what they need to do is what some other games have done like city of heroes and thats scale the zone to the raid size. you can have the zone be a 50th lvl zone say BUT if you only have 20 ppl then the puter auto scales it for that many ppl. that way the challenge is the exact same if not even harder than 72 man or more raids. with that many ppl you will have EVERY class covered many times over but with 20 players ive seen times when it was hard to get a certain class in the raid. just because you are in a huge guild doesnt mean its better than a smaller one. ive been on both ends of the spectrum and have seen both sides of the argument. with the scaling dungeons it allows everybody to enjoy the end game content once they get there without making it too easy. ive also seen games that scale the dungeon to your raid force lvl. that way ppl can actually see all the content without being max lvl. of course you wouldnt get the same gear but i for one like to be able to see all of the content i have paid for. way too many times you cant do certain zones just because you are not the right lvl or have the right group or number of ppl.
24-25 players imo is the sweet spot for raids. To me 24 man raids are like the core family meal at the dinner table where 50-100 man raids are like having the entire family over for thanksgiving dinner. Both are great and fun, but if doing so 3-4 nights a week I'd enjoy just having the core family around. I've found 24mans to be a much more intimate experience where the entire raid can talk as a single unit freely. Once you get into the 50s or above, small cliques start to form and multiple different conversations tend to occur.
This is the main reason I prefer 24 mans. They are also really efficient to schedule and maintain as a raid leader.
NoobieDoo said:24-25 players imo is the sweet spot for raids. To me 24 man raids are like the core family meal at the dinner table where 50-100 man raids are like having the entire family over for thanksgiving dinner. Both are great and fun, but if doing so 3-4 nights a week I'd enjoy just having the core family around. I've found 24mans to be a much more intimate experience where the entire raid can talk as a single unit freely. Once you get into the 50s or above, small cliques start to form and multiple different conversations tend to occur.
This is the main reason I prefer 24 mans. They are also really efficient to schedule and maintain as a raid leader.
Since our groups look to be 6 man at this stage I would have to agree, 4 groups of 6 worked really well in VG but I would also like a couple of big uncapped open world raid mobs for the community to come together on for a bit of fun! :)
Kilsin said:Since our groups look to be 6 man at this stage I would have to agree, 4 groups of 6 worked really well in VG but I would also like a couple of big uncapped open world raid mobs for the community to come together on for a bit of fun! :)
I was really hoping to try out the 8 man group thing =( I feel like we have been doing 6 man groups for so long that the group set up for this has been beat to death.
Tank (war), Healer, (Clr), Healer (Shm), Utility (Enc), Utility (Brd), DPS (Rog) or something very close is what I have experienced mostly in the past. I was hoping to get another couple of people in my group. Not just on raids for buffs but for group content as well. That is two more people I can drag through a quest or dungeon or whatever for the same effort.
On the other side I can imagine developing encounters for an entirely new group make up could be challenging.
So in the end I will be happy with however it turns out. last night I was thinking a good compromise for everyone would have beeen 40 man, but 5 groups of 8.
72 man raids, while fun, were not only logistical nightmares for those having to organize it, they were a very bad concept altogether. The individual was lost in the masses. Made it impossible to know who was actually good at their class. The only ones I ever saw that stood out when bad was tank and heals. If tank couldn't hold threat or if a healer failed in a healing rotation.
Also makes it a nightmare for dev's. How do you design something for so many people but still make it have challenging mechanics? It's nearly impossible without having lots of one shot mechanics and loads of adds.
Always found around 25-30 to be the sweet spot. If they choose to go bigger than 24 then I would say 30 or maybe even 36 should be the top. But imo 24 is the ideal number to shoot for with 6 man groups.
Jamie said:Dullahan said:Hate to be that guy, but I wish people would use search. Theres 3 threads on this topic in just the last few months alone.
Because the search function on this site is top of the line and you can easily find anything you are looking for.
You're right, its a pretty crappy search function, but it does the job in most cases.
I actually thought I had already posted in this thread, but realized it was another from a few weeks ago. A quick search on "raid size" turned up half a dozen threads where it was discussed.
I just don't care to restate the same opinions, on the same topics, in a different discussion every week.
