Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Party vs PartyFollow

#1 Oct 29 2009 at 2:35 PM Rating: Decent
*
145 posts
From the way it looks, there will be a large focus on many verses many battles and monsters will frequently be in parties. In my experience, when there is a focus on killing many monsters at once, things tend to get sloppy real quick,

ex:
Tanks lose hate because; the healer is healing too much
Because the DD accidently targeted the wrong target
So the healer is now curing 2 people and therefore is running out of mp
Now the DD has died because the healer couldn't keep up with healing the DD with lower armor
So now the monster attacking the DD is attacking the healer
While the tank is almost dead and cannot get the extra monster off the healer
Because the healer has accrued way to much hate from healing the DD
Now the tank is dead because the healer has no mp or most likely was already dead at this point
Now the only people left alive are trying to take on one and half monsters
Everyone one is now dead and the party disbanded because peoples home points are on opposite sides of the world

While I welcome with open arms, the change and the challenge, I fear party dynamics will be sloppy. Though it bred allot of repetition the one party one mob made everything organized and flow smooth. What are your takes on this party verse party system?


Edited, Oct 29th 2009 4:35pm by sirhenrywalton
#2 Oct 29 2009 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,813 posts
sirhenrywalton wrote:
Though it bred allot of repetition the one party one mob made everything organized and flow smooth.

That is a nice way of putting it. A more honest critique would be that it was extremely simplified. It's hard for things to get sloppy when there is no complexity to overlook, when you know what you are going to do at least a full minute ahead of time.

Tanks lose hate because; the healer is healing too much
Get a better tank or get a back up healer. Spread aggro more evenly. Pull fewer mobs or use disables like sleep to cut the number down.

Because the DD accidently targeted the wrong target
Call targets. Work together as a team. It's not that tough to just stop blindly swinging at anything that is in front of you.

So the healer is now curing 2 people and therefore is running out of mp
The tank needs to be doing his job and pulling hate off DD, or a disabler needs to sleep/lock down that target, or a backup tank needs to step in and go defensive.

And so on. Having the lowest common denominator no longer instantly and easily succeed doesn't make a game bad.

Edited, Oct 29th 2009 4:15pm by Allegory
#3 Oct 29 2009 at 3:22 PM Rating: Default
**
555 posts
Serious?
____________________________
Retired 75PLD
Hades Server
Obsidian Linkshell

WoW Fails.


#4 Oct 29 2009 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Skeptic wrote:
Serious?

If you are going to reply to a topic, at least have the decency to add something to the thread.


Perhaps SE will develop party mechanics for the mobs as well, sort of like a pack mentality that makes them all attack the same target or two targets. Either that or hate management will be dealt with using AoE abilities.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#5 Oct 29 2009 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
*
145 posts
Quote:
denominator no longer instantly and easily succeed doesn't make a game bad.


I can't agree more.

As you were making suggestions it brought up idea of monster party dynamics. How will they function as a party, will their mages be trying to silence your healers and nukers so they can womp on your tank, what if they are bringing 3 blm to the table against your primarily melee based party. What do you do, when the monsters party tries to crowd control you? There could no longer be a need for a single tank, but rather numerous hybrid classes that give and receive damage, a single on single party style where everyone picks a target and goes for it, while feeding off party beneficial abilities and spells. It could change the way we view the party system.


Edited, Oct 29th 2009 5:47pm by sirhenrywalton
#6 Oct 29 2009 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
**
736 posts
XI was structured for a many vs. one battlesystem. XIV has been created from the ground up to support a many vs. many battlesystem. Whether or not that ends up feeling smooth remains to be seen; but the XI mechanics your basing this perception on will be radically different in XIV.

Think of it this way: battling against multiple mobs in XIV will feel so smooth because battling against multiple mobs in XI feels so awkward. They knew precisely what type of system they'd intended to use, and every ability in every class's repertoire agrees with the concept so wholeheartedly deviating from it is weird. There's no reason the same can't be true for a many vs. many battlesystem.


