Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

The 8 man mistake?Follow

#1 Apr 12 2011 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,235 posts
I hate to be a negative nancy before the upcoming patch is even released, but I am very concerned about this eight man cap business.
While it seems to be designed with leves and behest at the forefront of the balance issues, I believe the Dev tem overlooked a very important aspect of maximum party size. That aspect would be LS activities, which for a majority of FF MMO players is one of the more important parts of their playtime.

Sure, it's fine for leves and grinding, but now you've got xx people in your LS sitting out NM fights. "Sorry guys, you don't get to join in the battles, only 8 can fight it."
And you just know it's gonna be the same 2-3 jobs that are not included in that 8 man group for such fights. Let's face it, that's why we rank up to max, to do these types of activities. The reason we join a LS is to do these activities together, as a LS. Mark my words, the 8 man ceiling is going to leave certain jobs out in the cold, and promote inter-LS cliques when it comes to what amounts to end-game in XIV. One of the key LS cohesives is doing NM's and missions/quests AS a LS, not as 4 groups of eight scattered parties all trying to get the same NM's, or same missions done. Yoshi you made a bad move here, I'll say it out loud and definitively. You've done something that prevents the average linkshell from adventuring as a group, and if I'm forseeing the most likely outcome correctly - forced them to fracture into smaller sub-LS within the whole. I'm not sure if it's obvious or not, but that type of thing is inherently bad for a LS.
____________________________


"Don't take it personally man, white knights would eat a can of **** if the label said SE on it. If anyone dared mention that it was not a good product, they'd just argue if someone can't appreciate the subtle nuances in the ****, they should just go back to eating lolrealfood, cuz the devs prolly know more about canning food than they do."
#2 Apr 12 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
**
462 posts
I 100% agree.

The only thing is, they need a way to balance this game out.... FFXI was not 'balanced' for alliances... and thats where this game was heading....

I have a really bad feeling that this will cause a lot of trouble when it comes to LS events and the ability for 'everyone' to get engaged in the event.... keep in mind that the low population is keeping a lot of people from even signing in though.. so won't be an issue immediately.. but if the game ever becomes popular... this will be a major issue.
____________________________
Maverik
Paradise Oblivion
75SMN/41WHM/45BRD/37RNG/75COR
Maverick Hawkeye. Kashuan.
#3 Apr 12 2011 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good
*
178 posts
Why not wait until the patch comes out before dishing out criticism on the new system. Although I don't disagree with the points you mentioned, the problem is that you already assume how the system works. What makes you think they won't implement an alliance system? If not in this patch then in an upcoming one? The patch is only two days away.. if it really bugs you that much now then come thursday decline the patch upgrade and move on to something else =)

FYI, this was the obligatory "why comment on new system before implementation" reply. I'll check back on this thread on Thursday after I see for myself what this new system offers (or takes away)
#4 Apr 12 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,566 posts
I think it's a little soon to call foul here.

They're redesigning the game basically from scratch. There's more than likely a reason they chose eight-member parties and we'll have to wait and check out the endgame stuff to see if it works.

I don't think "now we have to exclude people" is a valid argument. Did any of the people making this argument cap their LS at 15 players? Whether it's eight or 15, someone would eventually get left out.
#5 Apr 12 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Excellent
I feel that having a max of 15 on parties in the first place was an oversight, which they are now trying to correct.

They do need to add an alliance option with this change, however. I hope they realize that.
#6 Apr 12 2011 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,235 posts
To be fair to your comment Lightacadi, I am assuming there won't be an alliance based on the fact that it's not mentioned in the patch notes, or in any of the dev discussions to date. So you may be correct, I may be way off base come Thursday and it all may be a moot point.
I'm really commenting ahead of the release only because an alliance mechanic is such an integral part of a change such as this, logic dictates it would be mentioned in or alongside of the description, especially since Yoshi went into such detail explaining over the last two months his intent and reasons for this particular change.
____________________________


"Don't take it personally man, white knights would eat a can of **** if the label said SE on it. If anyone dared mention that it was not a good product, they'd just argue if someone can't appreciate the subtle nuances in the ****, they should just go back to eating lolrealfood, cuz the devs prolly know more about canning food than they do."
#7 Apr 12 2011 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
55 posts
I think it won´t destroy the LS. It is truth some people will stay out, but in the other hand you can make 2 raiding parties now. So one team stay in Gob camp and the other at Buffalo camp. And so on. You dont need 15 people to fight a really no brain tank and spank fight current at the moment. Another thing since NM respawn so fast, wouldnt be an issue really... "Oh i was the nine member, could someone swap with me on the next pop?"

