Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Parties of Three?Follow

#1 Jun 03 2009 at 6:03 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
215 posts
Seems that in the trailer there seemed to be no more than 3 characters on the screen at any time. Could this hint towards a max party size of three?
#2 Jun 03 2009 at 6:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,842 posts
I would say max out at 4. The key is having more "needed" jobs like tank, healer, support. Hybrids anyone?
____________________________
FFXIV Dyvid (Awaiting 2.0)
FFXI Dyvid ~ Pandemonium (Retired)
SWTOR Dy'vid Legacy - Canderous Ordo
#3 Jun 03 2009 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Three is a little too limiting, but four is very viable.
#4 Jun 03 2009 at 8:26 AM Rating: Excellent
*
65 posts
This is fine if they make enough mobs in the game to EXP off of. 12 people in a 4 person party would be 3 mobs at a time instead of 2 mobs from 2 6 person parties. @_@;
#5 Jun 03 2009 at 8:29 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,262 posts
That's assuming they stick to the zone based world map. They could borrow a page from Guild Wars and have exp areas be instanced, meaning no competition for monsters from other parties.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#6 Jun 03 2009 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
catwho the Pest wrote:
That's assuming they stick to the zone based world map. They could borrow a page from Guild Wars and have exp areas be instanced, meaning no competition for monsters from other parties.

I think most players tend to enjoy the positive interactions shared zones allow over the negative interactions they make possible. It's slightly annoying when someone steals "your" mob or ninjas a node, but it's far more boring to be the only person/group in an area.
#7 Jun 03 2009 at 8:38 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,457 posts
uh.. I hope not.
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#8 Jun 03 2009 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,089 posts
Parties of 3 would make jobs have more abilities. You wouldn't be able to have such diversified jobs. What is a Bard good for in a party of 3? Larger parties enable more jobs than your standard attack and healing classes.
#9 Jun 03 2009 at 8:50 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,327 posts
If they relatively keep the standard RPG.. things, 1/3 of Eorzia will need to be a Tank, 1/3 will need to be a healer of some sort and only 1/3 is left for practically everything else.

I think maybe accomdation for various size parties though, such as a party of 3 can get roughly the same exp/hr as a party of 8, assuming they both pick suitable camps. It'd be tricky to balance it, but very nice if they pulled it off. Imagine getting the entire LS in a linkshell party, and not having terrible exp?
____________________________
drk = 80 sam = 76
pld = 79 thf= 80
nin = 80 drg = 75
mnk = 76 war = 52

Retired for now ^ ***** you Abyssea. FFXIV woo eh..
milich wrote:
buttfucking
#10 Jun 03 2009 at 9:18 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
312 posts
I've always been a fan of smaller parties in FFXI, duoing, trioing, was just far more enjoyable to me. However, I feel bigger parties are also fun at times. I think it's far too early to say that 3 might be the party limit but if it is, that does feel a bit too limiting. I feel 4-6 members is optimal for an MMO, any smaller than that though just feels a bit too small.
#11 Jun 03 2009 at 9:27 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
LordFaramir wrote:
If they relatively keep the standard RPG.. things, 1/3 of Eorzia will need to be a Tank, 1/3 will need to be a healer of some sort and only 1/3 is left for practically everything else.

While I doubt SE has the desire to be innovative enough, it doesn't have to be that way. MMORPGs don't necessarily need tanks and healers, it's just that most do. Some of the most fun I had in FFXI was playing in parties where we didn't have the typical setup. Manaburn parties with 1 brd and 5 blm were fun, no healer or tank in it, but still very effective. I had parties with 4 rng, 1 ninja, and 1 brd, no dedicated healer there. When I did steamed sprouts BCNM40 run as a bard we usually had 2 healers, and no tanks, instead we had a DPS class like monk or DRK tank the main mandy.

You can also have single classes filling multiple roles. A paladin type class could serve as both a healer and tank for a group. Or similarly to WoW's Shadowpriest you could have a damage class that healed.

