for the fighting i wonder if youd actually start seeing 4 groups enter at the same time, there would certainly be a lot less area and people would have to get really good at targetting specific enemies. It would be a whole new ball game.
spells would have to be more specific, you couldnt just throw ice storms tornados and nightmares off without hurting anyone on your side that isnt in the 5man. maybe those are just pipe dreams but im interested to see what the logs next wipe will look like already if this change does happen.
Title: Why a 5 man group is bad for me, bad for you, and bad for everybody.
Post by: Kir on March 30, 2014, 04:18:39 PM
Why a 5 man group cap limit is bad for me. Well, simply put, we have 20-25 active or semi-active members in our clan at any given time, and those people change from wipe to wipe, sometimes more come back and play and our numbers bump to 30 or drop to 15 etc. When people are online, we form a 10 man, get in voice chat, and have a good time zoning and chatting. The social aspect is what draws us to this game after 10-20 years of play and the camaraderie of having a 10man laughing and joking and being idiots is the best part of this game entirely. Splitting us up into 5 man groups will make it so there is an "Alpha" group and a "beta" group, and if we have more than 10, possibly a 3rd group. People will feel likely feel excluded and alienated based on what group they get put into.

Why a 5 man group cap limit is bad for you;
A) well, if we do split up into 2 5 man groups instead of a 10 man, that means we are covering 2x as much content in the same amount of time that we used to. Now if anybody is unfamiliar with this current wipe's rush, RISE popped a good majority of the gear and HOWC and OUTLAW had to fight back quite undergeared for quite a while. This gear disparity could possibly end up worse than it was previous and I know people don't want that.

Why a 5 man group is bad for everybody;
Currently in arctic you need a 10 man to conquer the games hardest zones\fights. And to bot a 10 man in the highest level zones its nearly impossible even with the most advanced scripts that are currently in play. However, a 5 man is MUCH easier to control, and even possible without scripts. I have admitted before that a few years ago I botted 4-5 chars at a time, and never needed any fancy scripts. The reason you currently don't see anybody in the game who's bot crazy running around with a 10man of nightmarer's clearing out the game is because they can't pop nightmare with their bot armies because those fights are too complicated with a 10man of bots. However, as I've previously stated, a 5 man is much easier to control, and if a 5 man is able to do end game fights, then you are damned sure to get the eventual 5 man nightmaring squad poofing in to whoever and 5x stunning, all being controlled by 1 guy. And I am pretty sure nobody wants that...
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: haphazard on March 30, 2014, 05:37:37 PM
When the wipe is 3-4 months in and there are 25-40 people on max, I think the idea of a 5 man group is much better. Up until last wipe I was an overly dedicated player and I was pretty much the last man standing in every clan I was in. The doable content shrinks drastically when people all get busy and quit playing after the excitement of the wipe rush. Having a smaller group seems much more fitting to the few people that play longer than the first few months of a 12 month wipe. As far as botters and cheaters, I agree that 5 man groups will just make them easier to manage; however, people are going to cheat and bot either way. By lowering the max group limit, the game stays much more playable to the hardcore people that stick out a whole wipe, and honestly that's who the imms are, and should be, catering to the most. I have done alot of big stuff on small groups, but you can't do it all. It's disappointing that when 80% of your friends hang it up for the wipe that 1/3+ of the game is then off-limits.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: corey on March 31, 2014, 12:30:29 PM
If botting the current content with 10 people is so difficult, as you two have agreed, then why is it still done so often and ago efficiently?

The point I came here to make, though, was that changing groups to 5 man limits actually benefits non-botters because it's so much easier to get 5 people together for the harder content than it is to try and get 10 to even have a chance to compete.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: btown on March 31, 2014, 12:50:49 PM
Lets see if I usually use 2 bots that means I can only group 2 people.   Tough decisions to be made!  I will take the players over the bots all day.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: gnua on March 31, 2014, 02:19:49 PM
this would probably tip the balance of 10 mages vs 10 bashers in pk because the bashers could split into 2 groups of five without a huge loss in effectiveness.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Jorquin on April 03, 2014, 01:13:08 AM
i can tell you right now that having a group limit will have little effect of the number of people brought to pk, it will just mean that those using the "horde" strategy won't area as much to ensure they don't end up fighting each other.


i agree and disagree with jack about the locust theory. while its likely that to begin with large clans will form numerous groups and swarm through zones and strip them naked, over time i think you'd see large clans start to split up as there would be no real need to have 15+people anymore.

from a personal perspective I can tell you that although I lead a lot when I play a mortal, I utterly despise leading. it realistically is comparable to a babysitting job, and I firmly believe that I would be qualified to be a pre-school teacher based solely on leading arctic playing groups. if i played a mortal after all these changes (which is an if, i might just focus on creation) i'd probably just go solo and hide that i'm playing from everyone. if content is scaled to 5 people, soloing will be way easier anyway!
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Thymorical on April 08, 2014, 04:54:48 PM
Such Dramatic and pointless changes should focus on New classes quest zones rather then screw with a system that is working good enough.. About the only change I think I will like is smaller group sizes but only because it doesn't effect me much at all.. All ready limited to about 5 at max in a group.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Keith on September 14, 2014, 09:01:40 PM
This is an old thread, but I hadn't read this part of the forums until now.

I am against the scaling down to 5 man group sizes.  I find that with my older age and 2 little ones that finding time to do big zones is rough as it is.  I often have to AFK without warning to prevent my children from damaging themselves/my stuff.  I always pick characters which aren't considered "necessary" so that it isn't a big deal if I AFK for a fight or two.  I doubt I'll be added to groups to do high end content with the proposed changes because of the above.