As for your second post,
There are quite a few games out on the market that have mob-parties. As I've said in another post, DPS don't really get to experience the "many" of the many vs. many fights like healers and tanks do; it's more like a series of one vs. one fight in quick succession. What that kind of mob-interplay does is determines the 'kill order', healer mobs and crowd-control mobs are given a higher priority for the DPS to coordinate their efforts on. This particular system doesn't break down the holy trinity.

But, I'm hoping SE can revolutionize the standard a bit. While many vs. many fights are inherently more exciting than your typical camping fare, it's far from a perfect system.


Edited, Oct 29th 2009 6:12pm by Zemzelette
#7 Oct 29 2009 at 5:36 PM Rating: Decent
Prettier Than You
*****
12,966 posts
Zemzelette wrote:
While many vs. many fights are inherently more exciting than your typical camping fare, it's far from a perfect system.
In what ways is it imperfect? I'm not attacking you, I'd just like for you to expand on this.
____________________________
Did you lose faith?
Yes, I lost faith in the powers that be.
But in doing so I came across the will to disagree.
And I gave up. Yes, I gave up, and then I gave in.
But I take responsibility for every single sin. ♪ ♫


Thank god I stopped playing MMOs.
#8 Oct 29 2009 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,813 posts
While I'm unsure what sirhenrywalton might be referring to specifically, I do agree with him.

Often times many versus many fights turn too easily into zergs. I don't want to fight a literal mob, I want to fight a somewhat diverse and interesting party. If you take an FFXI mob, and split him into 2 identical clones with half the hp and half the damage, then you really don't have much more strategy than with the single enemy.

If we fight groups of mobs, they should differentiated.
#9Skeptic, Posted: Oct 29 2009 at 7:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes, sir.
#10 Oct 29 2009 at 8:48 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,155 posts
Zackary wrote:
Zemzelette wrote:
While many vs. many fights are inherently more exciting than your typical camping fare, it's far from a perfect system.
In what ways is it imperfect? I'm not attacking you, I'd just like for you to expand on this.


I think I can expand on this a little bit from my experiences on WoW.

In the newest raid in WoW, Trial of the Crusader, there is a fight known as "The Faction Champions". The number of targets varies depending on if you're on 10 or 25 man mode, but you're still fighting as a group vs. another group. Worse yet, these bosses follow PvP rules regarding how spells effect them. Most notably: crowd control abilities have diminishing returns. After 3 casts, that spell will no longer effect that target. Every strategy I have seen involves CCing (Crowd controlling) the second healer, all DD zerg the first healer, then the second healer, and then you go through as a swarm and it's a bunch of many-on-one fights. All the while, you're just trying to survive against the other roaming enemies that don't follow aggro rules.

I suppose my point here is that even if an encounter is designed to be a many vs. many, players may (and often will) turn it into a many vs. one encounter.
____________________________
Chanchan - Mithra - Titan Phoenix
THF
#11 Oct 29 2009 at 9:04 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
*
129 posts
I can see the whole group vs group concept going one of two ways:

1. The tank has several AoE threat tools. Perhaps an AoE Provoke, or something similar. As a result, the tank being the only person who could take hits from multiple monsters.

2. The tank only has a few AoE threat tools, maybe only one or two. As a result, the mobs hit less hard, which makes it not a huge deal if the DD have aggro.

Or they could take the worst from either idea, and make these situations a pain.
#12 Oct 29 2009 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
**
736 posts
Pretty much what Chanchan said.

It's less like a War, more like a fight of the Hollywood variety; where the Villians patiently wait their turn for the their chance to be whipped by the hero. There's a certain bit of challenge in the initial crowd control coordination, but it's much like a skillchain; repetition in the disguise of strategy that eventually becomes unthinking second-nature.

Even if they didn't get around to any kind of innovation, it's more interesting than your typical whitebread camping, so it's still a plus.


