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

Did you like 6 Player Group Sizes in Dregs?


Did you like 6 player groups over 5?  

132 members have voted

  1. 1. As of the most recent test patch, groups are back to 5 player sizes. What size group did you prefer?

    • I preferred 6 player groups.
      71
    • I preferred 5 player groups.
      12
    • I could go for even larger groups (7+)
      49


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Hungry said:

Smaller guilds are going to get crushed by larger ones no matter how many people you can put in a group.

I disagree fully, in many games ive played ive experienced it and seen it multiple times, zergs dont always win fights, and crushed by what? Score at the end of a campaign or just in fights? Cause not everyone cares about score, i could not care less about it. I care for fights. and ive seen larger groups lose plenty of times. The devs mentioned concern for zergs before and alliances and I hope they have something in store sooner rather than later. But thats a whole diff topic, only interest i have atm is group sizes which i argue for fixing the need to have so many healers. Also if a healer is getting trained on one thing players can do is something called peeling which almost never happens in these EK fights, instead everyone stays balled up smashing keys and with tunnel vision on their target. Larger groups just decrease the need for skill and so does needing multiple healers per party.

The reoccurring theme here and argument for increased party size is guilds want more flexibility in their parties and dont want 40% of it to be healers and i fully agree with that half of the statement, i just dont think increasing party size is the right solution to that problem, decreasing the need for more healers is. They need balance and have a second look at their kits.

Edited by krevra

I don't want to kill more rats, fill another experience point bar or collect another meaningless badge. I want to play a GAME against PLAYERS, where my actions, my decisions and my SKILL will determine if I win or lose. Allies. Enemies. Alliances. Betrayal. risk. Conquest. To compete with THOUSANDS of other players for a chance to claim the THRONE. Even if i lose, the experience won't feel hollow. I don't want another worthless trophy.

PLAY TO CRUSH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, krevra said:

The reoccurring theme here and argument for increased party size is guilds want more flexibility in their parties and dont want 40% of it to be healers and i fully agree with that half of the statement, i just dont think increasing party size is the right solution to that problem, decreasing the need for more healers is.

OK this is fine, but it's irrelevant to the point you keep hammering that group size somehow lets zergs win more, when we're talking about 6 vs 5 sized groups. If the zerg has more people, even if not enough to fill optimal groups, they are still bringing all of those people and will still out number you. Group size isn't some inherent balancing system at 6 vs 5.

I'd also argue that 6 allows for important utility that makes a small group more efficient, allowing it to punch up against larger but worse groups with less effort. At 5 players you lack that extra flexibility that enables a strategy or composition.

I could see your point if we're talking about massive groups, like 20~ players or something wild like that. If your small group is worried about only filling a single group and not being competitive please realize that the average "medium" group in this game is roughly 15 players, and 15 will almost always smash 5. Your point fundamentally misunderstands how this game functions in the campaigns - it's like you've only done EK fights with 5 player groups and no factions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate all you want and try your ad hominem i could not careless to discuss a thing with you since you do not code for this game, any information i put out is my own feedback and criticism for the systems just like all players are allowed to post, The EK fights is only the most recent proof, nice job winning hunger dome oh wait.

Most pvp games ive seen and played have 5 man parties and there is no need for 2 healers per party.

Edited by krevra

I don't want to kill more rats, fill another experience point bar or collect another meaningless badge. I want to play a GAME against PLAYERS, where my actions, my decisions and my SKILL will determine if I win or lose. Allies. Enemies. Alliances. Betrayal. risk. Conquest. To compete with THOUSANDS of other players for a chance to claim the THRONE. Even if i lose, the experience won't feel hollow. I don't want another worthless trophy.

PLAY TO CRUSH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, krevra said:

Most pvp games ive seen and played have 5 man parties and there is no need for 2 healers per party.

OK! That's cool and I agree that that is a good design philosophy. Also, I didn't attack you personally but I expect you are likely very inexperienced in Crowfall.

If redesigning the game in a week ahead of launch was enough time to make the game balanced around a single healer per party was on the table, that would be an acceptable adjustment that would make 5 players vs 6 players far more palatable. But it isn't on the table, because that would require a complete overhaul of 6 healing/off healing promotions and like 20+ healing adjacent disciplines.

Nobody is arguing with you about that. The only thing we disagree on is if 5 player groups enable smaller groups to be more competitive compared to 6, which they just don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing group sizes per campaign seems like a waste of time. Are you gonna balance classes around 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 3 or....