What is the good of 8 ppl? We can have STrategy. Less people, less lag, more important you role become.

And in the future, they can implement of two 8 party size become alliance and all is back like is it now. I like the step, no regrets.
#8 Apr 12 2011 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
***
1,636 posts
Sephrick wrote:
I think it's a little soon to call foul here.

They're redesigning the game basically from scratch. There's more than likely a reason they chose eight-member parties and we'll have to wait and check out the endgame stuff to see if it works.

I don't think "now we have to exclude people" is a valid argument. Did any of the people making this argument cap their LS at 15 players? Whether it's eight or 15, someone would eventually get left out.


Exactly, 15 excluded people, 8 is going to do the same. Only thing is that 8 is a more manageable number for the majority of groups.
____________________________


#9 Apr 12 2011 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
534 posts
I view the party limit change as one of the most positive changes they have made so far. Not the details of the change but the thought process itself, shows they are thinking small...only to expand when needed as the game grows. Reduce the parts involved and further changes/adjustments are easier to implement.

____________________________
Amos Fin - Ultros

#10 Apr 12 2011 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
I'm with Osarion. 8 is more or less the limit of the average controller bound person to heal or tank for effectively. Notice I said average, and if we want this game to thrive it has to cater to average as well as "expert" or "experianced" or whatever you want to label yourself.

6 was too few in XI it led to pigeonholing without room for tagalongs. At least with 8, depending on how content is balanced... the community can make an ideal party of 6+ 2 others. As a THF main in XI I greatly appreciate 8. There were so many times when it was healer, nuker, refresher,tank, backup tank, DD and almost always it was the DD forming the group. MMOs are almost always DD heavy because that's the most popular role to play. With 8 and the right design this should allow enjoyment for everyone.

Obviously certain activites SHOULD require alliances.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#11 Apr 12 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,235 posts
KujaKoF wrote:
Sephrick wrote:
I think it's a little soon to call foul here.

They're redesigning the game basically from scratch. There's more than likely a reason they chose eight-member parties and we'll have to wait and check out the endgame stuff to see if it works.

I don't think "now we have to exclude people" is a valid argument. Did any of the people making this argument cap their LS at 15 players? Whether it's eight or 15, someone would eventually get left out.


Exactly, 15 excluded people, 8 is going to do the same. Only thing is that 8 is a more manageable number for the majority of groups.


I have to agree with you here, the only issue I see would be "we can only use 8, so it's going to be a very biased combination of certain jobs whenever possible". That really does bother me, as until now in XIV, there hasn't been that old FFXI issue of "X/X/X/X/X/X only for meripo", or "XXXXXX jobs only for this airship fight". I really don't want to see it start happening because of this cap, and no alliance option.
It didn't matter if you were the guy with the wanted job for something in XI. or the job no one wanted for that particular activity, it made you feel like sh*t leaving someone out, or being left out.



Edited, Apr 12th 2011 5:40pm by Restyoneck
____________________________


"Don't take it personally man, white knights would eat a can of **** if the label said SE on it. If anyone dared mention that it was not a good product, they'd just argue if someone can't appreciate the subtle nuances in the ****, they should just go back to eating lolrealfood, cuz the devs prolly know more about canning food than they do."
#12 Apr 12 2011 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
676 posts
Dynamis allowed you to have masses of players (far more than a mere alliance of 18) in one 'raid' type instance, and you're worried that we're having teams of 8? There are means and ways of dealing with it, and they can always add an alliance option later on once content is released that requires it.

Too early to call foul on this one. I think they made a good choice.
____________________________

FFXI: Siren Server: Seiowan Lvl 99 WHM, SCH, BLM
FFXIV: Ragnarok Server: Lemuria Glitterhands All Classes 50
#13 Apr 12 2011 at 3:52 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,636 posts
Restyoneck wrote:
KujaKoF wrote:
Sephrick wrote:
I think it's a little soon to call foul here.

