Hi folks! I know raid size discussions have happened a few times over the years, but I had an idea that make shake it up just a bit. (perhaps not a good idea, but nonetheless...)
The last thread I saw was a post from @Kilsin "Community Debate - Raid Bosses, how big (raid size) is too big, is there such a thing as too big for raid bosses? Please explain your answer." back in February of 2020. I also went through a few threads in the years previous to gauge what the communities opinion was on the matter.
To sum it up, people mostly agreed that:
- Small "raids" of 12 players aren't actually raids, so please don't have raid caliber loot in dungoens of this size.
- Super large raids of 60+ players could be a bit of fun as a one off with some sort of world boss, but generally aren't as fun, feasible to actually group for, or provide a rewarding battle experience.
- Most players prefered raids of 24-48 players.
A few observations that we may not of known then, but do now:
- It seems as though VR is pretty locked in on group/dungeon size of 6 players.
- We saw some footage of a raid where the dungeon and/or boss fight(s) are split into isolated groups for extended periods of time.
- We have more evidence of AI intellegence and mob complexity with recent streams.
* So anyways, to my point of making a new topic... This is not to argue about the perfect raid size, but rather to propose this idea:
What if VR designed the end game raid content to have different sizes in each raid? Any given raid may be a (min and max open to suggestion) minimum of 18 and a maximum of say 48 with any number divisible by 6 as being an option, but there could still be room for "world bosses" and or lair type single boss dungeos to be even larger for that special experience.
For example, it's not uncommon for a game to have two different raid sizes (three 20 man raids, and 3 40 man raids), but I'm suggesting something more along the lines of one raid of each specific number.
Some reasons I think it could work:
1. Allows a multitude of experiences and hits everyones players 'sweet' spot at one point or another.
2. Promotes more social interaction, specifically between guilds, to work together to find the right numbers. (Your guild is capable of a 24 man raid?. I'm sure there is a small guild that can provide an additional 6 for that 30 player raid, or combine with an equal guild for 24+24). I think this could promote more communication and cooperation between guilds.
3. Potentially gives VR a chance to get more creative with their raid designs and allows for the story/lore to be woven into the size of the raids in some way.
4. Makes it more challenging for guilds to understand the dynamic of different numbers of roles/archtypes, and varying degrees of coordinate and leadership challenges.
NOTE: I personally hate the idea of dynamic raid sizes (where you can choose your own raid size, and the boss fights scale with the number of players) for many reasons, and I do not consider it any sort of influencer in my idea (because I hope they don't exist.
Thanks for reading!
I also don't like content scaling based on who and/or how many are engaging with it. Doesn't feel right to me.
To sum up, is your idea that there are different raids around the world and each raid is designed for a specific number of players, but not all raids are designed for the same number of players?
I thought there was a DRT or Dev Stream or something that had already confirmed this idea. Some raids will be 12, some will be 24, some will be 42. Don't quote me on the numbers, but unless I'm misunderstanding your idea, it's already a thing I think.
"What if VR designed the endgame raid content"
Right here is the core of my disagreement. Firstly, Pantheon should focus on the world and the process of exploring it and developing a character. Not an "endgame". Sure there needs to be things to do at maximum level but not things that are so different from the levels before that people frantically race through the game to get there and nothing much matters but getting to maximum level. And then screams and complaints that it takes too long and they can't get friends to play with them unless the time taken to get to maximum level is reduced to 4 hours. Sound familiar? Yes to me as well and I don't like it.
Secondly the idea that raids are necessarily better or more important or more "endgame" and give better rewards than group play. Its good to have them - as it is good to have things that can be done solo when grouping is not feasible. But groups should be the heart of the game. Better rewards should come from harder content not from more players getting together for content that isn't necessarily any harder. In fact, raid content may be easier with more leeway built in for one or two or four members of the raid being poor players or having poor characters or outright going afk for the boss fight whereas even a single player like that might doom a group trying the hardest level of content. Raids are harder to coordinate and to manage but easier to actually play - on average - than good group content and to me do not seem to be the right way to "gate" the best rewards.
Kass said:Hi folks! I know raid size discussions have happened a few times over the years, but I had an idea that make shake it up just a bit. (perhaps not a good idea, but nonetheless...)
The last thread I saw was a post from @Kilsin "Community Debate - Raid Bosses, how big (raid size) is too big, is there such a thing as too big for raid bosses? Please explain your answer." back in February of 2020. I also went through a few threads in the years previous to gauge what the communities opinion was on the matter.
To sum it up, people mostly agreed that:
- Small "raids" of 12 players aren't actually raids, so please don't have raid caliber loot in dungoens of this size.