The problem is that developers aren't creative enough. It's easier to design a game around the standard tank healer, DPS setup than it is to be original.
#12 Jun 03 2009 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
187 posts
catwho the Pest wrote:
That's assuming they stick to the zone based world map. They could borrow a page from Guild Wars and have exp areas be instanced, meaning no competition for monsters from other parties.


Highly unlikely, theres a reason Guild Wars is the only game to ever implement that afaik... because it was so boring.
#13 Jun 03 2009 at 1:20 PM Rating: Excellent
**
276 posts
Quote:

Highly unlikely, theres a reason Guild Wars is the only game to ever implement that afaik... because it was so boring.

I think D&D Online (or whatever they called it) did this as well.
____________________________
Nephtaly - Midgardsormr
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?42106
Bastok 9-1 : ZM 14/DM : CoP 6-4 : ToAU 29 : WotG 2

Merits: 96 Total Merit Points
Polearm 8/8 : Crit Rate 4/4 : Angon 5/5 : Deep Breathing 5/5 : Jump 5/5 : High Jump 3/5
#14 Jun 03 2009 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
cynicalsaint wrote:
Quote:

Highly unlikely, theres a reason Guild Wars is the only game to ever implement that afaik... because it was so boring.

I think D&D Online (or whatever they called it) did this as well.
Yes, they did. It was rather fun, too. Only reason I'm not playing it now is all my friends were in XI. It was kind of like Assault + FoV, as I remember it.

I only played it for the 14 day trial, though.
____________________________
Until we meet again... stay gold. *bang*
#15 Jun 03 2009 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
***
1,822 posts
4 person parties would be nice for exp purposes.

1: Tank
2: Healer
3: Support
4: Damage Dealer

But then have some events and such use more people than that, or less some times, depending on the event.
____________________________
Long Live Vana Diel.
#16 Jun 03 2009 at 1:31 PM Rating: Decent
**
572 posts
EndlessJourney wrote:
4 person parties would be nice for exp purposes.

1: Tank
2: Healer
3: Support
4: Damage Dealer

But then have some events and such use more people than that, or less some times, depending on the event.


Am I the only one that thinks 6 is good and should be kept as it is or ?
#17 Jun 03 2009 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
**
276 posts
Maldavian wrote:

Am I the only one that thinks 6 is good and should be kept as it is or ?

No. I like having more flexibility in party creation.
____________________________
Nephtaly - Midgardsormr
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?42106
Bastok 9-1 : ZM 14/DM : CoP 6-4 : ToAU 29 : WotG 2

Merits: 96 Total Merit Points
Polearm 8/8 : Crit Rate 4/4 : Angon 5/5 : Deep Breathing 5/5 : Jump 5/5 : High Jump 3/5
#18 Jun 03 2009 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,949 posts
Maldavian wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks 6 is good and should be kept as it is or ?

As a game designer and social player, I think the more the merrier. 6 is pretty good.

Sometimes, however, I just want to have fun with friends, and parties of 3 are more my thing, because they involve thinking differently and being more ressourceful.

As long as 3-player groups can have fun, I would rather the limit be 6 (or more), so that bigger groups can bring more friends along.

WoW's 5 member limit is pretty small.. Back in the days, Tank + Healer + Crowd Control left you with slot for 2 DPS or hybrids, and the player distribution on the server was more like 1 tank, 1 healer for 10 DPS. Support and Utility had no room most of the time, since they had to double the sole DPS class' power in order to "pay" for their spot...

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 5:51pm by Lianda
____________________________
FFXIV: Cloe Delisle Scholar, officer of the SWAGGER Free company, Sargatanas server.
#19 Jun 03 2009 at 2:06 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
The more people to a group the harder and more time consuming it becomes to set up a group. This can work fine in games like FFXI where people form a group to play 4+ hours together. However as the time required for content decreases this does become a problem. It can be a pain to get people together to play for only an hour or less.