They're redesigning the game basically from scratch. There's more than likely a reason they chose eight-member parties and we'll have to wait and check out the endgame stuff to see if it works.

I don't think "now we have to exclude people" is a valid argument. Did any of the people making this argument cap their LS at 15 players? Whether it's eight or 15, someone would eventually get left out.


Exactly, 15 excluded people, 8 is going to do the same. Only thing is that 8 is a more manageable number for the majority of groups.


I have to agree with you here, the only issue I see would be "we can only use 8, so it's going to be a very biased combination of certain jobs whenever possible". That really does bother me, as until now in XIV, there hasn't been that old FFXI issue of "X/X/X/X/X/X only for meripo", or "XXXXXX jobs only for this airship fight". I really don't want to see it start happening because of this cap, and no alliance option.
It didn't matter if you were the guy with the wanted job for something in XI. or the job no one wanted for that particular activity, it made you feel like sh*t leaving someone out, or being left out.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 5:40pm by Restyoneck


As much as I want to compare it to other games, I'm trying to reserve that until we see what they're doing. It seems like its going to be 4 person regular groups and 8 person large groups, in which case that feels a bit low, I think 10 maybe would be better (especially if/when we get more classes). I'll agree that when they start pumping out dungeons/raids etc, they are definitely going to need an option for more people, but for what content we have now, I'm completely happy with leves capped/balanced for 4 member groups, and behests/NMs capped at 8.

As far as group makeups go, I think with the 7 classes we have now, and everything being so customizable that we won't be stuck in a situation where you need ABXY and then only 2 "any class" slots.
____________________________


#14 Apr 12 2011 at 4:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
626 posts
two things
#1, im quite sure, and i think it was even mentioned by developers, that mobs aswell as NMs will be adjusted accordingly, im pretty sure SE isnt going to leave the current and new NMs undefeatable by parties of 8.
#2, its wrong to assume there wont be an "alliance" or "extended party" feature added soon enough to matter, much like every other game in existance.
WoW and all its clones only rely on 5man parties unless doing specific raids, pvp, NMs (Bosses/world mobs or whatever) and dungeons (behest being our closest to a dungeon)
____________________________

#15 Apr 12 2011 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
*
106 posts
Restyoneck wrote:
I believe the Dev tem overlooked a very important aspect of maximum party size. That aspect would be LS activities, which for a majority of FF MMO players is one of the more important parts of their playtime.


I agree with the OP. Good point indeed especially since there is no mention of alliance! I think it would be best to address this concern at Lodestone forum where developers check often?
____________________________


#16 Apr 12 2011 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
***
1,313 posts
Should have just been 5 man groups like most games or 6 like FFXI with 15-18 man raid (sorry endgame or whatever people call it over here still) groups.
____________________________
Eithne Draocht
My IG: archaicmachinery - Friend me!
#17 Apr 12 2011 at 6:37 PM Rating: Excellent
In no way, shape or form is this move a mistake. Clearly, we should all know by now how difficult it is to have any kind of meaningful battle system when you have a herd of 15 players running around zerging anything that moves. Final Fantasy XI (and other MMOs) were successful because having a smaller party size forces party members to be more strategic during battles. Right now, there's no reason (or need) to be careful during most battles... just zerg away. In fact, the most difficult part about fights these days is getting in hits before the mob dies!

So, yeah, I'm a fan about shrinking the party size. It has to happen. I'm sure alliances will come later.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#18 Apr 12 2011 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
no more tank and spank

this should make some NM fights more interesting

althrough some NMs are soloable

hate to be the 9th LS member in pty now through
____________________________
#19 Apr 12 2011 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
844 posts
I think they had quite a few mentions about players being able to attack players claimed by others.

I am thinking at some point they might simply introduce some sort of event that may be shared by more than a party, yet not necessarily working together at all times.

____________________________
See your face upon the clear water. How dirty! Come! Wash your face!
#20 Apr 12 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
*
213 posts
“If you want to make enemies, try to change something.”
Woodrow T. Wilson

#21 Apr 12 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
136 posts
Simool wrote:
I view the party limit change as one of the most positive changes they have made so far. Not the details of the change but the thought process itself, shows they are thinking small...only to expand when needed as the game grows. Reduce the parts involved and further changes/adjustments are easier to implement.



Yeah i'm gonna agree with this, i'll take sound rationality over my individual preferences for small/large battles right now.