I disagree with the idea that people will just add another group.  I suspect that if there are 6 people in a clan on, then 5 will zone and 1 will log (and that 1 will probably be me).  I say this based on years of experience:  even when I have been in clans with 20+ people online, usually there is 1 major group (lead by clan leader and top players) who zones, while the rest solo and wait for a spot.  I think this will wind up causing people to get bored waiting for the top group and play something else. 

As Reed said, most of the game can be done by 5 man groups already.  Dropping the cap from 10 will just result in less interaction between players and result in elitist groups within clans, i.e. the top 5 (not coincidentally, usually the best leaders) are going to kill Cyan, while the rest of you do whatever.  Also, groups that typically don't mind adding X newbie/unknown character won't add a spot for them if it is going to damage their ranks/shinies.  It would be better to just add a henchman-type system to scale the smaller groups up to 10, than rework all zones based on 5. 

Finally, there are a lot of people, including myself, with a decent amount of zone knowledge but that simply don't want to lead.  I don't think that scaling down to 5 is going to change that whatsoever.

With all changes, I try to decide whether the change will make me play more or less, and whether I will get more or less enjoyment after the change.  I feel like this will result in me playing less and enjoying it less.  I solo a lot (easier with children anyway), so I guess this may help with that, but at that point, it becomes a SUD (single-user dungeon) rather than a MUD.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: snax on September 14, 2014, 11:36:39 PM
if the cap is scaled down to 5 then you should be twice as mighty by default.  Surely this will allow you to solo more interesting things while waiting on a slot I'ld imagine.  Instead of something like ancient red dragon maybe you're off soloing kaligath or similar...who knows.  With a buddy or two you should be able to run the vast majority of zones instead of being stuck waiting on a slot in a group....luni avatar on 3-4 is doable currently but doable prelegend would be pretty neat for more groups - maybe void would be more amenable to 4 mans instead of needing so many bashes and a big group prelegend....  I'm curious to come back after the changes (and I still sometimes log -- but i'm now mainly studying for my nursing boards)
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: corey on September 15, 2014, 07:05:04 AM
if the cap is scaled down to 5 then you should be twice as mighty by default.  Surely this will allow you to solo more interesting things while waiting on a slot I'ld imagine.  Instead of something like ancient red dragon maybe you're off soloing kaligath or similar...who knows.  With a buddy or two you should be able to run the vast majority of zones instead of being stuck waiting on a slot in a group....luni avatar on 3-4 is doable currently but doable prelegend would be pretty neat for more groups - maybe void would be more amenable to 4 mans instead of needing so many bashes and a big group prelegend....  I'm curious to come back after the changes (and I still sometimes log -- but i'm now mainly studying for my nursing boards)

Everyone's already 4x mightier than 5 years ago.
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: Alecto on September 15, 2014, 01:48:28 PM
void is already being done on groups of 5 or smaller, and there are people in this game (you know who you are!) who are soloing kaligath.  There are really only about 5 zones in the game that REALLY need a 10 man (well...a 6+ man) group.

I think that skullcap is the model and the practice run for this concept.  Take your legend characters there and see how you do!  There are some fun fights, some crazy fights, and, as usual, some just plain weird fights.  I think some elements will have to be toned-down in some of the big fights in the game (golden whale, kraken, blaze, cyan, etc.) but if the end result is like skullcap then there will be some real and fun challenges with no guarantees of victory even with stacked rank 30+ legend groups...and that's kinda fun
Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: corey on September 15, 2014, 01:50:56 PM
void is already being done on groups of 5 or smaller, and there are people in this game (you know who you are!) who are soloing kaligath.  There are really only about 5 zones in the game that REALLY need a 10 man (well...a 6+ man) group.

I think that skullcap is the model and the practice run for this concept.  Take your legend characters there and see how you do!  There are some fun fights, some crazy fights, and, as usual, some just plain weird fights.  I think some elements will have to be toned-down in some of the big fights in the game (golden whale, kraken, blaze, cyan, etc.) but if the end result is like skullcap then there will be some real and fun challenges with no guarantees of victory even with stacked rank 30+ legend groups...and that's kinda fun

I 2 manned everything except for cyan and blood shoal this wipe.
Title: Limit Party of Six
Post by: Grimwar on October 09, 2014, 06:32:22 PM
Why not a party of six (vs five)?

- increases flexibility in composition: 1 tank, 2 healers, 3 DPS is perhaps optimal for most zones while addressing repeated concerns for a secondary healer; but another zone may better use 2/2/2 or temporary teams of 2 or 3 during parts of thezone; and so on.

- Eases some pressure for parties to be more inclusive of newer players or less-than-ideal characters.

- Remains manageable in size. Span of control = Leader with 3 to 5 Followers, is a military rule of thumb (with more followers, military would form another unit with its own leader and 3 to 5 followers).

Six is a good comprise between those advocating for smaller groups and those that favor larger groups.




Title: Re: Group Size
Post by: SArT on October 15, 2014, 05:55:48 PM
Why not a party of six (vs five)?

- increases flexibility in composition: 1 tank, 2 healers, 3 DPS is perhaps optimal for most zones while addressing repeated concerns for a secondary healer; but another zone may better use 2/2/2 or temporary teams of 2 or 3 during parts of thezone; and so on.

I think the proposal would institute a small penalty for 6 which may be worth it for your second healer.

I like the idea of 5 man groups... I would probably start leading again if this goes in.  I am too anti-social for the big annoying 10 man groups... I don't even follow you people.. the spam.  I have had to add code to parse some of you annoying people.