Players liked 6 man groups when it was a "bug" and like it now when it's a feature. I know this would require the devs to listen, but I think the answer is pretty clear here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, krevra said:

I disagree fully, in many games ive played ive experienced it and seen it multiple times, zergs dont always win fights, and crushed by what? Score at the end of a campaign or just in fights? Cause not everyone cares about score, i could not care less about it. I care for fights. and ive seen larger groups lose plenty of times. The devs mentioned concern for zergs before and alliances and I hope they have something in store sooner rather than later. But thats a whole diff topic, only interest i have atm is group sizes which i argue for fixing the need to have so many healers. Also if a healer is getting trained on one thing players can do is something called peeling which almost never happens in these EK fights, instead everyone stays balled up smashing keys and with tunnel vision on their target. Larger groups just decrease the need for skill and so does needing multiple healers per party.

The reoccurring theme here and argument for increased party size is guilds want more flexibility in their parties and dont want 40% of it to be healers and i fully agree with that half of the statement, i just dont think increasing party size is the right solution to that problem, decreasing the need for more healers is. They need balance and a second look at their kits.

The 2 healer per group meta has existed for years now, through drastic changes in the available options., it is a consequence of decisions buried deep within the design philosophy of Crowfall's combat design.  Whether or not you think that is a problem is fine.  I definitely sometimes like having 2 healers and sometimes hate the poorly made dergs out of it.

The issue is that it isn't going to get changed 7 days before the game comes out because of the scope of the work required to do so.  Changing group size is a single int in one config file.

 

I also think it's funny you are trying to describe peeling to people who are interested in a niche hardcore PVP MMO.  I don't know what EKs you are hanging out in but clearly we're hanging out in different ones.

Edited by Hungry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BigglyDaddy said:

Changing group sizes per campaign seems like a waste of time. Are you gonna balance classes around 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 3 or....

Players liked 6 man groups when it was a "bug" and like it now when it's a feature. I know this would require the devs to listen, but I think the answer is pretty clear here. 

Wasn't the benefit of Crowfall's development being "open" and not having an NDA the ability to get feedback and act on unforeseen bugs like the 6man group bug?

The only conclusion I can get from this series of events is ACE is filled with Masochists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ACE-Tiggs said:

Hey Everyone, 

I'd like to clear up some confusion.   Our goal was always to have multiple campaigns running at the same time, that are different from each other.  The group size is just one setting we can change, and we're testing that out as you can see.  We'd like to have many campaigns going with different requirements (5, 6, 7 person teams) This isn't a permanent change, it's just a change that we can do and we're testing out.   We don't want to have a default group size of 6 players, we want many different sizes.   

 

@thomasblairsaid the "base" group was 5.

That is the group size we see currently in GR and in dregs.

What is the difference between "base" and "default".

 

I think arguing there "isn't a default" when everything is 5 is a bit disingenuous.

 

Lets admit there is a default, and put that default at 6.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, krevra said:

Hate all you want and try your ad hominem i could not careless to discuss a thing with you since you do not code for this game, any information i put out is my own feedback and criticism for the systems just like all players are allowed to post, The EK fights is only the most recent proof, nice job winning hunger dome oh wait.

Most pvp games ive seen and played have 5 man parties and there is no need for 2 healers per party.

Crowfall PvP isn't like 'most games'. Here, group / team size matters a LOT.

macdeath_sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, thomasblair said:

You are just seeing us build our Campaign Configurator settings as we get ready for launch. The base group size has always been 5 and continues to be 5. We built a feature a few updates back with a variable group size setting in our Campaign Configurator, where we can make the Configurator set max group size to a value from +1 - +5 for that campaign.

Group size is just one of many knobs available to us to make each Campaign feel different than the others in the Configurator, and as time goes forward we will continue to add more settings into the Configurator. I know in other MMO's once they make changes those changes are permanent and just the way it is from then on, however Crowfall's Campaign premise has always been there are tons of knobs and we will turn those knobs and see what kind of Campaign it produces.

As Zybak pointed out, each time we dial Up a +1 to max group size, we have just increased the power of groups in that Campaign due to buffs and healing, so it is a tricky knob to turn. But turn it we will!

This in part is a communication problem.  It took the community years of complaining to get 6 man grps back (after ACE had them in for 6mos from a bug).   Dropping the healing requirement from 40% of your player base to 33% is a big improvement.

The community is justifiably dismayed and concerned that 8 days prior to launch, ACE is propping TEST Dregs CWs with 5 man groups, thus apparently reverting the change.  It makes a person wonder if ACE really comprehends and understands how 5 vs 6 man grps play out in practice in their combat model. 