Also with the company system isn't everything in the LS supposed to be working towards a common goal to some extent? So i'm assuming if you have 16 people in your ls and your all playing you'd do 2 different things that require different job setups.

As long as things don't get absurd i think organizing 40 people to play a video game is a little sick. Those kinds of leadership/coordination skills should probably be better utilized in activities that exist in the real world and have a baring on peoples actual lives...
#22 Apr 12 2011 at 9:28 PM Rating: Excellent
*
68 posts
The party cap isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The current system is flawed, and they need to fix it. Obviously, having fifteen people in a "party" is a bit excessive. If the game is going to get better, we need to have smaller groups that can work together in a unified party, where each person has a role, and fulfills their role to the extent of their abilities. With fifteen people, we'd only need a tank, a good healer or two, and a bunch of idiots that can hit the "1 key to rule them all." There is very little skill in the game, and by reducing the amount of people we can have in an average group, they lay down the foundation that groups are supposed to be dynamic, and that party members are supposed to cooperate to get the best out of their group.

For end-game content, (that is not currently present in the game), I do agree that we will need Alliances. I would like to say that I doubt SE would over-look this feature, but hey... look at the bloody thing. If SE didn't over-look things, then we wouldn't be posting here. We'd all be playing a fun, interactive, and engaging game.

I'm not sure that I like the 4-8 system. It seems strange to me that they wouldn't stick with one number for groups, and then make an alliance as three of those groups. I think the ambiguity comes from the fact that we have a "small group" and a "big group." As we tend to think of Parties as the "small group" and Alliances as the "big group." But I think that when content is released, SE will do a fair job of making it accessible to everyone who is appropriately leveled. (Side rant: put a level requirement on Behest, so we don't have ****-wads purposely gimping SP).


As far as the problem of elitism....

It happens in every game. Some classes will be better at certain things than other classes. There will always be classes that are more desirable than others. In every MMO that I've ever played, (going back to EQ and EQ2), there have always been more people interested in blowing things up like an r-tard, rather than working as a team unit, like a tank/healer combo. Elitism is a good thing in these kinds of games. It keeps little kids from wasting everyone's time in an end-game encounter.

For example: one of the main complaints about the job-overhaul has been from Conjurers freaking out that they won't be able to be a DD class with the ability to heal itself. Some of them think that splitting the class into Black Mage and White Mage would be horrible, because then they'd have to choose a role. They liked the idea that they could look for parties as a Conjurer, (to which most people would say that if you can heal/tank, then you are a healer/tank), and then they say, "Oh, I just want to nuke. lol." (I see this way too much, even in my own LS. And to these people: You're doing it wrong!)

As a player of FFXI, I completely understand the concern that leveling some jobs will be useless, like Pup, or Drg, or Bst... There were times when I was leveling my mage classes that I saw these poor melee-DD's LFG for hours on end, and I felt bad for them. We always picked the ones that we thought would do the best damage, and I hoped that the others would take the initiative to group together and find a healer and tank. In end game, I felt bad for players who had only leveled certain jobs that others could out-perform. It sucked. But, generally speaking, the player will be the most important factor in who gets into a group.

Let's face it. If you've ever played FFXI, and ever had the misfortune of bumping into that 0.05% of the player base that were just complete ****-bags, then you know that no matter how much damage they do, you'd always pick someone, anyone else to be in the group. Names of bad players would echo through the player base. I remember specifically watching people leave group when they saw a notorious player, or would /tell me, (I generally made my own groups), that we needed to watch out for some ****-bag that would roll lots on every item to drop, like we were still in the **** Dunes.

This is also true for good players. People who are polite and pleasant would always be remembered. If I ever saw another player that impressed me, either through their efficiency, or just over-all fun personality, I'd add them to my friends list. The next time I was building a party, I'd check to see if they were on and if they wanted to come with me. It doesn't matter what job they played, as long as they were good at it, and they were nice people.

I think the only reason anyone should be worried about elitism is if they either want to half-*** their job, or if they think that they don't bring anything to the team, and that someone could easily replace them. And for people like that, they need to figure out why they don't bring anything to the team. For me, personally, I tend to be a support character most of the time. As a player, I try to be patient, and I try to help my team mates when they are confused. I also try to be a little social, and bring some fun into the party while we're all grinding. (Though it is hard as **** to write and battle at the same time. They can't put in chat tabs, like XI? Really?)