Edited, Oct 29th 2009 11:25pm by Zemzelette
#13 Oct 29 2009 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
Prettier Than You
*****
12,966 posts
I'm familiar with faction champions.





I don't think focusing on one type of combat (when it comes to party vs. mob or party vs. party of mobs) is the way to go, though. I want to see a combination of what we had in XI along with WoW type combat. You don't need to innovate as long as you can keep encounters varied at least in some way.

It's not that hard to do, either. Implement a few mobs every once in a while, toss them a new set of mechanics, and viola. Or, for regular mobs if you really want to keep things interesting, offer a type of random encounter system, where the mechanics of the pull vary from pull-to-pull, and just base them off of a set group of mob AI mechanics. That way, you will never know what to expect, keeping the sense of urgency there, and yet still have some type of tangible strategy available for each encounter once you identify what it is you're up against.



I don't know, I guess that's asking a lot. I don't program games, what the **** do I know? But that's my two cents.
____________________________
Did you lose faith?
Yes, I lost faith in the powers that be.
But in doing so I came across the will to disagree.
And I gave up. Yes, I gave up, and then I gave in.
But I take responsibility for every single sin. ♪ ♫


Thank god I stopped playing MMOs.
#14 Oct 30 2009 at 12:45 AM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
****, if every fight in FFXIV is going to be like WoW's Faction Champs fights... then consider it WAAAAAAYYY more hardcore than FFXI ever was. I would be surprised if people ever made it out of the equivelant of the Valkrum dunes in the first year or so.

Faction Champs is one of WoW's ways of saying: 'you don't know how to group effieciently and work as a team, so we are going to own you over and over and over again'. Trust me, coming from a FFXI background for 5 years of playing, WoW has few mechanics to truly encourage party play like FFXI did, but Faction Champs is the point where you really wonder if the people you have been playing with have any clue how to play their jobs.


Edit: Btw on WoW I clear them every week on both 10 and 25 man, but not without some terrible wipes and ********* If you clear them on heroic 25 man, my hat is off to you. ****.. I sound like a WoW-head, when I have been accused of slandering WoW in favor of FFXI many times on this board. Guess Faction Champs just seems as hardcore as my first couple of CoP runs in FFXI.

Edited, Oct 30th 2009 1:48am by Shazaamemt
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#15 Oct 30 2009 at 9:22 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
656 posts
Guys... remember the first Trialer? the miqote did a magical shell/barrier to protect the party?? that could be something to stop multiple enemies attack your party at once...

and if you check the beastiary(sp.) carefully, the Antiolope(sp. again lol) will be in party, but probably in 3 or 4 (a male with a few wives) i believe if you kill the husband the wives will be easilly killed.

and the raptors which will have a party of 2, 1 of them will be decoy and the other 1 will ambush ur party.

I guess these make the battle more fun, instead of us grinding the same single target over and over we have to actually think of stretagies and since FFXIV will not have auto attack , it will add more fun.


I remember when I was a WHM in the party... i still had time watching the World Series while playing :D
looks like I cant do that in FFXIV anymore
____________________________
モスタル


#16 Oct 30 2009 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
419 posts
Quote:
the miqote did a magical shell/barrier to protect the party??


This. While I'll admit, many vs many fights often end up as zerg messes, if we're given the tools in which to handle them, it could work. What if curaga didn't gather as much hate and was actually... i don't know... efficient? What if you didn't need one tank grabbing every target, because your DD's can tank proficiently under your main tank could gather the mob up? What if your DD, even melee, could effectively do AoE damage, and not get one shotted when the mobs turn to them?

Quite frankly, the system won't work if it were based on XI's system. But it won't be. We'll have much different tools at our disposal, which could make a huge difference.

And come on... nothing wrong with a little variety.

Edited, Oct 30th 2009 10:40am by superbeef
____________________________
Currently inactive blog, may go live again in the future:
http://ffxiv-hub.blogspot.com/
#17 Oct 30 2009 at 10:59 AM Rating: Decent
Prettier Than You
*****
12,966 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
****, if every fight in FFXIV is going to be like WoW's Faction Champs fights... then consider it WAAAAAAYYY more hardcore than FFXI ever was. I would be surprised if people ever made it out of the equivelant of the Valkrum dunes in the first year or so.
Yeah, you're exaggerating it quite a bit.

