Dancer Archive
Thread: Group changes
I deleted my response because it was inappropriate. I didn't flame Pan or anything, but it was still inappropriate. Sorry.
Message Edited by Drygo on 04-06-2005 06:29 PM
Drygo wrote:
Panthu...I'm not trying to be mean when I ask you this question. But, a couple of weeks ago, you seemed to be displaying a very negative attitude. Not bad, but negative...much like I'm displaying here. Then it seems like overnight you're kinda telling us that this is all gonna be great, that things are going to work "as intended" that you understand the role of do-nothing but chat all day and accept it. Why such the 180 degree turnaround here?
That's a very personal question so I'm going to do something I almost never do in here and give a very personal answer. I am still quasi NDAed so if it sounds vague, I apologize in advance.
A) I've always been pro-CU combat changes. Smaller groups, need to group, real roles... I'm way on board with that and have been from the get go. I just don't ever talk about that out here because I wasn't a Combat Corr and this isn't a Combat Forum.
B) The Health Bonuses freaked me out when we first heard about them. I took that as a sign of the game truly moving towards abandoning the concept of a virtual world and moving to a true RPG with out acknowledging where this leaves non-combat Profs. I did not react this way when I learned about the armor certs way back last summer, but the hp thing threw me for a loop. I'm still worried about it, I'm just at a point where I'm trying to wait and see what it really means and see if they address it.
C) And now the Entertainer Roller Coaster part...
I did learn how the Devs thought about us and came to understand the whole Cantina/Social/Chatroom/Downtime/Not Healer Concept... the more I learned about the thinking there, the more I came to accept some things that really do seem to make sense and be in the best interest of facilitating Social Goals with these profs. I also learned what areas were still open ended and what we could ask for in design additions and tweaks.
You can see the very first light bulbs going off for me if you go through these threads in order:
Stimming the mind: A few thoughts 04-19-2004
(I still thought we were Healers)
Combat Balance Issues for Dancer: Ent Healing, Bards, and our Future in the Game 05-03-2004
(I found out we weren't and freaked out)
Update/Reminder-Where are we and what are we doing? 05-31-2004
(I was finally starting to get it here...)
... and then I started asking for the things we could get and finding out even more what those things were. I built up a case for an Ent Revamp all the while trying to milk the Combat and GCW Revamps for everything I thought we could. I begged other non-Ent Corrs to get involved and talked to every Dev I could get access too. 
... and then, when it was all coming together and Deila and the other Corrs were telling everyone out here that they were in talks with the Devs, I got very scary news. I was told it might all be shelved, everything I had worked so hard to ask for for us! It was bad news. It was scary because the Corrs weren't being given straight answers. Deila had to step down and I was worried things might not get back on track. I was worried that doors were shutting for us fast and no one would be left to stick a foot in the door!
So, I tried to think what would help the most. I decided that Ents getting out into the Dev threads might keep us from being shelved. I thought it might help reopen the communication that seemed to be getting cut off. I knew the feedback would have to be in the right tone to help though, so, I tried to help that along. I'd already seen things get pulled due to negetive response and it wasn't something I wanted to see again. I want that good stuff I helped us ask for over the last year! 
Anyway, it all seems to be working out now. I'm still freaked about the general Ent tone, I still think it's really important that we say yes first and thank you... and then work on changes after it's a sure thing we are getting the new thing, not before. Anyway, I always swing back to hopeful, if I didn't, I'd just be gone. 
I have a lot of reasons to be hopeful for us today though because Eshie and Scip say they are getting Dev responses again, Tiggs admitted that the Inspirations were only a small part of our bigger picture that's coming, and it looks like things are shakingly getting back on track!
So, my fingers are firmly locked in the crossed position and I hope when the Devs decide to trust us with more peaks into the bigger picture, we will be ready to recieve it with good attitudes and open minds. No stepford wife here, just very practical Ent schemer who wants us to get what we want and doesn't mind putting on a pretty dress and smiling to get it.
Drygo wrote:
I deleted my response because it was inappropriate. I didn't flame Pan or anything, but it was still inappropriate. Sorry.
Message Edited by Drygo on 04-06-2005 06:29 PM
After I took the time to write that book of a post and make sure I didn't sound like I was saying anything bad about anyone else and didn't leak anything?!?!? You sneak in and edit?