Whether its a knob or not is nice to know--its also not the issue.  What the community really wants to know is if ACE actually comprehends that this is a big deal and will commit to having 6 man groups in any (and all) campaigns at launch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told to gripe here so here I am. I have not read the 4 pages of discussion prior to posting this so I apologize if I'm redundant but I guess that's the point.

 

I think there should be limits, it gives the game another dimension to work around. Making you come up with the most ideal comp off of x players is part of the fun/challenge. I do believe that this game in particular should be more than 5. I'll stick to 6 since that is what I have seen and given thought to but I do believe 6 is the number to be start at. Reason for this is that to compete in a 5v5 the options are pretty limited and leaves us classes that really would just be taking up a slot for something better.

The 6th man alleviates this by granting another dimension to the group comp that you need to deal with. The versatility is huge! Some math wiz can look up how many combinations of a group comp a 6th man adds by figuring out everything other class that you could plug into it.

I'll admit this is a bit self serving as I am knight who is utterly useless in a 5 man but would add soo much to as a 6th man. 

Above all else, I would like to think that the game I've back for almost 6 years will listen to what their player base is saying.

Either way, super excited for the launch, 5 or 6 man groups, gratz on making it to launch... almost.

Edited by Brightdance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ACE-Tiggs said:

I'd like to clear up some confusion.   Our goal was always to have multiple campaigns running at the same time, that are different from each other.  The group size is just one setting we can change, and we're testing that out as you can see.  We'd like to have many campaigns going with different requirements (5, 6, 7 person teams) This isn't a permanent change, it's just a change that we can do and we're testing out.   We don't want to have a default group size of 6 players, we want many different sizes.   

What will the group size be in EKs? AFAIK they will always have the base group size of 5, correct?

If the base group size doesn't matter, as you seem to be arguing here, then make the base group size 6. Then it will be 6 in EKs which is nice for scrims. Vary it up and down in your campaigns.

If the base group size does matter and you don't want change it, then please don't tell us it doesn't matter and you're only trying things out.

We're telling you your game is more fun with a group size of 6 and it should be 6 most of the time. If you want to make it 5 or 7 sometimes, that's cool. But it should usually be 6.

Will it usually be 6? If it's always 5 in EKs then I think people are reasonably suspicious that you won't have it be 6 in most campaigns. Because if the game is better at a group size of 6, why wouldn't you just change it to be 6 everywhere by default?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that this development team can balance a game with set group size is a stale, everlasting community joke. The notion that they can balance a game with variety of group sizes doesn't even get a snicker from me. More like a "wtf". 

 

Set it back to 6 or 8 and focus on balancing what you have. Smaller changes and monitor. 

4L1c3MB.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Angelmar I enjoy different meta gaming if the group size increase or decrease to 8 or 10, or 5-7, and I believe that is good for the game some variety, and what is ideal or not in a large scale siege battle. Otherwise it can get stale if it was a permanent 5 or 6 full group size. 

It seems like some of you guys dislike experimentation and just live in the past and do whatever u are used to from x.y older game versions. Just consider it a logic reasoning if the group size was 10 in one Dreg campaign - you can almost use all kind of variety builds - and it create a different approach and tactics how to compete in that particular campaign setting. 

Edited by mythx

MQfHl7c.png

Crowfall Game Client: https://www.crowfall.com/en/client/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly love it being a knob that can be adjusted. Crowfall is a very unique game like this and I believe that raising or lowering the knob keeps the PvP content from growing too stale. I like the fact that it will keep the Meta changing and keep people on their toes. Great Job @thomasblairI'm looking forward to how crazy the knob turns!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CaptainSlashin said:

I honestly love it being a knob that can be adjusted. Crowfall is a very unique game like this and I believe that raising or lowering the knob keeps the PvP content from growing too stale. I like the fact that it will keep the Meta changing and keep people on their toes. Great Job @thomasblairI'm looking forward to how crazy the knob turns!

Don't get too crazy with this knob! We need to test it on Test server before making radical changes to Live.

macdeath_sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CaptainSlashin said:

I honestly love it being a knob that can be adjusted. Crowfall is a very unique game like this and I believe that raising or lowering the knob keeps the PvP content from growing too stale. I like the fact that it will keep the Meta changing and keep people on their toes. Great Job @thomasblairI'm looking forward to how crazy the knob turns!

While group size can be adjusted the aoe cap of spells doesn't change so the system isn't complete. 

40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...