Can anyone elaborate on what part of raiding (in EQ) was fun?
All what I remember was being forced to raid due to content being Raid Only. My experience was some sort of torture that I try to block and avoid every time I think about it. All what I remember is the extreme boredom of killing trash and waiting for pullers resolve a tricky pull, waiting for buffs, recovering from deaths and being useless in a group of 100 doing insiginificant crap. Why/how was that fun? I don't get it.
Yes, I understand it's fun for the Main Tank, Main Puller, Raid Leader and maybe a few people but I'm asking the remaining 90% of the raid people.
@Laura
Raiding in EQ is fun because of exclusivity and gear. There really isn't much more to it than that. If you don't care about exclusivity and gear, then not caring about raiding is understandable.
It is the logical endpoint of taking all of the mechanics the game has to offer and implementing them on a macroscopic basis.
The gear is better, the mobs hit harder, you need more DPS, the price of failure is higher, etc. Outside of challenge mode group content in more recent MMOs, group content is the boring part of games for me. There is nothing compelling to me about the grinding involved in EQ group content.
Liav said:Any more than 24 players is just zerging. You have to dumb down your encounter mechanics to alleviate personal responsibility at raid sizes larger than that.
Massive raids just allow for deadweight players to not stifle progress as much as they would in smaller quantities. An alternative way to look at it is that larger raid sizes accomodate worse players on average compared to smaller raid sizes.
That point of view seems to only be valid if you are doing content that is not challenging enough. If you are running raids that require every single person to contribute in order to succeed then the quantity of people in the raid doesn't matter.
Your second sentence also contains another factor besides what I just mentioned. What you bring up there is only an issue in pick up raids or with guilds who don't recruit good players. Content shouldn't be planned with the worry that some raids won't succeed because some players are "dead weight" and don't do their job. That will happen. That is something good players and good guilds overcome.
philo said:That point of view seems to only be valid if you aree doing content that is not challenging enough. If you are running raids that require every single person to contribute in order to succeed then the quantity off people in the raid doesn't matter.
Your second sentence also contains another factor besides what I just mentioned. What you bring up there is only an issue in pick up raids or with guilds who don't recruit good players. Content shouldn't be planned with the worry that some raids won't succeed because some players are "dead weight" and don't do their job. That will happen. That is something good players and good guilds overcome.
The problem is that there's no reason raiding should have nearly 100 players involved. Literally zero reason at all other than to make things a pain in the ass.
With smaller raid sizes, you get to experience challenging content without having to experience the logistics of making a competent guild with 100 people. I'm sorry, but, ain't nobody got time for that. You'll end up with like, one guild per server.
I see zero positives that come from larger raid sizes. Please enlighten me.
The only benefit there is to having a larger requiered raid force is that it leads to the formation of much larger guilds which just gives you a larger premade social structure. Although i guess you could argue that it's easier to overcome a handful of bad players in a 72 player raid than it is in a 54 or smaller raid, but there are other better solutions to that.....
Laura said:
Can anyone elaborate on what part of raiding (in EQ) was fun?
I can name a few...
Working together with your friends as a team. All of them..not just a few groups. Succeeding..or failing, together as a group.
Camaraderie. Enjoying spending time with your guild mates. Giving that ranger a hard times when he dies...again. Or boasting a little about your crit. Having fun with others that are sharing the same experience.
Logging on every day at a certain time and not knowing what you are going to kill, but knowing that adventure awaits (similar to why we log on normally only on an more epic level)
I even enjoyed mobilizing as a mass. Being able to get up to 100ish people from anywhere in the world all to a set destination in under 10 mins flat once the raid has been selected. Not knowing if another guild might beat you to it...suspense.
A sense of accomplishment when you finally overcome an encounter that you had failed at previously. General emotions of elation or anger or frustration or excitement. These are what define a true gaming experience imho.
Of course upgrading gear, not only yourself, but being happy for others when they get upgrades too.
Friendship I guess is the key that stems through it all.