Kilsin said:NoobieDoo said:24-25 players imo is the sweet spot for raids. To me 24 man raids are like the core family meal at the dinner table where 50-100 man raids are like having the entire family over for thanksgiving dinner. Both are great and fun, but if doing so 3-4 nights a week I'd enjoy just having the core family around. I've found 24mans to be a much more intimate experience where the entire raid can talk as a single unit freely. Once you get into the 50s or above, small cliques start to form and multiple different conversations tend to occur.
This is the main reason I prefer 24 mans. They are also really efficient to schedule and maintain as a raid leader.Since our groups look to be 6 man at this stage I would have to agree, 4 groups of 6 worked really well in VG but I would also like a couple of big uncapped open world raid mobs for the community to come together on for a bit of fun! :)
You know Kilsin that would be major fun. Spawn a few Huge mobs that require some crazy number to even pull it maybe do itduring some events it doesnt have to drop good loot if it isnt a hard mob but just for fun maybe a cool title or something.
I can see it now. 200 people gather to pull Rudolph the Raiddeer during the holidays Hahaha.
Raids will be of all sizes and shapes...
How and with whom you Guild does things... will be vastly different with how another guild does things. I enjoy a small, close-knit group of players on raids, that is why my guilds always consist of a small number of close knit players who like to challenge our know how.
I understand hearing the same thing over and over gets old and I probably would not feel any different but at the same time we have a lot of new people joining the forums every day that are super excited to talk about the game. Some people have paid hundreds of dollars at this point with their only return being access to actually post something in the forums instead of just reading them. I am not surprised if the first thing they do is start posting about something even if it is something that may have been talked about.
I have seen people kindly give a link to where this was discussed earlier and that helps to close the thread.
First people are confusing two questions. First being how many people can join together under the same raid interface (UI).
Second is how many players are required to beat an encounter.
In eq just because the UI maxed out at 72 does not mean you were required to bring 72. Better guild generally brought mutch less. I personally think the UI should allow larger forces that are above how many should be required to kill a boss.
Now for how hard something should be. Im more open to different amounts. Big bad dragons should be in the 50s while a wondering forest trent could be in the 20s. Both of those encounters could have raids of 72 people if they wanted to but smaller guilds can generally get in an kill bosses faster.
Also "hard" and "normal" of the same encounter is a terrible idea. First it removes you from living in a virtual world and puts you into just a normal game. Second it diminishes what a boss really means to a world. If you can up how hard the king of a castle is to elite and its as hard as a normal level god you basically saying the God name means nothing.
Enitzu said:72 man raids, while fun, were not only logistical nightmares for those having to organize it, they were a very bad concept altogether. The individual was lost in the masses. Made it impossible to know who was actually good at their class. The only ones I ever saw that stood out when bad was tank and heals. If tank couldn't hold threat or if a healer failed in a healing rotation.
Parses show who's slacking, if not identified on the battlefield with a thumb up their butt. It wasn't that hard for someone using the raid tool in EQ to sort out a 54+ player raid configuration. "Back in my day, while walking uphill in the snow both directions, we had to send tells for who to drop and invite." It's really not prohibitively difficult provided VR gives you proper raid tools.
Enitzu said:Also makes it a nightmare for dev's. How do you design something for so many people but still make it have challenging mechanics? It's nearly impossible without having lots of one shot mechanics and loads of adds.
... EQ has it figured out for 54 player raids, for years and years.
Enitzu said:Always found around 25-30 to be the sweet spot. If they choose to go bigger than 24 then I would say 30 or maybe even 36 should be the top. But imo 24 is the ideal number to shoot for with 6 man groups.
24 just sounds like a social gathering. That doesn't sound like a raid to me. I can't even begin to wrap my mind around how 24 players is a raid, it just sounds so terribly ... "we'd do more but we can't." I hope VR has loftier goals than that. I really hope we have raids tuned for up to 54 players.
I enjoyed the 54 man raids the most in my EQ career. Probably right around OoW and Depths of Darkhollow. Somewhere between 40-48 would be my ideal raid size. Enough people to feel like you're coordinating something special, but not too many that you can't find skilled and qualified players to fill those slots on a nightly basis. Although, it's all relative to mechanic design, server size, and loot balance to me.
