Probably, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. WoW grouping system, for instance, is very basical but since there are merged servers it gets the job done.
You also have to think that GW2 doesn't have class roles, which makes grouping even easier. I made Arah expl in a group with 5 elementalists...
true, what ever they do i hope GM'S here will learn from problems we all pointed out & try to do it better in this game
i have never play'd WOW cause monthly fee games are waste of money
but i hate the grouping system of other games, need to W8 for hours to get full party, & another reason whoever is involved gets loot/xp, not just those who initiate the fight. I always hated coming to someone's aid and not getting anything, cause its problem with 99% of the MMO'S, only game i know what dose not have that problem is GW2, all others have it, in other games i feel like grouping is a burden
i guess u enjoy W8 for hours to get full party, wasting time when u could play instead of W8 but u cant play cause u die if u solo
thats why I love ddo.
On normal - even epic - practicaly everyone can solo.
And on other difficulty u post a grouping and wait a moment.
I never EVER waited more than 20-30 mins :P. If I did I went solo - and thats it.
For me auto-grouping kills MMO. Im sorry but thats what it does for me.
I dont like being put in a group with random people. And I hate being forced to group with someone.
Sometimes I want to solo. Sometimes I want to go with certain ppl I know. And sometimes I want to go with randoms.
But I never want to be forced to do anything.
It irritates me that in gw2 sometimes I had to play with so big idiots that it was hurtfull for me and everyone around...People who do not listen to tactic, people who run around like a chicken without a head or people who "shout" things in language I dont understand or things like "hey sexy .... wanna go on side?" etc., or even worse people who were following me with no reason all the time until I logged out.
I just hate it. And I want to avoid it.
And well.... In other games it was "Oh look <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> posted lfm, I know him, we played so much some time ago". Playing like that u can make realy great friendships - really because I met some of these ppl in real life and we get on really well. In GW2 when u do not really choose with who you group you practically do not look at their nicks/you treat them all like randoms - sort of hirelings - for a one instance.
Oh and pikes getting award for hitting once - that is also not fine : P.
And really reallyh I prefer to wait 10-15 mins on grouping rather than the above.
Sorry for that but... thats my opinion.
Thanx for the input guys, sounds too me like the grouping in gw2 works well for that game seeing as loot is rather redundant but I don't think it would work great for this one where presumably gear won't all have the same stats so to speak.
I would prefer a more traditional system where you make your own party, tbh the click on a button to queue up for dungeons and the like sounds like the system they have in Forgotten world.
Thanx for the input guys, sounds too me like the grouping in gw2 works well for that game seeing as loot is rather redundant but I don't think it would work great for this one where presumably gear won't all have the same stats so to speak.
I would prefer a more traditional system where you make your own party, tbh the click on a button to queue up for dungeons and the like sounds like the system they have in Forgotten world.
Yeah, loot is another part of the game where gw2 can't be a term of comparison since, well... there's no loot in gw2.
I agree with the last part.
Dilige, et quod vis fac (Love, and do what you will)
thats why I love ddo.
On normal - even epic - practicaly everyone can solo.
And on other difficulty u post a grouping and wait a moment.
I never EVER waited more than 20-30 mins :P. If I did I went solo - and thats it. ...
.
And the cleric taketh out his tome and wipeth the dust off with broom, taken frometh the body of a recently burenedeth witch. He wipeseth of the dust and begineth reading.
There waseth a time when the content of DDO was not solo ableth, yes, it was not so at launcheth. Neither was it just after laucnheth nor it was just before launcheth. There waseth a time when Ieth waited moreth than oneth hour, not two, not zero but oneth hour - but the groupeth had not rogueth. Some groupeth calleth me - the clericeth but nay, they were refused.
And so it waseth before.
the cleric closes the tome and throws it in the iron maiden - with its nails still wet with blood and locks it up inside. Then he proceeds in common tongue...
