When it becomes to much of a zerg, I donno what number that is but I feel 40-42 is ok, but I feel that 72+ is probley to much.
More than anything I want every player to feel that they matter and that ever player must do their job to a higher than usual standard to be successful while performing additional tasks throughout the encounter.
I would be ok with the 25 (or 5 group) raids like we've seen in modern day WoW. 40 i feel is extremely large and would require 'zerg recruiting' guilds to mass invite every player they saw on sight without prompting in order to get interest and keep players until they decide to raid and i really dont enjoy getting invite raped by other players looking to fill a guild slot. Smaller raids imo is better.
The bigger, the better. I loved the 100+ man raids in EQ1. Those were epic. People don't like large scale raids because it's harder to get loot. Too damn bad. Find a good guild and play the game for years, you'll get your loot. VR should not cater to the casuals who want to play a game for six months, get all their gear, and then move on because they are bored. The argument about larger raids making each individual person's role less pronounced is valid, but it's not a solo game, it's a team game, and if the encounter is tuned correctly, you'll need every person in that raid to do their job to a high level. As for zerging content, that's also on the encounter design side as VR could easily make raid bosses stun X% of a raid size for Y amount of time or some variant thereof ensuring a massive raid force is not zerging at any particular time. All of that being said, I hope they design content for all sizes from 12 man mini-raids to 100+ man epic raids. But to answer the question, Yes, there is such a thing as too big a raid size, and it occurs when the performance of the game is impacted to such a degree on an average gaming machine that the raid is not enjoyable or functional. Whatever that number is, make sure you're below it.
I think it's important that there is support for smaller raids - if a normal group is 6, then there should be targets sized for 12, 18, 24, etc. This is because sometimes you just want to do something with your guild, and not every guild is going to be able to field massive numbers of people. In my experience, unless you build your guild to be specifically about raiding, it's unlikely that you'll be able to get more than 1/3 of your total membership online and able to do something together at any given time. People have different life and work schedules. Likewise, not every guild wants to grow to have 100 players or more on its roster, and even those that do may struggle to get there. Alliances with other guilds can help, but those take time to form, and don't always last.
As far as a maximum, I generally feel like 36 - possibly a little more - is a good number for a maximum. A lot depends on the content however. If you're throwing that many people at a single big monster, it generally starts to feel not all that thrilling after a certain point. You want a situation where each person on the raid has a meaningful role to perform, and you're not simply stacking more bodies for more damage output. It's harder for developers to create raid content that can be engaging for that many players, and so often you end up with responsibility for handling various mechanics placed on the shoulders of a few individuals, and everyone else is simply filler there to follow directions. That's not really a very fulfilling raid experience in the end, and Pantheon can do better. That's not to say that there can't be raids bigger than 36 people - it's just that they need to be designed differently from what we're used to if they want to feel meaningful and engaging to players. Even 36 can be "too big" in this regard if a raid is designed poorly.
Mathir said:The bigger, the better. I loved the 100+ man raids in EQ1. Those were epic. People don't like large scale raids because it's harder to get loot. Too damn bad. Find a good guild and play the game for years, you'll get your loot. VR should not cater to the casuals who want to play a game for six months, get all their gear, and then move on because they are bored. The argument about larger raids making each individual person's role less pronounced is valid, but it's not a solo game, it's a team game, and if the encounter is tuned correctly, you'll need every person in that raid to do their job to a high level. As for zerging content, that's also on the encounter design side as VR could easily make raid bosses stun X% of a raid size for Y amount of time or some variant thereof ensuring a massive raid force is not zerging at any particular time. All of that being said, I hope they design content for all sizes from 12 man mini-raids to 100+ man epic raids. But to answer the question, Yes, there is such a thing as too big a raid size, and it occurs when the performance of the game is impacted to such a degree on an average gaming machine that the raid is not enjoyable or functional. Whatever that number is, make sure you're below it.
This is very well stated. I could not agree more with you Mathir.
And just to add: NO "maximums" on people who want to raid. THIS IS NOT WORLD OF WARCRAFT! This is something different, and WoW should not be a guideline for Pantheon! Handholding is obviously NOT wanted. And to answer the question: player creativity and strategy should be the solution to raids, not "maximums" like in WoW.
#communitymatters #makenightmatteragain #factionsmatter #riskvsreward #deathpenalty #HardRaiding #respectyourguild #HellLevels #gamesnotworlds #aradune
I personally think that the sweet spot is somewhere around 24-72.
Anything larger than 24 begins to affect the impact an individual player has, and towards the top end of that range, you can easily begin to feel like just another cog in the machine. You are not necessary, you are expendable.