Now, I also understand the problem that some jobs are specifically better in certain situations, and I'd like to say that this could be balanced. (I'm thinking of Summoners in CoP). Unfortunately, that probably isn't going to change. It's SE after all. There will always be an optimal job selection. But I don't think that SE is quite the one that dictates what job is better in those situations. I think they just make a scenario that is supposed to be group content, and the player-base has a few "go-to's," like /nin, or Astral Flow. We're given a puzzle, and told to figure it out. As players, we tend to have a few favorite tools that we go to, and figure out how to make them work. For many encounters /nin isn't really necessary. But we do it as a safety precaution, and to keep the healer from actually having to do much of anything, so they can focus more on status ailments.

So how do we fix this? Obviously, 80% of the population is going to go out and role a damage-dealing class. The other 20% will have their pick of who to bring along for groups. It's a social game. So mingle. But for those anti-social people who are too damned lazy to start their own party... you can solo. That's the one redeeming factor about this game over FFXI, (before they nerfed the whole game). Back in the day, a DD had to advertise why they should be chosen over their competitors, or they'd have to wait for there to be no competition, (generally because they got invited to other parties). But now, if you have gimp gear, or don't want to use foods, or you can't stay for a full EXP party, or maybe you're just a jerk and no one wants to play with you anyway... now you can go play by yourself. It's great.

As for end-game content, I'm sure that initially, all the classes in the game, (I'm not referring to crafters, as I still refuse to acknowledge a crafter as a legitimate class), will be welcomed to a party. We currently have a very limited amount of classes, and as of now, they're all the same anyway. Once the classes are unique, and we get some more classes, then we'll be able to figure out what works better than what. But for now, the game is so messed up that we don't really need to even worry about this. Just pick a few friends that you like to play with, and go have fun until your EXP numbers turn yellow. Then curse, swear, log out, and wait a week or so.


So yes, the group system is a good thing, I think. Having fifteen people just throw themselves at the mob is a bit Levée en masse, don't you think?

But I would like to see an Alliance system, once content is introduced that would permit such a system.
#23 Apr 12 2011 at 11:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,523 posts
I just don't understand why they just don't let people decide for themselves how big the group should be. Encouragement with the "light" and "full 8" party bonuses and penalties for bigger parties as a guideline should have been enough. For dungeons or other events which are balanced around a certain size you could always set the limit upon entry.
____________________________
____(>°°)D_->__(O°°)>-_<(;,,;)>_C-(°°Q)__O~~_t(°°<)_(;o0)___<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_____

#24 Apr 13 2011 at 1:20 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
970 posts
Eight seems to be a good number. Try and look at the bigger picture. The larger a party becomes the more overlapping and redundancy your party will have in terms of roles and action set in the action bar. There are usually a few roles in every rpg some more rigid than other but the premises remains the same.
Tank
Healer
Debuffer
Damage Dealer
Control

Look at theoretical party caps and their effect:
35 members= 7 members per role.
30 members= 6
25 members= 5
20 members= 4
15 members= 3
10 members= 2
1-9 member= 1ish

So looking at the current 15 member cap. You can see that there are 3 of every role. The more redundant roles will equal to the individuals performance being less important.
If it gets capped at 9 or shorter. Each spell, ability, weaponskill will become more treasured. The actions we set will require more thinking and tactical planning for each situation.
#25 Apr 13 2011 at 7:37 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
353 posts
sandpark wrote:
Eight seems to be a good number. Try and look at the bigger picture. The larger a party becomes the more overlapping and redundancy your party will have in terms of roles and action set in the action bar. There are usually a few roles in every rpg some more rigid than other but the premises remains the same.
Tank
Healer
Debuffer
Damage Dealer
Control

Look at theoretical party caps and their effect:
35 members= 7 members per role.
30 members= 6
25 members= 5
20 members= 4
15 members= 3
10 members= 2
1-9 member= 1ish

So looking at the current 15 member cap. You can see that there are 3 of every role. The more redundant roles will equal to the individuals performance being less important.
If it gets capped at 9 or shorter. Each spell, ability, weaponskill will become more treasured. The actions we set will require more thinking and tactical planning for each situation.


