Design Decisions: Small group content

[Will]

This will be a weekly post on various design decisions that are cropping up, and see what the community has to say about the current genre decisions. I know there are some deep issues that some of you feel vehemently about, but try to keep things civil and let's try to move the genre forward with these discussions, rather than backward. Without further ado, this week's topic:

Encounter Size

Recently there's been a strong interest in small group "epic" content, and I was curious what some of you thought about the discussion.

Essentially, it's an argument between "More people makes for a more difficult encounter", and "If I don't have 39 friends, I don't get to experience all of the content".

My thoughts are that 40 people is simply too many, and allows for too many "slackers", and worse yet, many guilds don't have 40 members and don't appreciate having to expand their borders just to enjoy the game.

Guilds in Everquest recruited, but it wasn't anything like the EQ2 and WoW guild turnover rates I've experienced. Is this indication based on the encounter sizes, or a lack of truly interesting small group content? In Everquest you could always improve your character in a single group situation via AA's, which kept players interested during non raiding hours. Multiple other quests and items were available to benefit your character in single group encounters, and I felt that really helped retention rates and gave you something interesting to do at all times. Is this an indication that single group advancement is necessary? Why or why not?

24 is the number I feel most comfortable with, but I've come up with a few cool ways so far to include very difficult small group content without imbalancing the rest of the progression trail through content. I also feel that tying it all together makes for a interesting community twist as well (e.g. unlock Instance A for the server by killing Mob X. Everyone cheers on Guild Y because it helps the entire server, not just them)

So is having both an acceptable answer? Does this mean it's ok to have a larger raid encounter size, if you introduce similar small group encounters? Is it ok to limit players advancement by preventing them from experiencing both at the same time (using the same encounter lockout timer)?

One of my major concerns with this issue is actually just simple math. If you're introducing 2 tiers of content, you need to make a large enough jump in encounter power to prevent players from ignoring the first tier and starting with the second. The math comes into play when you consider the raid size, and how an increase in player power is proportionate. With 40 players, you can increase player power half as much as you do with 20 for the same statistical increases. This results in half as much mudflation through your content (another discussion, for another day).

So what's the right answer? I like to think, as a player, that content is king, and that choices are mandatory. As a developer, my thoughts lead toward protection of the game world, and trying to allow as many types of players to enjoy the content at once, without alienating anyone for their playstyle. Which leads me to believe that using a mixed system is really the only way a player of my 'type' would be happy, but this isn't about me. This is about you guys.

So what do you think? Try to use concise points and arguments, and avoid posts with no real substance please

[Darthorious]

I like the idea of having the same instance per-say but can be done with say 24 or 40. My only concern would be that most if not all people would go to the 24 man instance making the 40 man one almost null and void.

Only acception I can think of is if you have more than 24 people who wan't to do it but less than 40 so maybe at that point they will try the 40 man instance unless you are required to have 40 men to enter. And if that was the requirement I think not alot of folks would utilize the 40 man instance without some type of extra incentive. Maybe same stat gear drops but a better looking version in the 40?

[Will]

I wasn't really suggesting to introduce different sizes of large scale raid encounters(24 vs 40), but it's an interesting thought. I was mostly curious on thoughts about small groups (6-10 players), versus 20+ large-scale raid encounters.

[Ziegler]

Essentially, it's an argument between "More people makes for a more difficult encounter", and "If I don't have 39 friends, I don't get to experience all of the content".
I left DDO at the first sign of them including a RAID in the game, having played DnD for 25 years and never once having a group of even 12 payers much less having to have that many to combat a dragon. I say this to put into perspective my own comment...I am decidely Anti-RAID, IMHO it is a developer copout. I can make this one large encounter that requires alot of players, and will have to be run many times to get full benefit from it. I(the Dev) dont have to make it too deep or interesting, just make the loot rare and add a lock out timer on it and BAM...I have added content that I have artificially extended the playing time to consume.

My thoughts are that 40 people is simply too many, and allows for too many "slackers", and worse yet, many guilds don't have 40 members and don't appreciate having to expand their borders just to enjoy the game.
MMO's by nature are a social game, but nobody likes having to be forced to be social. Guilds by their nature, tend to be a small tight knit group of friends. Otherwise, in my experience, the larger guild tends to be a smaller guild with addedfluff players, which creates more animosity than fellowship. You get those few tight knit using the others to fill out thier RAIDs and keep the lions shore of the hoarde for themselves.