Besides, faction champions is attuned to be difficult. It isn't the mechanics that necessarily make it hard, it's the mob's AI. (And how cheap it is.) WoW's a much more PVP oriented game, so most classes have a plethora of PVP oriented ways to gib you. Combine 2 or 3 of them on one person and terrible things are bound to happen. I don't foresee that being a problem in a game that has no real intention to feed into the PVP mindset.

I'm not even so much talking about ALWAYS having groups of mobs, either. Sometimes you can pull a mob and a few of it's friends show up to help, sure. Other times you could pull the mob and it could turn out to be a caster, (And you wouldn't know since all mobs SHOULD have MP if we're going to introduce drain spells again.) or have a certain gimmicky move that needs to be dispelled. Nothing major like faction champions. Just things that vary the experience. Because Colibri had this to an extent, but you already knew that going into the fight. I want to see more stuff like that, just on a random basis.
____________________________
Did you lose faith?
Yes, I lost faith in the powers that be.
But in doing so I came across the will to disagree.
And I gave up. Yes, I gave up, and then I gave in.
But I take responsibility for every single sin. ♪ ♫


Thank god I stopped playing MMOs.
#18 Oct 30 2009 at 3:22 PM Rating: Default
**
441 posts
sirhenrywalton wrote:
From the way it looks, there will be a large focus on many verses many battles and monsters will frequently be in parties. In my experience, when there is a focus on killing many monsters at once, things tend to get sloppy real quick,

ex:
Tanks lose hate because; the healer is healing too much
Because the DD accidently targeted the wrong target
So the healer is now curing 2 people and therefore is running out of mp
Now the DD has died because the healer couldn't keep up with healing the DD with lower armor
So now the monster attacking the DD is attacking the healer
While the tank is almost dead and cannot get the extra monster off the healer
Because the healer has accrued way to much hate from healing the DD
Now the tank is dead because the healer has no mp or most likely was already dead at this point
Now the only people left alive are trying to take on one and half monsters
Everyone one is now dead and the party disbanded because peoples home points are on opposite sides of the world

While I welcome with open arms, the change and the challenge, I fear party dynamics will be sloppy. Though it bred allot of repetition the one party one mob made everything organized and flow smooth. What are your takes on this party verse party system?


Edited, Oct 29th 2009 4:35pm by sirhenrywalton


If the tank looses hate, it is'nt the healer fault, is that the tank could'nt tank in the first place.
#19 Oct 31 2009 at 2:55 AM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
I wrote:

Quote:
****, if every fight in FFXIV is going to be like WoW's Faction Champs fights... then consider it WAAAAAAYYY more hardcore than FFXI ever was.


To which Zack wrote:

Quote:
Yeah, you're exaggerating it quite a bit.

Besides, faction champions is attuned to be difficult. It isn't the mechanics that necessarily make it hard, it's the mob's AI. (And how cheap it is.)


I Just love getting defaulted and told I am exaggerating by a person who then states the EXACT same thing.

Yeah, it's attuned to be difficult.
Yeah, its cheap AI.
Yeah, it isn't the mechanics that make it hard.

HENCE WHY I SAID THAT IF EVERY FIGHT IN FFXIV WAS GOING TO BE LIKE FACTION CHAMPS IT WOULD BE MORE HARDCORE THAN FFXI.