I understand that some of these things might be missing from current MMOs...and almost all of them require being in a good guild. You don't get the same kind of experience from a pick up raid.
Liav said:
The problem is that there's no reason raiding should have nearly 100 players involved. Literally zero reason at all other than to make things a pain in the ass.
With smaller raid sizes, you get to experience challenging content without having to experience the logistics of making a competent guild with 100 people. I'm sorry, but, ain't nobody got time for that. You'll end up with like, one guild per server.
I see zero positives that come from larger raid sizes. Please enlighten me.
I already posted some reasons why larger raid sizes can be beneficial...I'll copy and paste it again below.
I want to preface this by saying I think there should be smaller raid content as well (not sure if that is obvious or not). There is no reason not to have more options for a variety of players and guilds. More options is better.
Whether you want the loot to scale or not is another topic of conversation but there is no negative to having raid content that can encompass both large size raids and smaller size raids. It just gives people more options. I have a feeling if we told people the loot would be the same and the difficulty would scale based on the number of people they might be ok with larger person raids.
It is not about the loot...
ok..my quote from earlier in this thread:
"Having to tell another guild member that they can't join a raid because of a pre-set limit is not fun for anyone involved.
I lose the feeling of an encounter being an "epic" battle if there are not a lot of people. It makes it feel like you overcame a larger obstacle if you have a lot of people working together. 5 or 6 groups just doesn't lend the same feeling of accomplishment for me. Sure it is still fun to kill smaller minibosses or whatever with 5 groups but that feeling of an "epic" acomplishment is lost.
One more point. Creating content intended for a larger quantity of players allows for more mid range raid content. If the most difficult raid encounter is scaled for 24 people, you can only have miniboss encounters scaled for 12-18 people and below that is single group encounters (assuming all gear is equal). That doesn't allow for much variation. Content designed for larger raid sizes might have 6 or 7 levels of difficulty progression based on the number of people required (not just the gear required). Did that make sense? I'm unsure if I explained it well. More variation is good."
The problem is that there are legitimate times when someone has to slack off for a short while, and small raids don't allow for that.
Anyhow, more people == more fun, up to a point. IMO raids designed for 72 people like in EQ are fine with me, and some raids for 40-ish people should be added as well. Not as a hard, coded-in limit, but simply as a raid mob and loot designed for that numer.
I wouldn't like anything less than 6 groups of 6... and those would be "small" raids, possibly doable with 4-5 groups of good players. The top-end content should be for 12x6.
Player quality is up to each guild. If a guild kicks out those who slack all the time, they will improve, otherwise, they won't. As for zerging, a guild that constantly brings 50-100% more people than needed for a raid will have a very slow progression simply based on the amount of loot and need to equip people; their best people will then leave for other guilds, which will tend to keep them at the bottom until and unless they wake up and start doing things properly.
I liked how if a 40 man raid took 40 ppl, your guild was on-par. If your guild did it with 30- 35, they were legendary... if they did it with more than 40? They got severely ribbed for being a ZERG guild and laughed at by the community
I see a lot pf players argiung for either this or that, with no room for exploration of middle ground and minimal impact implementations with regards to in-game things, but what about inching a little towards that middle ground? Would a couple instanced raids really break the game and make some ppl so angry they won't play Pantheon? I was thinking differently awhile back, but now am I of the school of thought that most content and raids should be open world, and zergable even (but only to a degree). Your guilds rep is your business, as long as there is code in place to not expoit by way of constant zerging and lockdown of content. Aradune and the team have spoken of systems and ideas to address this but that nothing is set in stone yet. (Mobs fleeing if they feel zerged etc)
There could be some "rare" raids implemented that could be instanced and have a 25, 40 or 48 or 72 person limit so that zerging is not an issue. Very few of these instanced raids would be best, and these could be a system of guild challenge raids for bragging rights once completed by your guild, or they could also be major raids too for eng-game content, and this is a way of preventing zerging even though I know most players hate instances. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, sometimes there needs to be concessions that lend to the overall game over lending to individual desires. Lots of possibilities, and we want what is going to be the most effective system that is the least headaches and work and upkeep for the VR to implement and maintain, so...
