Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Raid Size

    • 2130 posts
    January 10, 2017 12:18 PM PST

    Wellspring said:

    I don't know, I guess we have a different view of what "raiding" is.

    To me raiding is supposed to be massive and epic. A large number of players joining forces to defeat the game's most difficult bosses together.

    The 12-man "raiding" you described from DDO is basically what I would consider "group" content. Certainly not very epic when it only requires a total of 12 players to defeat the biggest baddest monster in the game.

    It's about encounter design. You can make a 12 man encounter feel amazing, and you can make a 48 person encounter feel like watching paint dry.

    I've experienced pretty compelling PvE content with a pretty wide variety of people. Even well designed group encounters for 6 players can be pretty solid.

    From a mechanics perspective, content made for >1 group is generally the definition of raiding. Shrug.

    • 89 posts
    January 10, 2017 12:25 PM PST

    Liav said:

    Wellspring said:

    I don't know, I guess we have a different view of what "raiding" is.

    To me raiding is supposed to be massive and epic. A large number of players joining forces to defeat the game's most difficult bosses together.

    The 12-man "raiding" you described from DDO is basically what I would consider "group" content. Certainly not very epic when it only requires a total of 12 players to defeat the biggest baddest monster in the game.

    It's about encounter design. You can make a 12 man encounter feel amazing, and you can make a 48 person encounter feel like watching paint dry.

    I've experienced pretty compelling PvE content with a pretty wide variety of people. Even well designed group encounters for 6 players can be pretty solid.

    From a mechanics perspective, content made for >1 group is generally the definition of raiding. Shrug.

     

    I agree with Wellspring.

    • 2886 posts
    January 10, 2017 12:34 PM PST

    Wellspring said:

    I don't know, I guess we have a different view of what "raiding" is.

    To me raiding is supposed to be massive and epic. A large number of players joining forces to defeat the game's most difficult bosses together.

    The 12-man "raiding" you described from DDO is basically what I would consider "group" content. Certainly not very epic when it only requires a total of 12 players to defeat the biggest baddest monster in the game.

    I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you. I said in my first post that I loved the epic view of a massive group of people working together. This is more of what I would expect in Pantheon and I'm totally okay with that. It makes for some amazing screenshots. Really my only point was that in DDO I liked be able to make a noticeable difference (and in a lot of cases, carry people) in the game's highest end content. Having less people doesn't make them less enjoyable. But ultimately it's just a matter of perspective and what you're most used to.

    • 411 posts
    January 10, 2017 12:35 PM PST

    Wellspring said:

    I don't know, I guess we have a different view of what "raiding" is.

    To me raiding is supposed to be massive and epic. A large number of players joining forces to defeat the game's most difficult bosses together.

    The 12-man "raiding" you described from DDO is basically what I would consider "group" content. Certainly not very epic when it only requires a total of 12 players to defeat the biggest baddest monster in the game.

     

    I've played through smaller encounters and had it feel epic and I've played through larger encounters and had it feel epic. I think smaller encounters have a lot of depth, but have less appeal on the surface level. Larger encounters are undeniably epic on the surface, but are often quite shallow. On your 5th attempt through a boss, if you are with 11 others and struggling to keep up with your job in killing a small dragon, is that epic? If you are with 99 others and are turned away from the screen and talking to your kid about their homework while spamming your designated button while killing a monsterously huge dragon, is that epic?

    As you already admit, it's a matter of opinion and folks will fall somewhere between wanting solo raiding and 1000 players required. However, I think given what the VR devs have learned over the years about uncapped and capped raiding, I think it would be awesome to see them use their expertise to give us a little bit of large scale epicness for the surface level awesome, but a lot of smaller scale (I would personally like 24 man) content for lasting challenge.