- Super large raids of 60+ players could be a bit of fun as a one off with some sort of world boss, but generally aren't as fun, feasible to actually group for, or provide a rewarding battle experience.
- Most players prefered raids of 24-48 players.
A few observations that we may not of known then, but do now:
- It seems as though VR is pretty locked in on group/dungeon size of 6 players.
- We saw some footage of a raid where the dungeon and/or boss fight(s) are split into isolated groups for extended periods of time.
- We have more evidence of AI intellegence and mob complexity with recent streams.
* So anyways, to my point of making a new topic... This is not to argue about the perfect raid size, but rather to propose this idea:
What if VR designed the end game raid content to have different sizes in each raid? Any given raid may be a (min and max open to suggestion) minimum of 18 and a maximum of say 48 with any number divisible by 6 as being an option, but there could still be room for "world bosses" and or lair type single boss dungeos to be even larger for that special experience.
For example, it's not uncommon for a game to have two different raid sizes (three 20 man raids, and 3 40 man raids), but I'm suggesting something more along the lines of one raid of each specific number.
Some reasons I think it could work:
1. Allows a multitude of experiences and hits everyones players 'sweet' spot at one point or another.
2. Promotes more social interaction, specifically between guilds, to work together to find the right numbers. (Your guild is capable of a 24 man raid?. I'm sure there is a small guild that can provide an additional 6 for that 30 player raid, or combine with an equal guild for 24+24). I think this could promote more communication and cooperation between guilds.
3. Potentially gives VR a chance to get more creative with their raid designs and allows for the story/lore to be woven into the size of the raids in some way.
4. Makes it more challenging for guilds to understand the dynamic of different numbers of roles/archtypes, and varying degrees of coordinate and leadership challenges.
NOTE: I personally hate the idea of dynamic raid sizes (where you can choose your own raid size, and the boss fights scale with the number of players) for many reasons, and I do not consider it any sort of influencer in my idea (because I hope they don't exist.
Thanks for reading!
Says who a raid of 12 people isn't a raid? It's a small one, but a raid nonetheless. Sure, it shouldn't have uber top-end loot, but it should still have raid level loot. I think dynamic raid sizes should be in the game, but they should be the exception, not the norm. There should be raids for all sizes whether it be two groups or ten groups.
@kalok
I used to nit pick and call 12-24 person fights multi-group encounters and not raids. Most people call them raids so eventually I gave in just for ease of communication.
The issue is I love multi group, non-raid, encounters for a number of reasons that I won't get into here. It is a scenario that very few games design around that I find to be extremely fun. Most people don't have experience with that so it's just easier to call them raids.
I think the RAID system should be dynamic. Behind the scenes they can set a threshold of players/level range averages in the encounter script - if that is exceeded the raid should be dynamic and start spawning more mobs as the raid target "calls for reinforcements". The more out of balance the enounter then it should exponentially call for more help. That would force players to find the sweep spot for each encounter which may be different based on region/dungeon/level range of content. This system also allows them to get around the issue of a really high level group possibly going back and farming lower level raid content - it would be allowed but you can make it really tough on them :)
philo said:
@kalok
I used to nit pick and call 12-24 person fights multi-group encounters and not raids. Most people call them raids so eventually I gave in just for ease of communication.
The issue is I love multi group, non-raid, encounters for a number of reasons that I won't get into here. It is a scenario that very few games design around that I find to be extremely fun. Most people don't have experience with that so it's just easier to call them raids.
I have experience with it. I still call them raids. Technically, any raid is a 'multi-group encounter'. It's just splitting hairs. That said, I like them too.
Ya, it is splitting hairs. That's why I just went with it and ended up calling any multi group play a raid.
I tend to think of a raid as the boss and the encounter/npcs surrounding it. If it's a multi group dungeon people still call it a raid, even if the goal isn't a "raid boss".
It seems like those type of encounters should be differentiated from raids but people usually dont, so calling it a raid it is.
Kalok said:Says who a raid of 12 people isn't a raid? It's a small one, but a raid nonetheless. Sure, it shouldn't have uber top-end loot, but it should still have raid level loot. I think dynamic raid sizes should be in the game, but they should be the exception, not the norm. There should be raids for all sizes whether it be two groups or ten groups.
I agree, I was just summing up what the majority opinion was on a few past threads over the years. Obviously the whole point to my idea is that I like many different varying "raid" sizes, however people want to define them.
Kass said:What if VR designed the end game raid content to have different sizes in each raid? Any given raid may be a (min and max open to suggestion) minimum of 18 and a maximum of say 48 with any number divisible by 6 as being an option, but there could still be room for "world bosses" and or lair type single boss dungeos to be even larger for that special experience.