And I hope you are prettier than me... I got my *** kicked by a ton of mobs, and I always blame the healer. :P

Edited, Oct 31st 2009 4:02am by Shazaamemt
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#20 Oct 31 2009 at 5:20 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
813 posts
sirhenrywalton wrote:
ex:
Tanks lose hate because; the healer is healing too much
Because the DD accidently targeted the wrong target
So the healer is now curing 2 people and therefore is running out of mp
Now the DD has died because the healer couldn't keep up with healing the DD with lower armor
So now the monster attacking the DD is attacking the healer
While the tank is almost dead and cannot get the extra monster off the healer
Because the healer has accrued way to much hate from healing the DD
Now the tank is dead because the healer has no mp or most likely was already dead at this point
Now the only people left alive are trying to take on one and half monsters
Everyone one is now dead and the party disbanded because peoples home points are on opposite sides of the world

The fundamental mistake about this assumption is that you're assuming things in FFXIV will happen like in FFXI. These are two different games we're talking about. What if in FFXIV tanks have AOE hate tool? What if in FFXIV the DDs can be mini-tank on non-boss mobs? What if in FFXIV potions are more useful/common so that non-healer can actually use potions to reasonably survive longer? What if in FFXIV normal mobs die quick enough? And so on. We simply don't know yet the game mechanic of how party vs party going to happen in FFXIV to make such assumption.

Quote:
I suppose my point here is that even if an encounter is designed to be a many vs. many, players may (and often will) turn it into a many vs. one encounter.

I agree with this because in most (all?) cases, turning "many vs many once" (ex: 5 vs 5 in 1 long fight) into "many vs one many times" (ex: 5 vs 1 in 5 short fights) would be more efficient. However, if there is a method to encourage the players to not change "many vs many" into "many vs one", then we might see many vs many being used more. I'm just not sure yet on what method exactly to encourage the players to embrace many vs many.
#21 Oct 31 2009 at 6:32 AM Rating: Good
Guru
Avatar
*****
11,082 posts
Vaagan wrote:
I agree with this because in most (all?) cases, turning "many vs many once" (ex: 5 vs 5 in 1 long fight) into "many vs one many times" (ex: 5 vs 1 in 5 short fights) would be more efficient. However, if there is a method to encourage the players to not change "many vs many" into "many vs one", then we might see many vs many being used more. I'm just not sure yet on what method exactly to encourage the players to embrace many vs many.


Depends, I guess. No individual system will probably work 100% of the time, but applying little things here and there or combining said things could add to the level of difficulty.

1) Zerg the Healer?: Healer's friends get ****** and start spamming knockdowns/knockbacks/stuns/whatever-nasty-move-they-might-not-normally-do.

2) Crowd Control Everything then Many vs. One: Possible immunities build or mobs more readily come with countermeasures to recover their allies.

3) Defensive Barriers: Like that Mithra spell may have hinted, barriers could possibly be set up that'd prevent players from passing through or taking heavy damage in the process unless they negate them by whatever means. Friendlies could pass freely while squishies hide inside while doing their thing at range and more durable mobs bring on their hurt from melee range.

4) Pack Hierarchy: Perhaps attacking certain mobs in a group would have positive or negative multipliers on enmity. Those handling the boss may find minions bee-lining for them regardless of activities others have on the flunkies, while the boss itself may only care more for its better allies.

5) We're gonna kite you!: Fight probably won't be stationary, the enemy taking advantage of its environment and possibly having movement advantages that would force people to juggle the importance of kills depending on threat to the group and how easily they may be caught. I'd almost expect terrain threats here like rock slides, magma/geyser eruptions, strong wind gusts, and so on.

6) Puzzle mobs: Let's say there's a pack of enemies based on the elemental wheel, but they have attacks that can harm their allies of opposite of affinity for considerable damage or even initiating a vulnerability. The trick would be to get this to happen even though the enemy could be actively trying to prevent it. Though, gimmick fights can easily go a number of ways.

7) Personality preferences: Maybe a certain mob will always, without question, target the person with the lowest max HP. A bull could go ******* if someone is wearing red armor. Maybe an internal server counter shows Gladiators have the most kills on its family and will make it a priority to either run from them or hunt them. Could pretty much pick any "reason" for variable behavior here, but ideally it'd make sense in relation to info given in-game instead of more AV mystery BS.