The whole point of forced grouping(Quests requiring a group) actually was good for DDO as people became more social and most of the times were ready to take new people and teach them quests. However, later bringing in hirelings and making much content solo-able made that "social" part go away as elitist mentality started arising and groups started to have demands for power builds etc. Quests became more like a mundane tasks to go over and over again with same kind of power builds.
I hope NW doesn't fall in that pitfall. It completely destroys the social part in the MMOs. They should lay stress on grouping. RaiderZ would be an ideal example in my opinion.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
thats why I love ddo.
On normal - even epic - practicaly everyone can solo.
And on other difficulty u post a grouping and wait a moment.
I never EVER waited more than 20-30 mins :P. If I did I went solo - and thats it.
For me auto-grouping kills MMO. Im sorry but thats what it does for me.
I dont like being put in a group with random people. And I hate being forced to group with someone.
Sometimes I want to solo. Sometimes I want to go with certain ppl I know. And sometimes I want to go with randoms.
But I never want to be forced to do anything.
It irritates me that in gw2 sometimes I had to play with so big idiots that it was hurtfull for me and everyone around...People who do not listen to tactic, people who run around like a chicken without a head or people who "shout" things in language I dont understand or things like "hey sexy .... wanna go on side?" etc., or even worse people who were following me with no reason all the time until I logged out.
I just hate it. And I want to avoid it.
And well.... In other games it was "Oh look <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> posted lfm, I know him, we played so much some time ago". Playing like that u can make realy great friendships - really because I met some of these ppl in real life and we get on really well. In GW2 when u do not really choose with who you group you practically do not look at their nicks/you treat them all like randoms - sort of hirelings - for a one instance.
Oh and pikes getting award for hitting once - that is also not fine : P.
And really reallyh I prefer to wait 10-15 mins on grouping rather than the above.
Sorry for that but... thats my opinion.
well i have not play'd ddo more then to lvl 15 cause all quests are locked after that & i quit, i play'd it when it went to F2P, at F2P early stages, i remember rogue was duff with bow
0
sugram84Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 1Arc User
I sure hope it's nothing like GW2. Their instance grouping is downright terrible, while their world grouping is at best mediocre. Rift's method was far superior, I'd even say one of the best open world grouping systems. GW2 didn't make it feel like a group effort at all- it made it feel like you were in a mess with a bunch of other self serving players, and the tagging system valued widespread aoe spam over actually picking out targets (of course, there was almost zero times in the world where any strategy was necessary to begin with so perhaps that's intentional).
I'd much rather have grouping that matches the gameplay- and gameplay that awards participation and teamwork. Dungeons and Dragons is ultimately about a party working as a team- that's what pnp is about, games are about, even if you read all the novels they are generally about a team working together to make up each other's strengths and weaknesses (the original Dragonlance trilogy is a perfect example of this). I'd rather not see grouping become a mindless mash up of whoever comes, since there is absolutely no need to work together- and that's the biggest flaw of GW2's grouping system and content, and on their forums has been the target of nonstop criticism.
Of course, having DDO's 'you must group, which includes at least a healer, tank, caster, rogue and two others (prob one more healer and dps)' most of the time leads to epic long waits, and in that game there's hundreds of dungeons so getting the one you want can also be a challenge. If you have though a lot of solo-able content with several dungeons dispersed between you make it easy to find something to do while waiting, and generally people willing to do it.
It's not so much about having easy group making- it's about the rest of the game. For example- most of the time it is healers and tanks that are the two things you wait for to get a dungeon group. However, if you make all classes capable of two roles, you make more healers and tanks. Add in dual spec and they'll have that second spec even while levelling, or make respeccing something you can do any time you want and you have a large pool. Reduce reliance on heal/tank specific stats (ie- in WoW they changed pure '+heal' gear into just spellpower, where they are now you can heal and dps in the same gear) and you lose the excuse of 'I don't have the right gear for it', you end up with a group that can very easily fill the heal/tank role, as the only excuse to not would be 'I do not like to do it'.