Vade said:Enitzu said:72 man raids, while fun, were not only logistical nightmares for those having to organize it, they were a very bad concept altogether. The individual was lost in the masses. Made it impossible to know who was actually good at their class. The only ones I ever saw that stood out when bad was tank and heals. If tank couldn't hold threat or if a healer failed in a healing rotation.
Parses show who's slacking, if not identified on the battlefield with a thumb up their butt. It wasn't that hard for someone using the raid tool in EQ to sort out a 54+ player raid configuration. "Back in my day, while walking uphill in the snow both directions, we had to send tells for who to drop and invite." It's really not prohibitively difficult provided VR gives you proper raid tools.
Enitzu said:Also makes it a nightmare for dev's. How do you design something for so many people but still make it have challenging mechanics? It's nearly impossible without having lots of one shot mechanics and loads of adds.... EQ has it figured out for 54 player raids, for years and years.
Enitzu said:Always found around 25-30 to be the sweet spot. If they choose to go bigger than 24 then I would say 30 or maybe even 36 should be the top. But imo 24 is the ideal number to shoot for with 6 man groups.24 just sounds like a social gathering. That doesn't sound like a raid to me. I can't even begin to wrap my mind around how 24 players is a raid, it just sounds so terribly ... "we'd do more but we can't." I hope VR has loftier goals than that. I really hope we have raids tuned for up to 54 players.
1.) There really shouldn't be parses in the game and for the greater part of my EQ carreer parses did not exist. Parses for top end guilds means class stacking the best classes. it becomes bring the class not the player when things are out of balance.
2.) EQ's raids, if you can call them that, have been for the most part tank and spank with a little common sense involved. Because they can't do high end mechanics. EQ has never been good at mechanics to begin with. Granted I haven't done raids in EQ in a few years so any newer stuff I have no knowledge of.
3.) 24-36 players gives them the ability to tune fights tighter and to provide a lot more unique fights with unique mechanics. Any higher number and guilds will find ways to cheese the fights. Having to plan a fight for 54+ players means that they have to take a whole lot more into account. Not to mention how much of a logistical nightmare it is. Having a high requirement for raids means guilds have to keep an active bench and tends to lead to a lot more poaching of players from lower guilds. Espeically if they have flagging/keying involved.
Enitzu said:2.) EQ's raids, if you can call them that, have been for the most part tank and spank with a little common sense involved. Because they can't do high end mechanics. EQ has never been good at mechanics to begin with. Granted I haven't done raids in EQ in a few years so any newer stuff I have no knowledge of.
It's been more than a few years.........events have been heavily scripted for the better part of the last 10 years (depths of darkhollow), there has been very few tank and spank raids in EQ for the last decade. While they aren't on par with WoW mythic raid level mechanics, they do require some common sense and have high end mechanics.
Vade said:Enitzu said:72 man raids, while fun, were not only logistical nightmares for those having to organize it, they were a very bad concept altogether. The individual was lost in the masses. Made it impossible to know who was actually good at their class. The only ones I ever saw that stood out when bad was tank and heals. If tank couldn't hold threat or if a healer failed in a healing rotation.
Parses show who's slacking, if not identified on the battlefield with a thumb up their butt. It wasn't that hard for someone using the raid tool in EQ to sort out a 54+ player raid configuration. "Back in my day, while walking uphill in the snow both directions, we had to send tells for who to drop and invite." It's really not prohibitively difficult provided VR gives you proper raid tools.
Enitzu said:Also makes it a nightmare for dev's. How do you design something for so many people but still make it have challenging mechanics? It's nearly impossible without having lots of one shot mechanics and loads of adds.... EQ has it figured out for 54 player raids, for years and years.
Enitzu said:Always found around 25-30 to be the sweet spot. If they choose to go bigger than 24 then I would say 30 or maybe even 36 should be the top. But imo 24 is the ideal number to shoot for with 6 man groups.24 just sounds like a social gathering. That doesn't sound like a raid to me. I can't even begin to wrap my mind around how 24 players is a raid, it just sounds so terribly ... "we'd do more but we can't." I hope VR has loftier goals than that. I really hope we have raids tuned for up to 54 players.