I'm sure there's more an AI could be tailored around, but just the above would give far more fluidity and difficulty to the system over XI's VE/CE or selective, often overpowerable gimmicks.
____________________________
Violence good. **** bad. Yay America.
#22 Oct 31 2009 at 9:20 AM Rating: Decent
Prettier Than You
*****
12,966 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
I wrote:

Quote:
****, if every fight in FFXIV is going to be like WoW's Faction Champs fights... then consider it WAAAAAAYYY more hardcore than FFXI ever was.


To which Zack wrote:

Quote:
Yeah, you're exaggerating it quite a bit.

Besides, faction champions is attuned to be difficult. It isn't the mechanics that necessarily make it hard, it's the mob's AI. (And how cheap it is.)


I Just love getting defaulted and told I am exaggerating by a person who then states the EXACT same thing.

Yeah, it's attuned to be difficult.
Yeah, its cheap AI.
Yeah, it isn't the mechanics that make it hard.

HENCE WHY I SAID THAT IF EVERY FIGHT IN FFXIV WAS GOING TO BE LIKE FACTION CHAMPS IT WOULD BE MORE HARDCORE THAN FFXI.

And I hope you are prettier than me... I got my *** kicked by a ton of mobs, and I always blame the healer. :P

Edited, Oct 31st 2009 4:02am by Shazaamemt
This made no sense.
____________________________
Did you lose faith?
Yes, I lost faith in the powers that be.
But in doing so I came across the will to disagree.
And I gave up. Yes, I gave up, and then I gave in.
But I take responsibility for every single sin. ♪ ♫


Thank god I stopped playing MMOs.
#23 Oct 31 2009 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
813 posts
Quote:
Depends, I guess. No individual system will probably work 100% of the time, but applying little things here and there or combining said things could add to the level of difficulty.

I hope I don't misunderstand you, but if level of difficulty is being increased, I think it would actually end up encouraging "many vs one" because it would be harder to maintain survivability in "many vs many" in a sense that ganging up against one mob at a time would reduce the fight time and easier to control the fight.

From the top of my head, the only somewhat "many vs many" situation that I can think of in FFXI is 6-on-6 ODS KS30 where each melee can take on a single scorpion. If I'm not mistaken, everytime one dies, the others get stronger and so on. This is quite a good system to discourage the players from ganging up on one mob at a time because they won't prefer a full health sixth scorpion being very strong (not sure how strong it actually is, but the concept is what matters) so they'd prefer to spread out and fight one each, or kill them all at the same time (manaburn style). But even so, there's nothing to stop the players to gang up on one mob at a time then sleeping it at low HP then killing them one by one afterwards if they really want to.

I think the problem with making "many vs many" work well is that it requires survivability and speed. So it needs to be safe (tank won't die, healer enough MP to cure, etc) and it needs to be quick enough to be competitive with ganging up. In FFXI, it's almost impossible to be done because DDs almost have zero survivability skill once got hit (e.g.: utsu on timer, SETE down, no Sentinel, no Flee, etc) and we know with our puny say 1.5k HP, we don't last long at all if got hit for 150-200 damage/hit. Even in the case of ODS where survivability and speed aren't an issue, it's more because of how "easy" the fight is rather than being efficient (manaburn obviously finished that battle much much safer and quicker).

Now in FFXIV, we already know that it's a more solo-friendly game, and we can change jobs by changing weapons which might allow DDs to have more survivability tools (e.g.: cure, buff, etc) or speed up the fight (e.g.: open up with timed nuke then switch to DD/tank? if mobs aren't sleepable) so it might have more chance to implement "many vs many" more properly if the system allows it. I'm just interested to see what it's going to be like.
#24 Oct 31 2009 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Maybe it'll be like Dungeon Siege II. With a high enough skill, maybe an archers arrow can pierce a mob, and hit another? Or every attack you block with a shield, theres a % it will do damage to it. Maybe take something from diablo II, where a paladin had an aura that increased his armor % depending on how many mobs were attacking him. Maybe all the weapon skills will be AoE's like cyclone. Maybe if WS's came with a varying range (i.e. single target, 3m range, 10m range) it would give people more reason to use more than one weapon skill.