It seems much more probable that FFXIV will have 5-6 person parties.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 5:06pm by Allegory
#20 Jun 03 2009 at 2:13 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Lianda wrote:
WoW's 5 member limit is pretty small.. Back in the days, Tank + Healer + Crowd Control left you with slot for 2 DPS or hybrids, and the player distribution on the server was more like 1 tank, 1 healer for 10 DPS. Support and Utility had no room most of the time, since they had to double the sole DPS class' power in order to "pay" for their spot...

It wasn't really that limiting. For non end game content tank and healer were mandatory. Crowd control such as a mage was also usually very good, but not always necessary.

WoW's content wasn't designed around speed killing like FFXI. In FFXI people are trying to kill each mob as fast as possible for teh greatest exp per hour. If you could have a party of 6 DPS classes you would, but you can't so you have to sacrifice DPS for tanking and healing.

In WoW people are mostly trying to survive an encounter. The goal isn't to complete an instance as fast as possible, but simply to complete it (with the greatest chance of success). DPS isn't as important, and party composition can be more flexible. Classes are also more flexible in their roles. Crowd control can contribute significantly to DPS, and so can healers if the fight isn't too threatening. You can swap out a mage with crowd control for a paladin off-tank.

5 person parties can be as free or even more flexible than 6 person parties, depending on the context of the game environment and how the classes are designed.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 5:14pm by Allegory
#21 Jun 03 2009 at 2:19 PM Rating: Good
Maybe they will do away with tanking. FF1 didn't have set tanks really. Maybe they'll do away with tanking abilities, give characters more active defenses, perhaps let the knight type character have something like a 3 minute cooldown ability that taunts a mob to attack for 5 seconds to grab it if someone is getting beat down, but other than that, have mobs attack things close to them and move around at their set pace, mages and rangers stand in back and make sure to keep away, melee in front, etc. White mages cast protective stuff on everyone etc etc. I've always wanted something like that. :P

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 3:21pm by digitalcraft
____________________________
Die! Die die die. die die die die, die die. - Scarlet Briar
#22 Jun 03 2009 at 2:24 PM Rating: Good
**
576 posts
digitalcraft, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Maybe they will do away with tanking. FF1 didn't have set tanks really. Maybe they'll do away with tanking abilities, give characters more active defenses, perhaps let the knight type character have something like a 3 minute cooldown ability that taunts a mob to attack for 5 seconds to grab it if someone is getting beat down, but other than that, have mobs attack things close to them and move around at their set pace, mages and rangers stand in back and make sure to keep away, melee in front, etc. White mages cast protective stuff on everyone etc etc. I've always wanted something like that. :P


In the trailer it looks like a mage on the ship created some type of protective dome. I'd really like to know how that works in game.
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#23 Jun 03 2009 at 2:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
312 posts
I'm trying to think back at all the job based Final Fantasy games and although my memory is a bit hazy, I don't really recall any tank jobs in any of them. Sure there were more durable jobs (Knight, Paladin, etc) but I don't remember any purely tank type jobs with the ability to force a monster to attack just them. Of course, enmity and such didn't really exist in those games either as monsters randomly attacked party members.

I'm not quite sure how the game might play out without solid tanking options but it would definitely be interesting. Not sure how viable it would be in an MMO though. It really depends on how combat works.
#24 Jun 03 2009 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
42 posts
There is no reason that job classes this time around won't be more well rounded.

Who's to say the Paladin can't effectively tank and heal himself/his party at the same time? Or the warrior can't tank and damage deal effectively. The archer could be both a ranged DD and an enfeebler. Or the black mage could have enough unique buffing spells to call it a DD and support.

They have a lot of freedom to add/change abilities.

That's a 4 man party that has 2 capable tanks, 3 capable DD, A healer, A buffer, and and enfeebler. Sounds pretty similar to what we can manage in 11 with 6 people.