In addition, EQ's raids before instancing enforced hard limits on numbers were largely loot pinatas. Very little or no mechanics, just a prerequisite number of Clerics. This simplicity in gameplay is the only thing that allowed extremely large raid forces to function in any meaningful capacity.
Encounter tuning is the most important part of this discussion. If you are not working with a predictable raid size (24, 48, 72, etc.) you can not reasonably tune the difficulty of an encounter. Scaling mechanisms will never be a replacement for fine, hand-crafted tuning.
There are a lot of factors at play here, and in my years of raiding, I have definitely been the happiest in a 24-person setting.
That said, I am not opposed to casuals having some "reduced mechanics" bosses they can zerg with a 100 person raid force. Not everyone has the time or energy to put into tightly tuned progression raiding. I only hope that the rewards for these encounters are proportionately diminished.
Syrif said:Mathir said:The bigger, the better. I loved the 100+ man raids in EQ1. Those were epic. People don't like large scale raids because it's harder to get loot. Too damn bad. Find a good guild and play the game for years, you'll get your loot. VR should not cater to the casuals who want to play a game for six months, get all their gear, and then move on because they are bored. The argument about larger raids making each individual person's role less pronounced is valid, but it's not a solo game, it's a team game, and if the encounter is tuned correctly, you'll need every person in that raid to do their job to a high level. As for zerging content, that's also on the encounter design side as VR could easily make raid bosses stun X% of a raid size for Y amount of time or some variant thereof ensuring a massive raid force is not zerging at any particular time. All of that being said, I hope they design content for all sizes from 12 man mini-raids to 100+ man epic raids. But to answer the question, Yes, there is such a thing as too big a raid size, and it occurs when the performance of the game is impacted to such a degree on an average gaming machine that the raid is not enjoyable or functional. Whatever that number is, make sure you're below it.
This is very well stated. I could not agree more with you Mathir.
And just to add: NO "maximums" on people who want to raid. THIS IS NOT WORLD OF WARCRAFT! This is something different, and WoW should not be a guideline for Pantheon! Handholding is obviously NOT wanted.
#communitymatters #makenightmatteragain #factionsmatter #riskvsreward #deathpenalty #HardRaiding #respectyourguild #HellLevels #gamesnotworlds #aradune
Replying back to both of these posts im actually inclined to agree. I do support low number raids like 25 mans ive seen in WoW and it is not because of gear because drop rates and number of drops can be adjusted. Idc. The point i would agree on is no maximums but only to the degree if the developer (VR) stays true to its promise of encounter scaling as well as an encounter will not be the exact same twice. I understand there is not going to be a different thing every single time but to the degree of if you have 100 people its scaled for 100 people. I've lived through the days of planar raiding and zone crashing in EQ1 as well. Long hours and sweet sweet victorious conquest. But, i think it should be planned so that if a smaller guild wants to raid with a set requirement it shouldnt have to conform to the whims of zerg guilds which brings a slew of unpleasant behavior and tactics to aquire members.
I most enjoy raids that let a large number of people work together.
Even though others use the term "raid" interchangeably, I feel there should be a clear difference between multi-group content and "raid" content.
There should be small, 2-5 group, content that allows casual/pick up groups to do multi group content that doesn't require the organization or teamwork of a larger raid force.
The organization/ teamwork/ timing/ communication etc. required to be successful with a raid designed for a large raid force is more challenging and requires much better leadership than running smaller raids.
Trying to compare the experience of raiding with a large raid force of 100ish people vs a smaller raid force is difficult. There is so much more involved in running the larger raid.
I'm in agreement with the no maxium opinion. I think the content should drive the needs for the amount of players. If the raid boss can be easily beaten with 12 people, and someone brings 40 and slaughters it, by all means, go for it. That just leaves lots of people without the opportunity to get loot (which in turn would prevent this type of thing from happening in the first place). On the reverse side of that, if the content was "designed" for approximately 12 people to clear it and it's beaten by 8 people, great! Higher chance of getting loot for those 8 players. I guess my opinion is that there shouldn't be a limit to how many players you can bring to a raid, but I do understand that there needs to be a "guideline" in desigining the content for the average player and average available gear at that level. Now that I'm thinking about it, the scaling design would alleviate some issues with this; however, I think there should be a threshold to the scaling so that at some point, if enough players are brought to the raid, they've then made it trivial enough to provide easier ways to get loot rather than always having to set aside 2-3 hours to kill one boss regardless of how many people you bring. There's definitely some tweaking and balancing that would need to occur to find the sweet spot, but I trust in VR and they're experience in developing a nice, competitive raid ecounter system.
TL;DR I think no maximum would be the way to go, to an extent. :)
Two groups is a "raid". I will be delighted, although surprised, if this is the maximum size.