Whilst I agree that the 8-man cap is good for giving parties the need to fill specific roles to form a well balanced group, your logic is a bit off in that you only need 1 of some thing (buffs/debuffs) a couple of others (Healers/tanks) and lots of others (DPS). this could simply be scaled up to larger groups once the 4 and 8-man situations are balanced nicely.
#26 Apr 13 2011 at 8:48 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
233 posts
You are basing your post off of the current size of your LS. You see that you have a certain amount of people online at a certain time and feel that 15 man parties seems reasonable. What if your LS had 100 active members online at any given time of day who all wanted to do something? Then the 15 man party seems small...let's just boost the number up to 25 per party so more people can play together. There were always people left out of events in FFXI and it is doing fine with 6 man parties.
#27 Apr 13 2011 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
63 posts
pixelpop wrote:
#1, im quite sure, and i think it was even mentioned by developers, that mobs aswell as NMs will be adjusted accordingly, im pretty sure SE isnt going to leave the current and new NMs undefeatable by parties of 8.

First of all, wouldn't nerfing mobs and NMs defeat the whole purpose of having smaller parties? If you're reducing party size so that everyone has to use strategy, then nerfing the mobs will make it possible to just keep zerging with 8.

Also, all the NMs can currently be beaten by a party smaller than 8. Much smaller. In addition to the obligatory mention of "Thm soloing Dodore/Gobby/etc," a LS on the Istory server has beaten all the NMs multiple times with a party of 3, including beating gobby after one of them DCed at the beginning of the fight.

Forcing us to do NMs with 8 might make the NMs interesting again. How many dozens of times can you kill the same 5 NMs before it gets boring?
#28 Apr 13 2011 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
63 posts
Thalesia wrote:
I think it won´t destroy the LS. It is truth some people will stay out, but in the other hand you can make 2 raiding parties now. So one team stay in Gob camp and the other at Buffalo camp.

And this gets to the crux of my concern. There's very limited end(ish) game content right now. NMs are already pretty crowded. There are only 5 total NMs. You've usually got a max of 3 NMs that pop at one time, and there's only one NM that pops at night.

Right now, if there's more than one LS that's running NMs, then someone is going to have to take some time off to wait for another mob to pop. The maximum number of LSs that can run NMs at one time is 3.

So currently, there usually aren't enough NMs up for every group that's hunting them during NA prime time hours. If you double the number of groups hunting NMs, then there definitely won't be enough. And the number of groups running NMs is probably going to increase naturally as more players hit level 50.

So there are positives -- strategy -- and negatives -- lack of content. Reducing party size effectively reduces the number of people who can enjoy end-game content at one time. And considering how little end-game content there is right now, that's a bummer.

They're adding more NMs with this patch, but we don't know how many, and we don't know if their drops will be worthwhile. I really, really hope they add 5 new NMs.

Same problem for behest. If you want to get into the behest at Broken Water right now, you'd better have a quick trigger finger because it usually fills up within seconds of the Battle Warden appearing. When you reduce the party size from 15 to 8, fewer people are going to be able to join in. You can make behest available every half hour, but unless doing it on the hour makes you ineligible for the next behest, several of the same people will probably be doing both behests, and several people will be excluded from both.

Again, they're limiting the number of people that can participate in the available content. Which wouldn't be too much of a problem except that one of the chief complaints is the lack of available content.

Overall, I'm hopeful it will be a good change for the game. But it might have made sense for them to wait until there was more stuff to do.
#29 Apr 13 2011 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,609 posts
My question is this: How will the party restriction affect Behest? I mean good example, tonight, I was partying at Camp Horizon and pulled together a group for behest, that I know had more than 8 people...How is this going to work? There are more than 8 people at camps doing behest. Will this force everyone to spread to the three cities in order to get into a behest party? Will people be willing to even scatter to join behest? Hrmmmm.
____________________________


"I've never watched a nuclear explosion myself. That's a couple of degrees of stupid above my limit"- Old Man Harris
#30 Apr 14 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Decent
**
621 posts
8 is 2 too many
____________________________
Kweh?!

...prophesizing the golden patch since october 2010.
#31 Apr 14 2011 at 6:22 PM Rating: Good
*
110 posts
There was this game - not sure you've heard of it - called Final Fantasy XI online. Well turns out their max (alliance) limit was 18 and guess what it took forever to get ppl together to do events.