Guilds in Everquest recruited, but it wasn't anything like the EQ2 and WoW guild turnover rates I've experienced. Is this indication based on the encounter sizes, or a lack of truly interesting small group content? In Everquest you could always improve your character in a single group situation via AA's, which kept players interested during non raiding hours. Multiple other quests and items were available to benefit your character in single group encounters, and I felt that really helped retention rates and gave you something interesting to do at all times. Is this an indication that single group advancement is necessary? Why or why not?
Yes, small group content and/or solo content is necessary for the broadest player base, which equals more money. The average age of the MMO gamer is trending upwards, and with that comes a working age player base that is not willing to spend 20+ hours a week in a game to be competetive or advance. Crafting/Housing/gambling dens/solo quests are apsects to add in to keep the player that only has a few hours a week to play, like friday/sat night after the kids have went to bed. WoW is successful due to the whole of the game til the end being soloable.

24 is the number I feel most comfortable with, but I've come up with a few cool ways so far to include very difficult small group content without imbalancing the rest of the progression trail through content. I also feel that tying it all together makes for a interesting community twist as well (e.g. unlock Instance A for the server by killing Mob X. Everyone cheers on Guild Y because it helps the entire server, not just them)
Horizons did something along these line, with community "projects" that had to be completed to unlock content for the server. Complete building a bridge while forces attack it, requiring defenders and crafters to work together to complete it, leading to another island with new resources and enounters. Some of these could require up to 40+ people working together, counting crafters and defenders together. And it didnt feel anything like a RAID. This kind of community project can be done with almost anything.

So is having both an acceptable answer? Does this mean it's ok to have a larger raid encounter size, if you introduce similar small group encounters? Is it ok to limit players advancement by preventing them from experiencing both at the same time (using the same encounter lockout timer)?
Artificail time out locks is nothing more than a developer saying to me...I cant make a good enough game to keep you interested in playing it unless I confine when and how you play it. So, NO in no uncertain terms is it ok to have a lock timer/extended spawn timer to control consumption of content. Instead, dont make killing one big oss the goal, it is nothing. Make creating something, defeating an army, defending an outpost a long term issue. The Al'gar are besieging a human outpost...this goes on for a month, allowing humans to defend and al'gar to attack, set the game AI to balance the encounter, if there are 20 human players and 40 al'gar players, then the outpost spawns 20 more human defenders..

One of my major concerns with this issue is actually just simple math. If you're introducing 2 tiers of content, you need to make a large enough jump in encounter power to prevent players from ignoring the first tier and starting with the second. The math comes into play when you consider the raid size, and how an increase in player power is proportionate. With 40 players, you can increase player power half as much as you do with 20 for the same statistical increases. This results in half as much mudflation through your content (another discussion, for another day).The content should scale upwards, the flaw is in making it RAID and an instance which breeds exclusivity and elitism instead of community.

So what's the right answer? I like to think, as a player, that content is king, and that choices are mandatory. As a developer, my thoughts lead toward protection of the game world, and trying to allow as many types of players to enjoy the content at once, without alienating anyone for their playstyle. Which leads me to believe that using a mixed system is really the only way a player of my 'type' would be happy, but this isn't about me. This is about you guys.
Hope that helps some. But know I will always be raking you over the coals for even considering RAID content of a large size. I can choke down smaller raids, the 24 sounds a good enough number. But I will always be against instanced RAIDS with lockout timers and rare loot.

[Darthorious]

I wasn't really suggesting to introduce different sizes of large scale raid encounters(24 vs 40), but it's an interesting thought. I was mostly curious on thoughts about small groups (6-10 players), versus 20+ large-scale raid encounters.

oh OK my bad I mis-inturpeted it was in a hurry had a meeting lol...


It wouldn't bother me at all if it was directed more towards a small group as opposed to a big one. In all reality what's the point of having a 40 man raid and every single one wanting to roll on a epic drop...

In WoW we did do alot of raids (my guild) in fact pretty much everyday for 5-6 months straight with the same people everytime with the acception of 1 or 2 people. After that period of time most everyone quit because drop rates were so bad on some items, but mostly because making these groups with the same 40 people was a headache. We would schedule a run for 0830 in the morning and earliest we actually started a run was at 0530 in the evening.

So a 6 man group as opposed to a 40 man group far better in my opinion and experiances.