    • 169 posts
    January 10, 2017 1:26 PM PST
    Raids and raid zones should have a variety of content...
    1. Group content....rare spawns and elites roaming npcs that drop high level loot..6-12 ppl
    2. Demi Gods...smaller raids 18-24 people...drops loot with slightlyrics better stats than group gear...30% chance at rare spells
    3. Gods...largest of the raids...36-42 people...best loot...rare spells

    Tune each encounter to meet the middle of the numbers slotted... so grp content would take 8 ppl...Demi gods 21...god's 39
    • 2130 posts
    January 10, 2017 1:43 PM PST

    Megaera said: Raids and raid zones should have a variety of content... 1. Group content....rare spawns and elites roaming npcs that drop high level loot..6-12 ppl 2. Demi Gods...smaller raids 18-24 people...drops loot with slightlyrics better stats than group gear...30% chance at rare spells 3. Gods...largest of the raids...36-42 people...best loot...rare spells Tune each encounter to meet the middle of the numbers slotted... so grp content would take 8 ppl...Demi gods 21...god's 39

    Considering that the group size has already been stated to be 6, it seems silly to label something group content if it's not tuned for 6 players. Why would we call it group content and not "two group" content?


    This post was edited by Liav at January 10, 2017 1:44 PM PST
    • 411 posts
    January 10, 2017 1:46 PM PST

    To be honest I feel like stating anything with hard numbers is an overreach currenlty. I would read his post as wanting a breakdown of group, small raid, and large raid content. The rest is far too specific for this discussion, so we might as well give him a pass on the issues with the numbers.

    Heck, we might even see the group size change!


    This post was edited by Ainadak at January 10, 2017 1:46 PM PST
    • 2130 posts
    January 10, 2017 3:20 PM PST

    Ainadak said:

    To be honest I feel like stating anything with hard numbers is an overreach currenlty. I would read his post as wanting a breakdown of group, small raid, and large raid content. The rest is far too specific for this discussion, so we might as well give him a pass on the issues with the numbers.

    Heck, we might even see the group size change!

    While I agree that discussing hard numbers might be premature, there is overwhelming precedent for a group size of 5 to 6. I'd bet money that the group size remains in that range through to release.

    Even so, you're right that it's not particularly relevant right now.

    • 169 posts
    January 10, 2017 4:17 PM PST
    Playing many other mmos, I have always considered group content that takes something around 10 people...
    Leave did you ever farm named mobs in soul seks eye for raid gear? If you did you know that killing them before required more than a group before they changed the enchanters ability to charm stuff
    So named mobs in a raid zone requiring slightly more than a group would be considered group content to me....
    i agree it's early to give hard numbers but I just wanted to put in my 2 cents about exactly where I would like to see the lines drawn for each style or tier of raid content......
    This is abit off topic but I would like to see it follow sorta,like eqoa with masteries or aa....all level 50 raids should be done without it...and the aa/masteries should be put in with the first true xpac with the lvl cap being raised...thus adding a whole new topic to discuss about raid encounters and sizes
    • 2130 posts
    January 10, 2017 5:19 PM PST

    Megaera said: Playing many other mmos, I have always considered group content that takes something around 10 people... Leave did you ever farm named mobs in soul seks eye for raid gear? If you did you know that killing them before required more than a group before they changed the enchanters ability to charm stuff So named mobs in a raid zone requiring slightly more than a group would be considered group content to me....

    Semantics. More than a group is raid content to me, even if it's a small raid.

    • 107 posts
    January 12, 2017 5:16 PM PST

    I really hope raids are kept to 24 people.

    • 169 posts
    January 12, 2017 9:10 PM PST
    Unless they severely limit guild size, I would rather not limit raids to 24 people...if they did you might as well make them instanced...then just say screw it and play wow or rift....
    Raid size should be dependent on how many people you have available to raid....also I hope they don't lock people to only kill things 1 time a week....might as well do instanced raids if you do that....also just out all raid bosses on a random timer...make the timer something like 2 hours to a week
    • 2130 posts
    January 12, 2017 10:03 PM PST

    Megaera said: Unless they severely limit guild size, I would rather not limit raids to 24 people...if they did you might as well make them instanced...then just say screw it and play wow or rift.... Raid size should be dependent on how many people you have available to raid....also I hope they don't lock people to only kill things 1 time a week....might as well do instanced raids if you do that....also just out all raid bosses on a random timer...make the timer something like 2 hours to a week

    Why even have raids? Raids are like, literally instances, man! It's instances all the way down!