FFXIV has an 8 person max?

Well boohoo I won't be able to wait around and do nothing anymore ; . ;

/shout 8/8 rock on
#32 Apr 14 2011 at 6:34 PM Rating: Good
****
7,106 posts
Quote:
There was this game - not sure you've heard of it - called Final Fantasy XI online. Well turns out their max (alliance) limit was 18 and guess what it took forever to get ppl together to do events.

Yeah, because it would be just silly to play a game simultaneously with hundreds or even thousands of other people and ever want to do anything with more than seven of them at a time, right?

It's inevitable that there will be an alliance option shortly, so party size isn't really a big issue anyway. However, if the game designers really DO want players to never do anything in groups of more than 8, then they had better have some clever game design to allow group play some other way. Eight is fine for a lot of things, but it doesn't exactly allow an epic level of tactics or organization.
#33 Apr 14 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,609 posts
datta wrote:
There was this game - not sure you've heard of it - called Final Fantasy XI online. Well turns out their max (alliance) limit was 18 and guess what it took forever to get ppl together to do events.

FFXIV has an 8 person max?

Well boohoo I won't be able to wait around and do nothing anymore ; . ;

/shout 8/8 rock on


Yeah I would have to agree with this. I remember trying to get a group ready to deal with Shen *I hate you you stupid overgrown piece of yummie food* And that was HHHOORRRRIIIBBBLLLEEEE!!! The fight made me cry and more so trying to get everyone organized and together, even though I am a bit hesitant about Behest coming down in numbers for the parties, I am a bit excited that maybe doing events would be more managable.
____________________________


"I've never watched a nuclear explosion myself. That's a couple of degrees of stupid above my limit"- Old Man Harris
#34 Apr 14 2011 at 10:52 PM Rating: Decent
*
110 posts
Caesura wrote:
Quote:
There was this game - not sure you've heard of it - called Final Fantasy XI online. Well turns out their max (alliance) limit was 18 and guess what it took forever to get ppl together to do events.

Yeah, because it would be just silly to play a game simultaneously with hundreds or even thousands of other people and ever want to do anything with more than seven of them at a time, right?

It's inevitable that there will be an alliance option shortly, so party size isn't really a big issue anyway. However, if the game designers really DO want players to never do anything in groups of more than 8, then they had better have some clever game design to allow group play some other way. Eight is fine for a lot of things, but it doesn't exactly allow an epic level of tactics or organization.


So by your standard Dynamis must have been the best event ever...? Which ironically is largely held as probably one of the most boring and tedious large scale events in FFXI.

What is silly?

Thinking that needing more people for PvE content as a requirement makes it any more fun or challenging. In fact it is typically the opposite. It becomes easier to be lost in the fray - an individual's contribution becomes inconsequential.

Dynamis and Einherjar in FFXI were trivial given the right number of people. Salvage on the other hand was one of the most challenging and rewarding events in the game given the strong reliance/ co-dependence everyone had on each other. How many were needed to do that again? Oh yeah 8. Nyzul Isle 6.

If you really want to pick this apart FFXI is a 9 year old precedent that shows how asinine large scale events can be.

Want to start a Dynamis or Einherjar group ? - Well get ready to waste your life in the process. Start by getting a website together to keep track of all those points you need to update twice a week because drops are so scarce you couldn't fairly distribute loot without it. Or how about paying for vent so you actually can cast or fight without having to stop and type instructions or warnings. I wonder what that will look like in 14 with a faster combat system?

If these things were built into the game like - I don't know - some next gen MMO might, then I'd say rock on with upping the player count but they're not. So it just seems silly to think that a higher number of players = anything more than wasted time both in and outside of the game which = less fun = less subscribers.

Name the most challenging and perhaps rewarding parts of FFXI and almost all of them are done in small groups. Airship fight anyone?

Name the most tedious, tiresome, and exclusionary battles in FFXI and almost all of them were done in large groups. 24hr PW fight or how about AV - anyone up for it?