As for lock out timers I usually don't have a problem with them persay just as long as it doesn't extend past 24 hours. I had one that went for 36 hours and it was just a pain to figure out when I could go next. If it's an issue of a rare loot drop that you want to keep rare then maybe lower the percentage drop instead of say having a long lockout timer.

Oh and anytime you can create a system where the players actually affect the world around them that is always a good thing. For instance WoW had the whole opening of the portal thing. Just think maybe have small items that aren't impossible to achieve that may have a slight affect on the world would be just as cool. First time I ever say a rainbow appear in FFXI I wasn't sure what it meant untill I unlocked summoner and one appeared it was a pretty small thing but I was just like cool and just thought that it was neat that happened everytime someone unlocked it and I would actually fish near there to watch the rainbows and remember when I had mine appear lol...

[a chewy rock]

I don't like the idea of a 40-man raid either. That's too many people to try to get together unless you have an organized group with a schedule and the free time to do this at the scheduled time. Also, there are a lot of people who will just join and stand around doing nothing while they expect the other 30 to do everything for them. It's easier to have smaller groups where you can get the group together in a reasonable time and have basically the same experience.

[Spartan]

All I have to say is, as long as everyone in a 40 Man Raid gets the item at the same time, its ok. Having to redo the quest 40 times would get really aggrivating. Like in WoW, having to run 1000 times between to people to get a "special item." No thanks. You should be able to get an item alone or with a group.

Just because its an "epic" item shouldn't mean that you need 20+ people to get the item. If you a low character, sure, you may need 20+ people, but if you level 75+ going after a level 53 Epic Item, you should be able to handle yourself pretty well.

[isobar]

I played everquest for a few years, and raids are what really screwed me in the end. With me having school, and other activities, I wasn't able to schedule a 4 hour raid into my life. And that was a fast raid. When you take in consideration how hard it is to gather up 40 people, buff up, move to the spot, fight your way into the spot, yeah, it isn't any fun in the end. With this game claiming to be more skill based than anything, shouldn't a small group of skilled players be able to kill anything?

Anything over two groups of people is just a mess unless you are a power gamer.

[Paladin]

I think having 5 man instance/raids is good until about half way... then you should open it to like 10/12... and endgame should be no larger than 24.

[Moloch]

"More people makes for a more difficult encounter", and "If I don't have 39 friends, I don't get to experience all of the content".The 40 toon raid adds a significant level of leadership, tactical and logisitics elements to the game. Class balance, group composition (assuming certain buffs/abilities - such as WF - only apply to a group within a raid), resist gear, aggro management, group positioning, healing rotations, crowd control, consumables (Naxx is a consumable heavy instance and therefore has acted as a value sink), vent/TS servers etc. I personally reckon you need a minimum of 50 people to support a 5 day raiding schedule (5 hours a night) to cater for work, study, illness, burnout, sporting events etc. And when it all works, you need a robust DKP-equivalent system for loot distribution.

In essence, these encounters are only (originally) accessible to those players who have considerable game knowledge, organisation and available time.

My thoughts are that 40 people is simply too many, and allows for too many "slackers", and worse yet, many guilds don't have 40 members and don't appreciate having to expand their borders just to enjoy the game.
WoW has already made the decision that this is too demanding for the majority of their client base. The Burning Crusade will reduce the WoW Raid limit to 25 (from 40). Additionally, Blizz has always nerfed instances 4-6 months after release to increase their acccessibility. Gearing up effectively also trivialises encounters anyway. Onyxia can be done with less than 20 people. Apart from that, advanced guilds make gold by running other players through lesser encounters (currently usually for BWL and AQ 40 bosses - usually less Cthun and Ouro). Content is accessible to the player base but at a considerable lag to the hardcore guilds. This, IMO, is known as a reward. Anyone who disagrees is probably a communist ;)

Guilds in Everquest recruited, but it wasn't anything like the EQ2 and WoW guild turnover rates I've experienced.
This is largely due to the loot centric game design. Raid to earn more loot, so you can raid higher tier dungeons - to get more loot. This leads to burnout. People leave.

Multiple other quests and items were available to benefit your character in single group encounters, and I felt that really helped retention rates and gave you something interesting to do at all times. Is this an indication that single group advancement is necessary? Why or why not? The issue is one of balancing reward for solo play (BOE random world epic drops), against small groups (UBRS, Strath, Scholo etc), against the incomparably harder (and more costly) 40 main raids. Why raid in large groups with the unbelievable organisational burden that comes with it, if the rewards are not appropriate?