    This post was edited by Liav at January 12, 2017 10:03 PM PST
    • 1778 posts
    January 13, 2017 7:41 AM PST

    Megaera said: Unless they severely limit guild size, I would rather not limit raids to 24 people...if they did you might as well make them instanced...then just say screw it and play wow or rift.... Raid size should be dependent on how many people you have available to raid....also I hope they don't lock people to only kill things 1 time a week....might as well do instanced raids if you do that....also just out all raid bosses on a random timer...make the timer something like 2 hours to a week

     

    Um...... what? Its not all or nothing. Caps and Lockouts wont make the game WoW. You know we could flip this kind of argument around and say uncapped raids are not what Pantheon should do so you should go back to EQ because this game isnt for you. Ive been guilty of it before too, but this crap has to stop. Its rude and doesnt make your point of view any more valid then anyone else. Some people want to play with a family and not an army. So while we dont know which direction VR will go yet on Raid size. I think its safe to say that the tenets dont really justify or deny either point of view. And in fact all this boils down to is preference.

     

    And my preference and opinion is Id rather guilds and raids be on the smaller side (20-30ish). Because I want to experience the social bonds an comraderie of a guild, but want to feel like I contribute significantly. In a large guild I always end up feeling like a cog in the machine, seperated off by cliques, and completely faceless team member # 351. Then there is also the whole skill based challenge thing as opposed to it feeling like a massive zerg. But again these are my feelings and opinions and like your opinions, not based on fact.

    • 2130 posts
    January 13, 2017 10:45 AM PST

    Concur with Amsai. Instances are a separate topic entirely and painting the world in black vs. white or WoW vs. EQ doesn't serve to make productive discussions.

    The topic of raid size is entirely independent of pretty much any other factor and our debate should really be focused on the pros and cons of the various potential sizes.

    If it's not obvious from my previous posts in the thread I'm still on board with smaller, more focused raid sizes. Personally, I feel that my individuality is affected in raid sizes larger than 24ish.

    • 36 posts
    January 13, 2017 5:11 PM PST

    For what its worth, as a guild leader and raid leader, I find more than 30 unweildy, and less (yes) intimate. I want my players to know each other well as a team and unit.

     

    Any less than 20 seems like glorified group content.  I would vote for six man groups, four groups for raid.

    • 3237 posts
    January 13, 2017 10:50 PM PST

    I would prefer 40+ man raid sizes(or uncapped no-claim aggro like in EQOA where the group that did the most damage got kill credit), and for there to be more emphasis on gear checks, raid composition for buffs/debuffs, and quality of spells (think apprentice-adept-adept3-master-grandmaster in EQ2) than just pure mechanics.  Don't get me wrong I like there to be diversity in encounters and all that in the game but I also want there to be a real sense of tank and spank progression implemented as well.  Need large world loot tables and distinct pieces of gear that can be difference makers, but very hard to obtain.  No matter what don't use an ilevel system like WoW did.  Every update more and more gear became trivialized and the gear progression on server 1 step closer to being the exact same.  I'd rather see at least 1 full year of gear progression released at the same time than 3 annual installments where it gets 33% better each time.

    • 169 posts
    January 15, 2017 2:00 AM PST
    I don't know about some of you but I literally knew 40-50 people in my raids when I played eq and Eqoa, and they all had my number to bat phone me incase something spawned in the middle of the night.
    Some raids we only took 12-16 people...other raids we had our 40-50 and them extras that wanted to tag along, but we're friends of someone in our group.
    Raids are what you make of them...big or small...the people you know generally are only limited to you by the amount of time you spend meeting people and putting in the effort to make friends.
    Even in rift with instanced raids, I knew and have the numbers of atleast 40 people in my guild for the 2 raid teams we had. It's all about effort and friendliness and how accessible you are to people.
    • 24 posts
    January 15, 2017 2:21 AM PST

    I always thought the 24 man raids of EQ2 was perfect, not so big as the smaller guilds wouldnt eventually be able to raid, and not so small that 'pick-up' raids were the norm. Not that pick up raids were a bad thing, but if you had guildmates it was a bit easier to get to know the people, how they worked together and what not.