Suggestions? Ideas? Thoughts?
Aethor said:The problem is that there are legitimate times when someone has to slack off for a short while, and small raids don't allow for that.
I think small raids, if someone has to afk, the raid just needs to wait or hold until they return
Some of my favorite raids in EQ were actually doing smaller 4-5 group runs in stuff like PoH, PoF, Kael Arena, ToV armor farming (not bosses), etc. I think 24-36 is an ideal raid size, large enough to actually feel like a "raid", but not so large to feel like a zergfest. And let's face it, in 72 man raids, most of the group is just filler DPS/healing and not really crucial to the raids success.
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure I want to be in a 100+ member guild again that can field raids of these sizes, either.
Didn't EQ at one time allow large sized raids? ( I seem to remember something like 72 people at one time..could be I'm mistaken) nevermind yes it was a "thing" at one time..heh read some posts further in.
I can deal with a couple one off 30+ man raids, but as a raid leader, I would implore the devs to keep the majority of raid encounters tuned around 2-4 groups. Above that, the signal-to-noise ratio gets out of whack and you become nothing more than a number. Not to mention the logistics of trying to keep a large guild together are an absolute nightmare. Large turnover does nothing to boost morale.
snrub said:Some of my favorite raids in EQ were actually doing smaller 4-5 group runs in stuff like PoH, PoF, Kael Arena, ToV armor farming (not bosses), etc. I think 24-36 is an ideal raid size, large enough to actually feel like a "raid", but not so large to feel like a zergfest. And let's face it, in 72 man raids, most of the group is just filler DPS/healing and not really crucial to the raids success.
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure I want to be in a 100+ member guild again that can field raids of these sizes, either.
Yeah, i have lad 100+, 72, 54, 40, 24, 18, 10 person raids and i found between 24 and 54 to be the most enjoyable raid size for me as a raid leader, leaning more towards 40-52. With 52, we always had the need to recruit and maintain a larger guild, which i prefer over smaller guilds since it offers a lot more potential for social interaction than a small guild - i have always hated filling raids with pugs and had very few positive experiences with raiding alliances. The fights were no less challenging if well tuned for medium sized raid force but you didn't have to deal with the madness of coordinating 72+ people.
CanadinaXegony said:Didn't EQ at one time allow large sized raids? ( I seem to remember something like 72 people at one time..could be I'm mistaken) nevermind yes it was a "thing" at one time..heh read some posts further in.
Yes, 72 was the max amount of players you could have in a raid when they added the raid system in Planes of Power, you could still have more people participating outside of or in another raid in world raids, but instances were limited to 72 then cut to 54 and almost cut to 42.
With Pantheon being a niche game, where there may potentially be more niche-esque guilds with lower member numbers, I believe thing to consider despite it being completely variable on VR's implemention, is that grabbing 42, 54, or 72 players may be more challenging than we may realize.
Not saying that will be the case, or that it's even very likely, but it's something to consider.
There should be a variety of raid sizes available. Not everyone will join a guild big enough to support 72 or more people requirement. I like raids of varying difficulty, such as two group to whatever. The amount & quality of the loot should be commensurate with the number of people required for the raid.
In EQ2 and SWTOR, you had two group content and 4 group content. The quality amd amount of the loot drops were proportional.
Raiding is not all about the loot. If it is to you, you will never have fun when you have all the loot, but still have to raid.
Raiding is fun and challenging because it is nearly impossible to get 12, 24, or 72 people to cooperate on the same task, doing what they are supposed to do at the right times. That's where the real fight is.
Bigger raids do give more leeway for slackers, but sometimes that is good mature guilds that are training new people in the strats or raiding to sell items/flags. In EQ2, I had to buy (with in game funds) a spot in another guilds raid to get my mythical updates because my guild at the time was not big enough to do it on their own. Good way for some guilds to earn money and friends.