.... I feel dirty. *goes to shower*
Panthu wrote:
No stepford wife here, just very practical Ent schemer who wants us to get what we want and doesn't mind putting on a pretty dress and smiling to get it.
Panthu wrote:
Six to eight is the normal size for an RPG party. You only have so many combat roles to fill for a normal encounter. This makes team building important and gameplay more tactical. How many tanks do you need for this type of encounter? How many mezzers? Healers? Damage dealers? Usually there are a few options for each scenario that still get the best results.
I don't buy this as a valid explanation. SWG is not a traditional RPG. With the CU they are driving it further away from a traditional RPG and more into an MMO like City of Heroes (in fact it is quite clear even from the descriptions that this revamp is almost a total 100% copy, right down to its toenails, of COH) -- basically, an arcade/action game with levels and skills. There's nothing wrong with such a game but it is not the same thing as an RPG (which is inherently NOT action based). Thus using the concept of the traditional RPG's "party size" to justify a change that occurs even as the game moves further and further away from the traditional RPG model, holds about as much water as a sieve. SWG is not a traditional RPG like dungeons and dragons -- it never has been really, and it will be less so after the CU as we become more dependent on instantaneous clicking. As a result, I don't buy that the group sizes should be reflective of the traditional RPG.
City of Heroes, at least, has a reasonably valid explanation for why they have a group size limit of 8. In that game, the bulk of the content is organized around instanced missions in which enemies are spawned based on group size and composition. It would be quite difficult to generate a spawn system that worked equally well for 1 and 20, and so they limited it to 1-8 to make their instanced missions work more smoothly.
SWG has no such excuse. Other than the vette there are no instanced missions. 90% of the game is conducted "out in the wild." As such, there is no reason to have this arbitrarily small a group size. Saying, "Well that's the way other games do it," ignores the fact that SWG doesn't do the other things that those games do -- the things that, of themselves, are the reason for those group size limits. If SWG went to primarily instanced missions like COH or WOW have, then yes, I could buy this. But since it is "wilderness" based, and all content is constantly shared by all individuals on a given server, there is absolutely no reason why they need to limit group size to 8. Sure, larger groups would have an easier time of it. So what? They'd also get less XP, assuming it is divided equally. So what's the harm? The answer is, there is no harm at all.
Panthu wrote:
Combat in SWG has been totally redesigned to fit this role based gameplay. So far what I've seen on TC5 looks to be doing what it's supposed to, we'll be able to see better as soon as they open up elites though.
This presumes that the only reason to form a group is to engage in combat. Combat is not the only thing to do in the game (though if things keep up maybe it will be eventually). This is another reason what works in a game like COH, i.e. group sizes of 8, cannot simply be translated thoughtlessly and wholesale into SWG. There are tons of things you can do in SWG that have nothing to do with combat, but which are easier to do with grouping. Entertaining of course comes to mind -- under what logic could one maintain that a group size of over 8 entertainers is "not needed"? It is a minimum of 5 to have every instrument in the game, and this leaves you with, for a full band, a maximum of 3 dancers. What if the group has more than 3? They're just "SOL"? Again, this is not a combat situation, but it is a grouping situation, and the devs would do well to remember that, again unlike most games, in SWG a group does NOT equal a combat party.
You don't even need to be an entertainer to want a larger group. Group size is affected by pets as well. Suppose a couple of CHs are in your group and they each have a pet? Now you are down to 4 or 5 people in the group (plus pets). The pets don't need to be grouped, true enough, but it is a darn sight easier to control and keep track of them when they are. Again we would do well to remember that the "grouping" system is a user-interface artifice designed to make things easier for the player... it should have nothing to do with the gameplay per se. My pets don't do better or worse, or get me more or less CH experience, based on whether I am grouped... and I can have them out, whether they group with me or not. It just makes my life as a manager of animals easier, because of the other inherent limitations of the interface (like targetting difficulties) to have them "grouped" with me. It is a UI device and nothing more. So why the arbitrary limit of 8, when we know that, functionally in the code, they can handle 20, since they have been doing so for 2 years? There is no good justification for it that I can see.
