Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
WilliamTell

10 man party - Not 5

Recommended Posts

For the actual release of the game:

I vote for 20-30 man party sizes, or 5 man party sizes, but able to link several parties.

This is not some dungeon running game or your classic PvE MMO game in the end. This is a game of war, and war should be variable, and we should not be limited by some artificial view of "5 man groups are best". The game is supposed to allow the players to decide what size group works best for them.

 

Those groups with too many and the wrong command structure will crumble on their own.

The groups with a good command structure will get to experience the game entirely different and that is exciting.

 

FOR NOW:

 

The group size can be whatever the devs want to test...but for the games release, too limiting artificial group sizes is forcing a meta too much.

 

NOTE: I did not realize part of this all stemmed from FRIENDLY FIRE IMMUNITY. Therefore I suggest 5-man group linking. You can link ally groups to visually see them better, but you only get FRIENDLY FIRE IMMUNITY within your 5 man squad.

Edited by jkkennedytv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the actual release of the game:

I vote for 20-30 man party sizes, or 5 man party sizes, but able to link several parties.

This is not some dungeon running game or your classic PvE MMO game in the end. This is a game of war, and war should be variable, and we should not be limited by some artificial view of "5 man groups are best". The game is supposed to allow the players to decide what size group works best for them.

 

Those groups with too many and the wrong command structure will crumble on their own.

The groups with a good command structure will get to experience the game entirely different and that is exciting.

 

FOR NOW:

 

The group size can be whatever the devs want to test...but for the games release, too limiting artificial group sizes is forcing a meta too much.

 

NOTE: I did not realize part of this all stemmed from FRIENDLY FIRE IMMUNITY. Therefore I suggest 5-man group linking. You can link ally groups to visually see them better, but you only get FRIENDLY FIRE IMMUNITY within your 5 man squad.

I would like this. Basically a pseudo raid group. Green could indicate your party, yellow for linked groups, and red for enemies. Still keep party damage immunity. But i'd still like to see larger group sizes down the road, like 6-8 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im with my guild mate in this combined with jkkennedytv´s idea about group linking like a warband.

This way even groups of different guilds can form 1 solid warband.

 

would be cool if the group leader and warband leader had some special signal abilitys. Like a singel horn for attack double horn for retreat etc.

 

o8WHnLc.png

THE most active European guild. Join us now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be "war bands" - they are called guilds. There should be no further name-color changes, IMO. If you are not in the group you are "red" because you can be smacked by any skills. It's up to people to be aware and communicating so as to not attack, or be attacked by, allies. Not different colors, no locators, just battle awareness.


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a video from the devs where they stated they are bringing in some mechanics to counter zerging a.k.a ball up and roll everything. 

They were talking about stuff like projectiles bouncing between multiple enemies and increasing in damage the further it bounced.  

 

Isnt there any sorts of those anti-zerg mechanics yet ? I'm worried that it's going to be one giant zerg ferst again, and we have enough of those games already.. 

 

 

There was a very powerful one called Aura Emitter. It was too powerful at first, but then it was nerfed hard enough that it's ignored now.

 

There's still collision, physics and group size, all of which push against stacks, if not zergs directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We get this a lot around here. Players push an agenda by arguing that future, hypothetical changes somehow balance current real brokenness.

 

It's wrongheaded thinking.

We get a lot of early testers that treat the current testing like an actual game and then try to push the game in a direction that is most beneficial for their guild and not for the larger picture. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOTE: I did not realize part of this all stemmed from FRIENDLY FIRE IMMUNITY. Therefore I suggest 5-man group linking. You can link ally groups to visually see them better, but you only get FRIENDLY FIRE IMMUNITY within your 5 man squad.

 

I like this idea a lot. It would help keep the groups together so people aren't left alone to wander around aimlessly and get lost in mountains but still offers the danger of FF once the groups do come together. It's a really good compromise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly fire will be a great anti-zerg mechanic.  As you get further out in bands you are looking at softer rulesets so it shouldn't be surprising if those campaigns have more uncle bob and zerg-friendly mechanics.  But obviously the inner bands shouldn't encourage zerging which is a relatively simple playstyle. 

 

FF doesn't eliminate Zergs from the field.

 

It motivates a shift in placements/approach to, if need be, mitigate FF fallout.  Which is what everyone says FF is supposed to promote in battle-groups to begin with, instead of just blindly blobbing up, yes?

 

So FF simply promotes a smarter "Zerg" (overwhelming numbers) just as much as any other large group rolling around.

 

IT might be said it's anti-blob though.  So in that respect there's some motivation to spot check whether everyone is blobbed up or not and space out accordingly.  Assuming there's reason to do so..

Edited by Bramble

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Group size, ffa damage/effects, green/red name and guild tabbards visible, are all things that should be changing in the Campaign World module offerings as we start to get that system online.   We will choose a Deity that could also split our targeting loyalties in Guild as far as playing in that offered campaign, picture a CW with 3 man party limits, ffa (guild members red), individual Deity immune (same God = green) where some enemies are green and immune (and vice versa), so you would have to rely on your party members to kill unless you run in a full faction group; you have various friendlies and enemies all able to take damage or get friendly mechanics.  it is likely guilds will mostly play where guild mechanics dominate targeting mechanics and no ffa of friendlies is possible, A dregs offering should be able to consider an 3. 5, 6 or 8 man group size with no guild protections from ffa and is where hard core and the best rewards do happen. 