Smaller parties for exp wouldn't be a bad idea, especially if more jobs can fill more roles. It will make it much easier to get just about any 3 jobs together than 6 players together, where 2 of those players have to be a specific 1 or 2 jobs out of 20.
But for events and boss fights and such it's always fun to have 12+ people working together.
#25 Jun 03 2009 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
digitalcraft, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Maybe they will do away with tanking. FF1 didn't have set tanks really. Maybe they'll do away with tanking abilities, give characters more active defenses, perhaps let the knight type character have something like a 3 minute cooldown ability that taunts a mob to attack for 5 seconds to grab it if someone is getting beat down, but other than that, have mobs attack things close to them and move around at their set pace, mages and rangers stand in back and make sure to keep away, melee in front, etc. White mages cast protective stuff on everyone etc etc. I've always wanted something like that. :P

Guild wars had that kind of system. I didn't really like it. I think they are two problems with the idea.

1. It's still tanking. You've removed hate, but you haven't removed tanking. Parties still need tanking classes.

2. It trivializes tanking to the level of just standing there and being hit. Threat generation has always been an interesting dynamics for tanks.



I think one interesting way to approach the issue of tanking is to have a class that makes the party tougher or the monster weaker. I didn't play City of Heroes, but a friend would tell me about how only one type of defender (the healer class in that game) actually healed. Many of the other types of defenders made their party regen, or dodge, or have more armor. I think a class that beefs up other classes to be able to tank by giving them dodge, armor, and/or regen would be interesting, or the class could weaken the enemy to such a degree that he isn't a threat for squishes by blinding, slowing, and/or weakening him.

Warhammer also had a good system for making tanks effective in PvP. Unlike PvE there is no threat in PvP, so most people tend to ignore tanky characters to go after squishier targets. In Warhammer tanks had several abilities to encourage you to attack them without actually forcing you to do so. Some of them had auras that affected your entire team if you didn't take them down. Some could mark an ally and would get stronger if you attacked the ally instead of the tank.

D&D has some similar ideas where the DM is encouraged to attack the tank by imposing penalties on monsters for not doing so.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 5:46pm by Allegory
#26 Jun 03 2009 at 2:49 PM Rating: Good
Eh, I guess I'd just like to see something closer to what you'd find plausible in the real world. Things tank by being in the way, not by somehow forcing you to attack them even though you know its stupid to. I'd rather see more 'cover' type abilities and less taunt type abilities, I guess.

And before someone says 'but magic!' its important for games to make an illusion of plausible reality to get a good game world. Yes there's fantasy stuff, but if you want good immersion you have to let people feel that it's realistic within the context of that world.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 3:50pm by digitalcraft
____________________________
Die! Die die die. die die die die, die die. - Scarlet Briar
#27 Jun 03 2009 at 2:52 PM Rating: Decent
Parties of 3 with a four to six party alliance would be nice. 6 person parties are too vulnerable to disruption and are harder to build.
____________________________
Retired.
#28 Jun 03 2009 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
digitalcraft, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Eh, I guess I'd just like to see something closer to what you'd find plausible in the real world. Things tank by being in the way, not by somehow forcing you to attack them even though you know its stupid to. I'd rather see more 'cover' type abilities and less taunt type abilities, I guess.

It's difficult to code ai that way. With hate the game has a simple numerical checker. Whoever has the highest number, the highest threat, is the one the mob attacks. Tanks then generate high threat to keep the mob focused on them.

Positioning is harder to work with and make interesting. So the mob attack what is closest to him? Why would he ever not attack the tank? Players aren't going to run closer to the mob than the tank, so the mob never leaves the tank. This system is functionally equivalent to a warrior hitting provoke and causing the mob to permanently stick to the warrior.

I'm not saying cover type abilities are bad, but they can be implemented without removing hate, and in fact work better that way.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 6:04pm by Allegory
#29 Jun 03 2009 at 3:16 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
85 posts
I'm expecting 5 or 6 players per party. It just seems to be genre standard, works well, and is generally more proven (lets be honest, developers don't like taking risks).
____________________________
Dejaa - Squig Herder - Phoenix Throne
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 20 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (20)