Just brainstorming.
____________________________
90RDM/90BLM/90WHM/90NIN/90MNK
#25 Oct 31 2009 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
813 posts
Renowaikk the Meaningless wrote:
Maybe it'll be like Dungeon Siege II. With a high enough skill, maybe an archers arrow can pierce a mob, and hit another? Or every attack you block with a shield, theres a % it will do damage to it. Maybe take something from diablo II, where a paladin had an aura that increased his armor % depending on how many mobs were attacking him. Maybe all the weapon skills will be AoE's like cyclone. Maybe if WS's came with a varying range (i.e. single target, 3m range, 10m range) it would give people more reason to use more than one weapon skill.

Just brainstorming.

Those are actually good ideas IMO. But that is assuming survivability isn't an issue so that there's no need for Sleepga to start with because piercing arrows or AOE WS would ruin Sleepga. I keep on going back to the survivability issue because it's the fundamental point on "many vs many" IMO.

I guess what I'd like to see is that when it comes to normal mobs, "many vs many" should be the preferred option because I want to see players able to keep themselves alive when it's just a normal mob fighting them, while going "many vs one" would be the way when dealing with BCs or NMs with helpers where the main goal is simply just to win and crowd control is more important.

There are two main reasons why it doesn't work in FFXI. Survivability kind of sucks because of unbalanced stats between our HP, mob HP, our damage, mob damage so that if a party of 6 sees a group of 6 EM mobs, it's inefficient to solo one each. The other reason is the EXP reward system itself that encourages party to kill VT mobs, this leaves somewhat crappy EXP reward because if we want to use "many vs many", then it can't really be done efficiently on VT mobs.

If FFXIV can solve those two problems, I think we can see a good "many vs many" system.
#26 Nov 01 2009 at 8:32 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
224 posts
I think most of us are still trying to picture FFXIV features in the FFXI world. By this I mean that we are still thinking that we will only have two options.
1. 1 tank and crappy crowd conrtol/damage mitigation
2. More than 1 tank and sacrifice damage or healing

Think of it like battles in war movies i.e. Braveheart. The Warriors are the ones rushing down the hills to meet in the middle. The Archers remain farther up the hill waiting to pick people off. The casters would naturally be mixed in with the archers.

(I beleive I read this somewhere don't hate me if I'm mistaken)

SE has already said there will not be penalties for party size. If that's true then we could have several Warriors, a couple archers, a couple DDs, some blm, and a few whm.

We can rest assured that this type of grouping will not be required though. Based on the descriptions of the bestiary so far it seems that we will be able to pick off mobs one at a time with proper patients and/or skill.

Imagine getting a group of 10+ people together. You get to your favorite camp in your prefered zone hunting antelope. Then you tell your Archer to pull. He would then run out and pull not 1 antelope, no no he rushes back with the whole **** herd on his heels. All 7 of them. You came prepared however. You know how many antelope run this stretch of land. You and the other 6 warriors head out to intercept, a couple of mages stay safely behind. The archer passes the line of warriors, meets the mages, and pivots arrow already knocked to fire. As one the warriors provoke their intended target keeping them from getting past. When the last poor beast falls you and your comrades move on to the next field and the next herd of unknowing victims.

Group vs. group fighting will probably be limited depending on what you're planning to hunt. For instance if you're prey are the raptors. They are described as running in groups of two which would reduce the number of warriors needed to mitigate enmity.

It could also be that the average damage dealer will have sufficient defensive capabilities that they'll be able to take on the average enemy. There are deffinately tanks though so there will be some need of them. Perhaps with certain mob types and bosses.

With our limited knowledge of the game we're still deep in the realm of speculation. I, for one, am very excited for the possibilities.

edit: spelling

Edited, Nov 1st 2009 9:40am by Nalamwen
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 21 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (21)