Smaller is better. In a small raid each player matters - you cannot as easily be "carried" by others and get the rewards without doing the work, being competant and not being afk half the time.
In a small raid you have the feeling - correctly - that what you do matters. In a 48-person raid maybe the main tank is important. Maybe an off-tank or two is important. Ditto for a few healers. But for 40+ people you can do a really perfect job - do the right thing at the right time in the right way and it really doesn't *matter*. You coud do a decent job or even a poor job (unless you totally foul up really badly) and the result will be the same. Demoralizing.
I think you will have to see how much the game engine can hanndle as well. I heard one of the zones they were working on is intended to hanndle 12 groups. If a lot of the game is being tuned for 6 man groups and 12 or so group zones then I could see a huge 70+ person raid in a small area start to stress the game. A raid with lag is bad and would much rather smaller than larger if its a problem.
The only raiding i've done was in 20 person groups and it was my favorite part of playing MMOs so i wouldn't feel 24 is too small for me but i can see that the ideal number would depend on what games people played before.
10+ players:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFv73lyZcnY
24+ players:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jekZuwowJ_k
40+ players:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzKAFrQFCcI
85+ players:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sVBs59RAMI
100+ players:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WSNXy6REKY
200+ players:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6uYVEWNrHI
The videos speak for themselves, anything below the 85+ player count seems pretty balanced but beyond that number things get ridiculous.
As far as too big i guess it would be at the point where I start to feel i am not making a diffrence. a 60 person raid for example would have at least 10 people that normal tank and 10 that normally heal in thier groups. Any boss made for 60 would have to be setup where many tanks and healers would be needed- I dont think it would need to scale to the full 10 tanks but having 59 people all depend on a single tank seems unbalanced. If you were to scale the raid even higher to 100 people i think the challenge of making a raid boss that has dozens of diffrrent mechanics to keep 100 people busy becomes very hard.
As far as the people ssying there shouldn't be limits or minimums I don't think that could work in a challeging game. If a raid is being beat by a goup that has say 10% less people than intended then the raid probably wasnt hard enough to begin with.
Laneir said: Community size and eq2 brainwashing plays are big roll here, I think anything more than 24 is to large except in rare exceptions. Years into eq2 it became more and more difficult to fill 24 person raids ( for me at least) so high end content became more and more exclusive. I am planing to play pantheon till the ship sinks so I don't want that good loot to far out of reach :p
that probably has to do with the gaming community changing.
mmos aren't very popular for younger gamers. they prefer something quick and easy.
not only that, gamers that prefer something with more time to develop have less time on our hands due to irl responsibilities.
the solutions are pretty slim:
do what wow did and just simplify gameplay.
gut player interdependency(many modern day mmos).
uhh.. throw in a cash shop to buy your way thru the game lol.
I imagine the struggle a developer goes through with this is the smaller raid sizes are the more accessible they are, but the more quantity is needed.
Some games, 24 man is what they use and to me that’s just not a raid, it’s just a few groups hanging out.
But EQ also tried 72 man which was not sustainable.
I think 48 is a good number. That is 8 groups.
I enjoyed the EQ1 raids I experienced from Base game to Planes of Power. If we had enough people for Plane of Hate but had another 6 guild mates and 5 ally guild mates that wanted to come along ... more the merrier. So we had 10 groups all having fun progressing through content at their pace.
One day we raided target after target for 24 real hours straight. It was awesome. Folks had to bail to go to work, others got home from work and joined. Nine hours later those who went to work joined back in. It was one of those top 5 awesome memories I have couple decades later. Would have really sucked if you were the person/persons that couldn't hang out on this once in a life time adventure because of a raid limit.
Also, allowing no limit during raids can really help alot if you ever involve "Keys" required for content progression. You can simply let friends and strangers add in tagging along so they can get "flagged" and progress with the content. Lowering the stress of trying to arrange 35 other people to help *you* get "flagged/keyed".
As far as bragging rights ... anyone here care my little claim of fame was being part of The First successful group to take down "Lady Vox" on Quellinos? Nah, me either. Sure hasn't helped me during a job interview or a raise. lol. I'll take memories and great times over worrying some guild is using too many people in their raids.
I would like to see different types of content designed with varying amounts of players in mind.
12 man raids (overland mobs of exceptional strength that may require up to 12 people to take down)
24 man raids (raid lite? raid dungeons should consist of some mobs that are on the easier side to provide a stepping stone for gearing up for the rest of the zone)
48 man raids (normal sized raids, most encounters should consist of this)
72 man raids (rare, exceptionally difficult encounters meant to test the resolve, patience, and cause players to question their existence... not for the feint hearted)