Yeah - lets hope the game designers have more common sense than you do and have learned from past mistakes.
#35 Apr 14 2011 at 10:58 PM Rating: Default
*
110 posts
Endnote: the direction of the epic/large scale content paradigm is towards things like FFXI's Besieged or Campaign. Or to use a current example Rift. Oh look the ad is next to me >>

I wonder how it's working out for them?
#36 Apr 15 2011 at 5:42 AM Rating: Decent
**
821 posts
Whats the big deal? Before it was 15people, now it is 8. You can split them up into 8/7 people and hunt 2 NMs at the same time...If you don't have enough to form 2 groups...well... I'm sure if you're not killing NMs just for a few days now, some members will be glad to sit out and make room for one of those members who is not bored of the NMs yet...
#37 Apr 15 2011 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
588 posts
Thayos wrote:
In no way, shape or form is this move a mistake. Clearly, we should all know by now how difficult it is to have any kind of meaningful battle system when you have a herd of 15 players running around zerging anything that moves. Final Fantasy XI (and other MMOs) were successful because having a smaller party size forces party members to be more strategic during battles. Right now, there's no reason (or need) to be careful during most battles... just zerg away. In fact, the most difficult part about fights these days is getting in hits before the mob dies!

So, yeah, I'm a fan about shrinking the party size. It has to happen. I'm sure alliances will come later.


Agreed. This was my major qualm with Behest. The group ran around killing stuff and there was no real rhyme or reason to it. As long as you had a healer spamming cures everyone just ran around there was no communication and no strategy. I have not tried behest since the patch but reduced party size is a step in the right direction.

Alliances and revamping the party search function are going to be key for this to work.
____________________________



#38 Apr 15 2011 at 7:10 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
Final Fantasy XI (and other MMOs) were successful because having a smaller party size forces party members to be more strategic during battles.


Actually, to clarify, controlling group sizes enables the developers to be able to design and balance better content because they can control the variables better. Which in turn creates more strategic battles.

It becomes even more obvious that this is their intention when we look at the party 'buffs'. It wasn't implemented because the developers wanted to 'help' us, it was implemented so that it is harder for groups of <8 to do content that is designed for 8 people and it is harder for groups of <4 to do content that is designed for 4-7 people. Thus SE has designed three different demographics the content will be aimed towards: Parties of 1-3 members, parties of 4-7 members, and parties of 8 members. The encounters will be balanced and designed with that in mind from now on. In addition, from the sounds of it S-E is also going to control our party set-ups in the future through armor and job system changes (just like in XI, where tank, 2-3 dd's, refresher/buffer, healer, (nuker) was the norm) which also allows them to create better content for said set-ups.

It is too hard to design good content for such a wide variety of group set-ups and level ranges, which is why these additions are taking place. Matsui (who was in charge of the combat system post-ToAU) also prefers lowman encounters, so we can expect to see something similar coming from him in the future. As far as large-scale combat and interaction situations go, though, that should be a part of the companies' design.

Either way, these changes show that Matsui knows what's up. Hopefully he can keep up the same pace when it comes to the actual overhaul.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#39 Apr 15 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,106 posts
Quote:
So by your standard Dynamis must have been the best event ever...? Which ironically is largely held as probably one of the most boring and tedious large scale events in FFXI.

So your position is the the problems with Dynamis were because nine or more players were grouped together at the same time?
#40datta, Posted: Apr 15 2011 at 3:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Why bother post if you're too lazy to read the entirety of the post you're commenting on?
#41 Apr 15 2011 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
****
7,106 posts
Quote:
Be serious if you expect me to address your comments.

I was about as serious as your post deserved. But, I was under the impression that the idea of yours that I didn't care for was what you were actually getting at. This...
Quote:
Name the most tedious, tiresome, and exclusionary battles in FFXI and almost all of them were done in large groups. 24hr PW fight or how about AV - anyone up for it?

... especially coming near the end of your post, sure makes it sound like all of your wandering analysis boiled down to the problem being the size of the event. That strikes me as simplistic, and also ignores how many people enjoyed those large-scale events.

More importantly, my original point seems to have whooshed you -- that the opportunity to play with more people, and enjoying playing with more people, is not the same as being required to play with more people.

I personally thought allying with as many people as the game allowed made Besieged a lot more fun, for example. Running around trying to keep my alliance alive, or watching someone's health go from full to zero in an instant followed by a dozen people lol'ing, was actually a lot more enjoyable to me than having a single party or being by myself. Plenty of things in life are more fun in large groups (*ahem*), and I don't see why an MMO should be different.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 18 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (18)