Panthu wrote:
Anyway, the only time you need super huge groups in most games are for raids. So, a lot of games give some kind of raid group option or squadron leader type option (depending on the game fiction). So, I think this is what SLs are going for as a Prof ability that a lot of people always expected them to have by their name. If so, we should be able to get a Band Leader/Troupe Leader type option in our trees.>
This is pure speculation as far as I can tell. All we know for certain at the moment is that group sizes, for all groups, are limited to 8 people. This is not acceptable for reasons other than combat. Raids are not the only thing large groups do. Entertainment troupes can get large. And what about roleplaying? Many roleplaying groups (my guild for one) like to group everyone up in the roleplay scene (which often can get very close to the 20 player limit) so we can do OOC talk in group chat, and IC talk in spatial. It is less cluttered that way. I don't think the reaction of the developers to people who want to use grouping in such non-combat ways ought to be "tough." They need to give us some way of dealing with it.
As another example, my guild gets together every friday for "guild hunts." These are "old school" non-buffed hunts, and they are so much fun that on some nights we have had upwards of 15 or 16 people. What am I, as huntmaster, supposed to do after this goes live? Start turning them away? Force us to split up? Go in 2 groups? This defeats the purpose of the guild hunt which is to have a low key (hence non-buffed) guild bonding evening where we can (again) RP in spatial, talk about game mechanics or whatever else we want OOCly in group chat, and have just a darn good time all around. If they cut group sizes to 8, this will seriously damage, possibly even destroy, what we do on our Friday night hunts.
If they are going to encourage/force grouping, I don't see the logic of turning right around and limiting the group size. They've basically gone and said, "We want you people in groups of 4-8. Any other number, more or less, you can do one way or another, but it is unsupported." And the problem is that there really is no good reason for it.
C
As for merging code - I'm sure they aren't doing that ( would be impractical ) but I have heard they used EQ2 devs on the CU... and it shows... sadly.
Message Edited by menyou on 04-06-2005 07:56 PM
Chessack wrote:
There's nothing wrong with such a game but it is not the same thing as an RPG (which is inherently NOT action based).
Panthu wrote:
Drygo wrote:
I deleted my response because it was inappropriate. I didn't flame Pan or anything, but it was still inappropriate. Sorry.
Message Edited by Drygo on 04-06-2005 06:29 PM
After I took the time to write that book of a post and make sure I didn't sound like I was saying anything bad about anyone else and didn't leak anything?!?!? You sneak in and edit?
.... I feel dirty. *goes to shower*
I'm sorry Pan. As you said in your response it was a very personal question and a very personal answer, and it was unfair of me to ask you that in the first place. Unfortunately I didn't get to the edit before you readthe edit. Even though that happened, I actually do appreciate and understand better. And, any slightly puzzled or negative feelings I was having about the "turnaround" are no longer there. Friends?
PS (more editing... ) I think you and probably a lot of other people know I don't care if we are healers or buffers at all. I'm with you, and have no problem at all redefining our role. I just want some kind of a purpose besides chatting. I've often made the analogy to tailors. Nobody needs them, but everybody wants them. I'd love for something like that to happen for us. And, I'm doing my best to give credit where credit is due on things like the idea of inspirations, and I think the inspirations are brilliant, and still telling them what I think needs to be fixed about the idea. It disturbs me too when people go in there andtell them what they think is wrong and present it in such a caustic fashion. It literally makes me cringe here behind the screen. I wish people didn't do that!
Message Edited by Drygo on 04-06-2005 08:14 PM
Chessack wrote:
It is a minimum of 5 to have every instrument in the game, and this leaves you with, for a full band, a maximum of 3 dancers. What if the group has more than 3? They're just "SOL"? Again, this is not a combat situation, but it is a grouping situation, and the devs would do well to remember that, again unlike most games, in SWG a group does NOT equal a combat party.
.....
If they are going to encourage/force grouping, I don't see the logic of turning right around and limiting the group size. They've basically gone and said, "We want you people in groups of 4-8. Any other number, more or less, you can do one way or another, but it is unsupported." And the problem is that there really is no good reason for it.
And don't bring up the NPC and AFK spam in the cantinas. That's a completelydifferent issue.