Want a real raid Play EVE fleet commander commands over 200 ships. most of the time you will see several fleet commanders organizing fights as well. Something to see thousands of pilots duking it out
Kilsin said:NoobieDoo said:24-25 players imo is the sweet spot for raids. To me 24 man raids are like the core family meal at the dinner table where 50-100 man raids are like having the entire family over for thanksgiving dinner. Both are great and fun, but if doing so 3-4 nights a week I'd enjoy just having the core family around. I've found 24mans to be a much more intimate experience where the entire raid can talk as a single unit freely. Once you get into the 50s or above, small cliques start to form and multiple different conversations tend to occur.
This is the main reason I prefer 24 mans. They are also really efficient to schedule and maintain as a raid leader.Since our groups look to be 6 man at this stage I would have to agree, 4 groups of 6 worked really well in VG but I would also like a couple of big uncapped open world raid mobs for the community to come together on for a bit of fun! :)
I'm with this. 24 man raids seem to be the most ideal. I do agree with one poster though, that often in a guild it's the same people that always raid and there's not much opportunity for other players that can't put in the time, especially in a non instanced game. But I would like to see different levels of raids - large open world ones, 24 man, and 12 man raids. A good guild can work with that in rotating members so everyone gets a chance to raid. It also allows opportunity for people to learn to be raid leaders.
If you want to make 24 players the target raid size that’s fine, but for the love of god please don’t cap a raid at 24. I am so tired of benching guildies simple because the raid UI won’t let them join. I hate, hate, HATE telling or getting tells that because the guild has three bards on at the moment the 3rd bard sitting on the bench all night. Or that because the content you are going after is very hard and they can’t afford to bring you because your HP is 3% under the next tank and they can only have 3 tanks total to fit the raid cap.
If devs are worried about numbers trivializing an encounter simple use your brain to think up a smarter solution. Make it so more people don’t always equal a win.
I get that the top end raiding is very competitive about who is cheating and who is killing something legit but not every raider is top end. Imagine if Vox had a 24 raider limit? How many people here today would probably never have fought her at all? I know for a fact that when I killed her in the early days other guilds were doing it with half the forces. It was still challenging and as fun as hell to do.
Raid size is going to invariably be balanced on server population I suspect. 24 raiders is a small number and must be from a small guild. I'm used to being in guilds with over 100 people, fielding 54 raiders at a time with anywhere from 3 to 7 people waiting to get in as other people drop. 24 man raids would mean those sorts of guilds would have to break up or lead many raids of different players with different raid leaders doing the same thing when it could have been done once. It's a waste of time doing the same thing more than you would have to otherwise. It's inefficient and not logical.
"But my guild doesn't have enough people," been there too. Merge, outright absorb, poach, or join a guild that doesn't suck. There are many options. Or realize you're a casual and you aren't getting a participation award.
If population is of the miserable variety, 24 man raids do make sense. If there's people falling out of the woodwork, increase raid size. A reason why raid size in EQ lowered to 54 over time is because of population decline. There was polling done one time if raid targets should be made with less than 54 players in mind, the community rejected that idea.
I loved the epicness of the 72 man raids in EQ. A hard-fought victory or crushing defeat was more impactful for me with these raid sizes. 10 or 25 man raids just don't have the same feel.
Then again, organizing and maintaining 72 people is a major challenge, and people like myself who played during that era have grown up, and don't really have the time to dedicate like we used to. Everything takes longer with 72 people. If this is the route VR wants to go, I'm ok with it. I completely understand that if I can't dedicate the time to play, I shouldnt reap the top rewards.
Smaller raids also put more performance pressure on each individual. Weak links are sometimes painfully obvious and prevent progression. This can be both a good thing and and bad thing depending on how you look at it. It's also more painful if a member can't make the raid that night. Losing 1 person from a 25 man hurts more than 1 from a 72 man.
After looking at both large and small raid options, my first choice would be 72 man raids. I feel this would be more in line with the spirit of Pantheon and a nod to it's EQ roots. My second choice would be smaller raid sizes with a minimum of 30 people (since it appears Pantheon will have 6 man groups).