I also feel that tying it all together makes for a interesting community twist as well (e.g. unlock Instance A for the server by killing Mob X. Everyone cheers on Guild Y because it helps the entire server, not just them) Public service is not enough reward. Especially if consumables and/or repairs are a large cost in learning the encounter. Give the unlocking guild a time monopoly on the instance before openning to the general public, give it a unique item for accomplishing this, name something in the game world after that guild - then you might have some extrinsic motivation. And BTW, guilds are where the major community of a server is. In their internal relationships and inter-guild politics and competition. Anyone who disagrees is probably a communist ;)

Is it ok to limit players advancement by preventing them from experiencing both at the same time (using the same encounter lockout timer)? <shrug> Players will ignore the encounter that offers less reward for time and expense. This is an artificial barrier on advancement that annoys your players. The term *!@$block springs to mind.

One of my major concerns with this issue is actually just simple math. If you're introducing 2 tiers of content, you need to make a large enough jump in encounter power to prevent players from ignoring the first tier and starting with the second.
Nod. Happens in WoW. New servers often go from UBRS to BWL - skipping Ony/MC except to get essentials like Tranq Shot). The only way I know of to avoid this - and the trivialisation of content - is to go away from a loot-centric metagame towards a vendor-rolling SB model.

choices are mandatory LOL, and yes - we're all individuals!

In essence, Will you've identified the conundrum at the heart of the raiding for loot reward model. And imo the answer of a mixed system that you're suggesting is not much different to what WoW's had, and continues to evolve and refine.

[Will]

Don't have a lot of time on my hands today, so I'll just give that a nod instead of quoting and responding.

Keep it coming folks, interesting responses.

[Moloch]

Oh yeah ... and I forgot that WoW is also addressing this through a hard setting (an option) for levelling up instances (NOT raids). This option scales the non-raid Outland dungeons to level 70 - harder mobs, harder pulls but better loot.

[isobar]

I think the best system for doing instances I have seen was Everquest. You start an instance with a group, and complete the mission. Once you complete the mission, everyone in the party is given a certain amount of points. The points can then be used to spend on items, potions, augments, weapons, armor, new spells, and other things. There is also loot given out in the dungeon, and usually 2-3 mini boss monsters, and one boss mob. They determine the amount of points given by the type of mission you choose, the average level of the party, and if you choose easy, normal, or hard instance.

They had a 4 person min, and like a 24 person max. This was one of my favorite things about EQ, as it made finding a party MUCH easier. Just a suggestion, you guys could try and come up with something like this.

[Moloch]

Isobar makes a good point about raid loot. I despise the WoW raid-loot system. After 6 hours of effort you can have an unwanted or sub-par item(s) drop from a boss. Let alone when your main tank burns out and quits, elaving the guild weeks behind.

IMO, if raid loot is going to be an important part of thegame then there should be a way of preserving the "Gee whiz" random drop factor as secondary to choice in loot.

I LOL everytime I read someone posting about "skill>loot" in reference to WoW. For any half-decent player it simply ain't so.

[Digna]

New to the forums but not new to MMOs (I used play and GM in Yserbius back in the days of The Imagination Network. After that I've played in some way, shape or form since that point.) I decided to check this out when I saw it on MMORPG.com. I was intrigued when I saw Will as a Dev chatting openly and asking for ideas/comments, so I decided to chime in.

I like the idea of a 2-4 man team for boss types, 6-8 for raids and keep the 20+ raids for special 'big bonus' occasions. Maybe even holidays and when the coffee runs out in Dev central and they feel like throwing hell at everyone else.

So in any event, glad to be here and I'll watch this one closely in hope for future developments.

[Will]

Cool, good to have you Digna. I started out playing SoY too, along with Gemstone3.

It's less me asking for "ideas" as trying to see what our players want. Most of our "ideas" have been around much longer than I have, years even, but it's nice to chat with the community and see what you guys are thinking about the same stuff. It's very enjoyable for me as a designer to come up with a cool mechanic, and then see what your answers for the problem might be.

But it would certainly be cool to read something jaw dropping and implement an idea straight from your minds to our game (Not saying it's going to happen, but it'd certainly be cool!)

Check out the Gameplay Mechanics forum, I'm trying to get these threads moved there, my newest addition to this series is there, and will continue to be.