     

    • 318 posts
    January 15, 2017 5:09 AM PST

    Draknmarr said:

    I always thought the 24 man raids of EQ2 was perfect, not so big as the smaller guilds wouldnt eventually be able to raid, and not so small that 'pick-up' raids were the norm. Not that pick up raids were a bad thing, but if you had guildmates it was a bit easier to get to know the people, how they worked together and what not.

     

    Has there been a game to have non-instanced contested raid content with only 24 man raids? Even vanguard's APW raiding was instanced (you chose one of 6 shards to enter). 

    How can 24 man raiding be contested and be enough to satisfy a whole server of players?

    I made a post about this earlier in this thread, but I think it got overlooked. I think one of the benefits to larger raid sizes is more players will get to participate. It's a lot harder for a guild to find a hardcore group of 72 players to raid at all hours of the day in order to lock down all of the raid content. 

    • 780 posts
    January 15, 2017 5:13 AM PST

    I have previously advocated uncapped raids in this thread, but that's largely because I have difficulty separating capped raids and instanced raids in my mind.  As others have indicated here, instances and capped raids can be separated, and I'm coming around on that.  

     

    I also prefer a larger raid force, but that's because we had larger raids in EverQuest in the years I most enjoyed playing MMORPGs (glory days).  My old EverQuest guild was also torn apart in WoW because of the smaller raid sizes and that's left a bad taste in my mouth.  I've thought about it some, though, and in fantasy books the characters who would be raid targets are often taken out by a small group of heroes.  When you do have large numbers of heroes fighting in these books, it's generally a battle or a war where the heroes fight large numbers of enemies rather than a single 'raid target' type character.  To me that translates more to a PvP battleground situation than a raid.  I know not everyone here is into fantasy books, but when I play these games I want to feel like a major character in one of these books rather than a character in a supporting role.  So, I've come around on small raid sizes and I'll be okay if that's what we have in PRF.

     

    That said, I'm still leaning toward the larger sizes because I feel that smaller raid sizes will limit the size of a lot of guilds, and I don't like that.  With larger raid sizes, guilds will still have the option to be smaller and collaborate with other smaller guilds.

     

    The concepts I definitely do not want to see in PRF are raid targets that scale with group size or have several versions of themselves that are intended for different group sizes.

    • 318 posts
    January 15, 2017 5:25 AM PST

    Shucklighter said:

    The concepts I definitely do not want to see in PRF are raid targets that scale with group size or have several versions of themselves that are intended for different group sizes.

    Agreed 100%. I don't want to see that either.

    As much as I think the raid size should be large, I'd rather have small raids than this. 

    • 393 posts
    January 15, 2017 5:55 AM PST

    I suppose raid content could determine the raid size as well with the most content within whatever sweet spot is decided.

     

    Most Content  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Less Content

    Standard Group = 6                          Standard Raid = 24                                   Legendary Raid = 48

     

    Most of the raid content would be for a raid size around 24. But a few (and I only mean relatively few) encounters exist and require a much larger raid force.

    • 780 posts
    January 15, 2017 6:22 AM PST

    Wellspring said:

    Has there been a game to have non-instanced contested raid content with only 24 man raids? Even vanguard's APW raiding was instanced (you chose one of 6 shards to enter). 

    How can 24 man raiding be contested and be enough to satisfy a whole server of players?

    I made a post about this earlier in this thread, but I think it got overlooked. I think one of the benefits to larger raid sizes is more players will get to participate. It's a lot harder for a guild to find a hardcore group of 72 players to raid at all hours of the day in order to lock down all of the raid content. 

     

    I believe this is a legitimate concern.  Part of what allowed raid targets to be contested was that it was difficult to gather and mobilize such a large force.  If only three or four groups are required to take a target down, I think you're going to have PUGs taking them out pretty frequently.  They're not going to be up very long.  You'd need a ton of 24-man targets on relatively short respawn timers, I reckon.

     

    I'm cool with some large raids and some small raids (like OakKnower said).  I just don't want big and small versions of the same encounter.

    • 200 posts
    January 15, 2017 6:24 AM PST

    I prefer a raid size of 40 - 50 people. Less people does not feel epic to me and more people would be require much more guild management and bureaucracy. 

     

    Greetings