/snip
I disagree.
Raid sizes should be standard and ideally muliples of the same figure. Reason is that organising a guild with random raid sizes is IMPOSSIBLE you will either be under or over populated meanig raids cannot take place or people are left out. This equals drama, which no one wants.
I would stump for sizes:
6 - Group
18 - Mini Raid - can easiely be gathered, maybe witha few PUGs adhoc minimal organisational drama.
54 - Full raid - big enough to feel epic and allow some variation of classes , but smaller than the impossible to manage 60+ raids
Kas said:What if VR designed the end game raid content to have different sizes in each raid?
For example, it's not uncommon for a game to have two different raid sizes (three 20 man raids, and 3 40 man raids), but I'm suggesting something more along the lines of one raid of each specific number.
We have been told that this is already the case.
These kind of encounters will be available throughout the game at various levels. You may find an encounter at level 20 which requires 4 groups of 6 (24 players) to defeat. While at level 30 you find a different encounter which only requires 2 groups of 6 (12 players) to defeat. Or vice versa.
Do we really call these 'Raids' since they are not 'Max Level'. Depends on your point of view... but regardless of the level range, they still require multi-group teams to deal with.
In 2018 Joppa said at one stream that there would be both 12 and 24 player 'Raid' encounters available. He was asked if this meant that a specific encounter would have both a 12 person version and a 24 person version of the same encounter and he clarified that; No each encounter would be balanced for a specific number. So BossA would be balanced for 12 players while BossB would be balanced for 24.
In the April 2019 Rountable Joppa said they were working with 24 as the upper Raid limit because it was easier for the Dev's to Balance but they were open to the possibility of encounters requiring more than 24 in the future.
Later on in the January 2020 Roundtable Joppa clarified that there were also 40 player encounters being planned; Likely he meant 42 players as this is 7 full groups (although he might mean 36 players which is 6 full groups).
As for Max Level raiding...
For those who are not aware, Joppa has already committed (source) that they would have at least 3 full Raid Zones with mulitple 'Apex-Raiding' (how he put it) encounters in each zone for Max level characters.
We were not told if all the encounters in each of these particular raid zones would be balanced equally for a set Raid size.
For example: Is RaidZoneA balanced for 12 players for all of its encounters while RaidZoneB is balanced for 24 players for all of it's encounters, and RaidZoneC is balanced for 36 or 42 player for all it's encounters.
Or could each zone include encounters for all 3 raid sizes? ie: RaidZoneA has some 12 player encounters, some 24 player encounters and even some 36/42 player encounters all in the same zone.
We have seen some peeks at at least one Raid zone...
Isle of Infinite Storms Joppa called a 24 player Raid zone but it is not clear if this is one of the 3 Raid zones Joppa mentioned or if it's just a zone for a specific Raid encounter ie: the mob named 'Sleepless'
We do know there are some lesser encounters; The ones we have seen so far include: 'Tohrn Eldritch', 'Tohrn Eyeless', and 'Prophet of Sleepless' but these may just be just a few of the targets you need to deal with. It's also not clear if these are considered full on Raid encounter targets themselves or just some of the 'trash' type mobs you often find in these kind of Raid zones.
It's also possible that while the main target 'Sleepless' is going to require the full 24 players the lesser targets like 'Tohrn Eldritch', 'Tohrn Eyeless', and 'Prophet of Sleepless' may only require 6 or 12 players to fight, thus a 24 player raid could split up into smaller groups to take on the various other targets and then regroup together to take on 'Sleepless' himself. Yes maybe they could stay together to burn through these lesser encounters, but the AI of these fights as we were shown them may make it more chaotic with more players.
We will need to wait and see....
GoofyWarriorGuy said:As for Max Level raiding...
For those who are not aware, Joppa has already committed (source) that they would have at least 3 full Raid Zones with mulitple 'Apex-Raiding' (how he put it) encounters in each zone for Max level characters.Or could each zone include encounters for all 3 raid sizes? ie: RaidZoneA has some 12 player encounters, some 24 player encounters and even some 36/42 player encounters all in the same zone.
I have always just assumed that 3 Raid zones at launch meant one zone for each continent. Which if true would almost certainly mean the full variety of Raid sizes in each zone.
Jothany said:I have always just assumed that 3 Raid zones at launch meant one zone for each continent. Which if true would almost certainly mean the full variety of Raid sizes in each zone.
It better be 1 on each continent. None of that bullpucky where everything good sits on one continent. Everyone should need to visit, travel through, and deal with the faction issues to reach this content. I dont want to see all the good races having the route to raid content being easy street will the evils have to deal with a bunch of garbage. I'm sick of that crud.