But, I am more concerned with lag from large raids than anything else. Raiding an be harsh on your gaming system. Lag can result in wipes.
But, it is the job of the raid leaders to watch the players and make sure everyone is contributing. If they are AFK most the fight, they should not get loot.
Faelor said:With Pantheon being a niche game, where there may potentially be more niche-esque guilds with lower member numbers, I believe thing to consider despite it being completely variable on VR's implemention, is that grabbing 42, 54, or 72 players may be more challenging than we may realize.
Not saying that will be the case, or that it's even very likely, but it's something to consider.
Not everyone can be in the elite huge guilds. Many prefer friendships in games, but still want to raid. When I played on the Crushbone Server in EQ2, there was the Crushbone Raid Alliance. Basically, they allowed you to join a regular raid force without having to be part of their guild. You could be a part of your social guild AND raid in large groups.
Portalgun said:I liked how if a 40 man raid took 40 ppl, your guild was on-par. If your guild did it with 30- 35, they were legendary... if they did it with more than 40? They got severely ribbed for being a ZERG guild and laughed at by the community
A thousand times this. Doing a 40 man raid with 30 does not IMO mean the raid is unbalanced if other guilds struggle to complete it with 40.
Also, Im all for 72 man raids allowed, but they would be rare events; Super-rare world bosses, GM events, Pre-Expansion events, one-time story progression raids. They could introduce next expansion level mobs to last expansion level players, and allow everyone join in even if they are terrible, a good raid leader could make them useful in some way.
Beefcake said:
Not everyone can be in the elite huge guilds. Many prefer friendships in games, but still want to raid. When I played on the Crushbone Server in EQ2, there was the Crushbone Raid Alliance. Basically, they allowed you to join a regular raid force without having to be part of their guild. You could be a part of your social guild AND raid in large groups.
Interesting that you make that statement. In EQ there were plenty of huge guilds that weren't elite...and plenty of elite guilds that weren't huge. Almost to the point where being a huge guild made you less elite because it watered down the quality of players by making it take longer to gear everyone up.
Yes things have changed in a general sense...but I think a lot of the guild sizes have changed due to smaller raid sizes.
philo said:Beefcake said:
Not everyone can be in the elite huge guilds. Many prefer friendships in games, but still want to raid. When I played on the Crushbone Server in EQ2, there was the Crushbone Raid Alliance. Basically, they allowed you to join a regular raid force without having to be part of their guild. You could be a part of your social guild AND raid in large groups.
Interesting that you make that statement. In EQ there were plenty of huge guilds that weren't elite...and plenty of elite guilds that weren't huge. Almost to the point where being a huge guild made you less elite because it watered down the quality of players by making it take longer to gear everyone up.
Yes things have changed in a general sense...but I think a lot of the guild sizes have changed due to smaller raid sizes.
Yes, size does not matter...
Yes, the larger guild you have, the lower you entry requiremends usually are, reducing the elite ness of your force.
Don't know what the initial population of these servers will be, but I find it difficult to believe that there will be more than one or two guilds on each server able to sport a 72-man raid force, let alone 72 competent, geared and prepared players.
So, I am all for ALLOWING huge numbers into a raid, but not necessarily designing raids for it.
The last stream did mention a possibility of a raid mob bringing friends if too many players were attacking it. That would enable smaller guilds to raid AND larger guild to get the extra mobs.
philo said:Interesting that you make that statement. In EQ there were plenty of huge guilds that weren't elite...and plenty of elite guilds that weren't huge. Almost to the point where being a huge guild made you less elite because it watered down the quality of players by making it take longer to gear everyone up.
Yes things have changed in a general sense...but I think a lot of the guild sizes have changed due to smaller raid sizes.
Pretty much, when the raids were 72, we used to continually recruit to keep 100+ active players on the roster to ensure we had a full raid every night raiding 5 nights a week. With 52 we shoot to keep around 65 active members for fulls raids for 3 nights a week.