 

Unless we are all locked into one and only one campaign, we will perhaps be participating in a couple world modules of differing rulesets.  Now put some Deity 30 minute boons ala SB on the deity choices and allow us to build alters that renew it and see how it works in a one month campaign.  The beauty of this system imo is that you can split up the player base to factional worlds that can be less guild friendly and more individual friendly for solo and small group players even though the guilds still have many organizational advantages, imagine keep doors or vendors that are set only to factions rather than guilds as an example of dividing player base.  Deity choice is said to be at the crow level so there is one per account, it means this decision matters.  Each of these worlds will offer log in choices...  

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really cant/don't know if bigger groups are needed or is FF is an issue. What I do think is that everyone is just used to playing a certain way (no FF) so it feels wrong. I've been in quite a few guild fights were I was the odd man out or in a group of 2. I spent a lot of time not being able to attack the focus target because I just couldn't safely get in there. That is not a bad thing, its just a different thing. It was frustrating at first but eventually was fun to figure out this new problem and how to effectively contribute. I can definitely see FF adding an additional layer of skill to the game.

Edited by yoink

aeei5jG.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really cant/don't know if bigger groups are needed or is FF is an issue. What I do think is that everyone is just used to playing a certain way (no FF) so it feels wrong. I've been in quite a few guild fights were I was the odd man out or in a group of 2. I spent a lot of time not being able to attack the focus target because I just couldn't safely get in there. That is not a bad thing, its just a different thing. It was frustrating at first but eventually was fun to figure out this new problem and how to effectively contribute. I can definitely see FF adding an additional layer of skill to the game.

Feels boring to me.

 

Mostly because you can't even read the nameplates until you're close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Group sizes are fine for right now, imo. Bigger is usually better but in this case there are only a handful of people that would benefit from groups being bigger than 5 people and it's not in the interest of ACE to appease only a small portion of their player base while alienating the majority. 

 

A whole bunch of FF talk that came out of this thread that'd I'd like to address: full-spectrum FF won't work in this game until LOD on character models and nameplates is fixed. As a Confessor your LMB has a 35m range but the game only accurately renders character nameplates at ~15m. Turning off LOD in the config folder doesn't fix this. No amount of situational awareness or battlefield readiness can make the nameplates appear legible at 35 meters; so until level of detail is fixed so we can see who is friend and foe at the range of our powers, friendly fire will only result in cacophonous melees with a 15m radius, essentially rendering ranged classes moot. I'd like to see all the FF proponents first try to convince ACE to fix LOD before trying to convince them to implement FF.  

 

It's for the betterment of the game, after all. 


Hg0LXwa.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really cant/don't know if bigger groups are needed or is FF is an issue. What I do think is that everyone is just used to playing a certain way (no FF) so it feels wrong. I've been in quite a few guild fights were I was the odd man out or in a group of 2. I spent a lot of time not being able to attack the focus target because I just couldn't safely get in there. That is not a bad thing, its just a different thing. It was frustrating at first but eventually was fun to figure out this new problem and how to effectively contribute. I can definitely see FF adding an additional layer of skill to the game.

See, I kinda feel what you're saying here, but if we take the Winterblades/Sugoi keep fights this weekend for example, not only does being forced to sit nearby but not engage (basically to avoid FF) feel off-putting sometimes but it looks weird. A comment on my most recent YouTube upload reads "Whats with the lack of cleave or even using skills" in reaction to my Legionnaire play, which isn't a completely ignorant critique, but one that doesn't take into account the fact that engaging in combat even to assist an ally can lead to the completely opposite affect. There is more than one occasion in that same video I can point to and say, "I tried to land a blow on an enemy and ended up hitting an ally instead," or ended up eating some Myrmidon C ability damage.

 

I say that to say this: friendly fire, in its current form and in even greater affect if allowed to hit group members (IMO), causes a "wait to see/wait to engage" affect in combat that can seem strange from the outside looking in and may prove to be... less fun than being able to engage freely.

Edited by mrmoneda

Hi, I'm moneda.

s1tKI24.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FF doesn't eliminate Zergs from the field.

 

It motivates a shift in placements/approach to, if need be, mitigate FF fallout.  Which is what everyone says FF is supposed to promote in battle-groups to begin with, instead of just blindly blobbing up, yes?

 

So FF simply promotes a smarter "Zerg" (overwhelming numbers) just as much as any other large group rolling around.

 

IT might be said it's anti-blob though.  So in that respect there's some motivation to spot check whether everyone is blobbed up or not and space out accordingly.  Assuming there's reason to do so..

 

This is pretty accurate. Only the smartest most organized zergs are going to play on the dregs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FF doesn't eliminate Zergs from the field.

 

It motivates a shift in placements/approach to, if need be, mitigate FF fallout.  Which is what everyone says FF is supposed to promote in battle-groups to begin with, instead of just blindly blobbing up, yes?

 

So FF simply promotes a smarter "Zerg" (overwhelming numbers) just as much as any other large group rolling around.

 

IT might be said it's anti-blob though.  So in that respect there's some motivation to spot check whether everyone is blobbed up or not and space out accordingly.  Assuming there's reason to do so..

Hard to find TONS of highly skilled players hence most zergs end up as blobs which is why FF is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to find TONS of highly skilled players hence most zergs end up as blobs which is why FF is good.

 

Strict FF will make guilds extremely cautious in who they choose to go into battle with. This is both good and bad. Like you said, there aren't that many skilled players that will make the cut. This is good for hardcore pvpers who want to win but it's bad for community based guilds that don't necessarily want to be forced to exclude anyone. It's likely a lot of the guilds who think they will play in the dregs with full FF won't actually play there  Large guilds filled with mostly unskilled pvpers are probably not going to want to play in the dregs. I can see this splitting up a lot of guilds by pvp skill and it isn't really a good thing for community building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...