Vandraad said:philo said:The numbers we have been given for what raid size will be is 12, 24 and 40.
40 just makes no sense at all when groups are based on 6. I guess that last group of 4 is where you put all your back benchers and just let them live/die on their own.
That was addressed. The raids are actually designed around 36 but they give us a buffer. I won't dig up the exact quote from a stream but Joppa did mention it...maybe baz will link his library of links...?
Still stupid to have a 4 person group hanging off the back. Just make it a full group and be done with it. But I'm sure VR will change their mind on the 40 as they have done on so many other things.
What if we changed the dynamic? For decades a raid has been a "group of groups." What if it's just... a very large group? What if you can start a raid and now you can just invite people and have a group of more than 6 people? It's a single entity.
And you might think there are some issues with that as far as like doing non-raid content, but are there? What's stopping people from starting a "group of groups" that's just 9 people and doing regular content? Why stop that? Their splitting everything 9 ways now, isn't that already a big net loss for each individual? I don't recall it being a rampant problem in any other game because people rarely want to split their xp and cash more than they have to. So if you just make it one large group isn't it the same thing? And then you're not restricted to raid sizes divisible by 6.
The only actual issue I see is with buffs. Should a group buff affect the whole raid at full power? If it does, what's the point of having more than one druid or shaman or whatever? Limited Action Set might be our savior here. If you have 4 druids, they can run 1 or 2 different buffs each and now your whole raid benefits, when before only 4 groups would benefit. Unless VR was planning on going EQ2 style and have group stacking being the big make or break strategy for raids, then I don't see it being a problem. (For those who don't know, in EQ2 almost every class had at least one group buff, usually several. They benefitted some classes more than others. So group composition on raids was incredibly important for that and several other reasons. Having class X with the melee DPS and class Y with the caster DPS and class Z with the main tank was often vital to success on the more difficult content.)
It already seems like VR is thinking outside the box, but what if they just threw the whole box out?
Dynamic raids have been talked about multiple times. Unsure if that's the plan still? Those raid numbers may be more fluid than we think and be more about the intended number of players.
I'm sure many of us remember them talking about if a raid brings more players than intended the raid boss might call friends to help (spawn extra mobs) or if the raid had way to many players the boss might run away (despawn).
...which then leads to conversations about the infamy system and fighting higher difficulty raid mobs and also the question of whether the "friends" a boss might spawn would drop loot and players would spawn them on purpose? I think Byproducts had been in discord when we talked about that?
Byproducts said:What if we changed the dynamic? For decades a raid has been a "group of groups." What if it's just... a very large group?
Now this would be a really good idea. A raid, regardless of the size, is just a single entity. You form a raid just as you form a group, but instead of 6 groups of 6 you have one list of all 36. Group buffs effect everyone.
philo said:Dynamic raids have been talked about multiple times. Unsure if that's the plan still? Those raid numbers may be more fluid than we think and be more about the intended number of players.
I'm sure many of us remember them talking about if a raid brings more players than intended the raid boss might call friends to help (spawn extra mobs) or if the raid had way to many players the boss might run away (despawn).
...which then leads to conversations about the infamy system and fighting higher difficulty raid mobs and also the question of whether the "friends" a boss might spawn would drop loot and players would spawn them on purpose? I think Byproducts had been in discord when we talked about that?
In my case I was referring to the "dynamic" of how raids are formed and less about dynamic raid content. My post was entirely about WHAT a raid is and HOW it's formed and not at all about dynamic raid CONTENT. Sorry for the confusion.
I think my idea would actually make dynamic raid content easier to implement. Why scale for 2 groups (+ or - a couple) and 4 groups (+/- a couple) and 6 groups (etc) when you could just scale the content from a minimum number of players (say 10) up to a maximum number (say 40.) Raid leaders don't have to worry about filling out "groups" they just need to get the numbers together and make sure there's enough healing, enough tanking and enough DPS.
Even if a raid is "one entity" you could probably set it up so within that entity group buffs and group heals only effect your "sub-group" within that entity. That way loot and exp is shared evenly among the entire raid but buffs and heals still only effect your sub group.
I'm actually not really sure what the difference is though between a raid and a group at that point. Why would anyone ever join a group? If they want 7 people for a dungeon group they'd just start a raid.
It seems like if content is being designed with groups of 6 in mind, allowing people to split exp and loot so easily with more than 6 could be a problem. I realize people can already do it, but this would make it look like it's designed with that in mind, when in fact we know content is being designed around the idea of groups of 6.