Chances are, given the option of tank or wait a half hour, at least one person in your party will man up.
Anyway, point is- how grouping is done will depend on the game, and GW2's grouping works only for a game where there's absolutely no roles and you're just an insect in a tide of insects crawling all over that giant whatever until it's a carcass, where the only real difference between you and the next person is ranged or not ranged- ie, living or dead. GW2's grouping won't work elsewhere unless the game's like that- and I really hope NWO is nothing like GW2.
Just read the thing on events- I like that. You queue up, get ported to the event, do it, then port back and keep questing. Short, simple, doesn't take me out of my way, and whether the queue is long or short I can keep on doing what I was doing while I wait.
I like that they have open world events, 'contests' as they say, too.
Competition and cooperation- two of the staples of an mmo.
0
sugram84Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 1Arc User
Just read the thing on events- I like that. You queue up, get ported to the event, do it, then port back and keep questing. Short, simple, doesn't take me out of my way, and whether the queue is long or short I can keep on doing what I was doing while I wait.
I like that they have open world events, 'contests' as they say, too.
Competition and cooperation- two of the staples of an mmo.
u W8 in the queue & do quests & suddenly u get interrupted pi loading screen, not funn
Can't compare GW2 to D&D traditional game play where a party is the standard. The GW2 open world events are for everyone and you can still form a party for the instanced dungeons, PvP and WvW. You can have your personal group but you have to play with others in the world areas, I do not see why this would be a problem for this game as they do mention events.
This GW2 method is actually more of a social game because it is all inclusive. Everyone fights, you get a piece of the XP if you are involved. It may eliminate some of the social chit chat but it also eliminates the l33t skilz dudes and wannabe General Patton types who think you have to play the game their way. I have not played much yet, I just started playing. It is a free for all but everyone fights and everyone can heal. I have been healed in the middle of combat by a perfect stranger because they can. I do the same when I can. You want to play and help anyone because y9ou can.
Einstein - "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
u W8 in the queue & do quests & suddenly u get interrupted pi loading screen, not funn
Well, if you do not like events, you do not have to do them- do contests instead which sound to be more like PQs in WAR or rifts in... you know. Unlike most examples in games where the response to 'you do not have to do it if you do not want to' is 'well there is no content for someone who doesn't want that', they are giving both the instance lovers and the open world event lovers something here. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Though, I don't see how doing quests, then going to this group event I chose to queue for because I wanted to do it isn't fun, perhaps you could explain how doing the content I wish to do hassle free and on my terms, with alternatives if I happened to not want to do that, is not fun.
Yes, I do realize that in GW2 you can, through perseverance and time, do almost any event whether you have a crowd of 50 or 2, but that speaks more to the complete streamlining, blandness and lack of any difficulty of that game- where other than the stupid fire elemental in metrica province (and cheap underwater areas that rely on the extremely broken underwater combat) there's zero challenge. If I had to chose between having bland, easy, repetitive content (ie- Orr zerg rushing aka GW2 endgame) that is always accessible and challenging content I have to know my role to do but I have to sometimes wait half an hour for a group- I'd much rather wait for a fun experience than always be experiencing mediocrity.
0
sugram84Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 1Arc User
Well, if you do not like events, you do not have to do them- do contests instead which sound to be more like PQs in WAR or rifts in... you know. Unlike most examples in games where the response to 'you do not have to do it if you do not want to' is 'well there is no content for someone who doesn't want that', they are giving both the instance lovers and the open world event lovers something here. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Though, I don't see how doing quests, then going to this group event I chose to queue for because I wanted to do it isn't fun, perhaps you could explain how doing the content I wish to do hassle free and on my terms, with alternatives if I happened to not want to do that, is not fun.
Yes, I do realize that in GW2 you can, through perseverance and time, do almost any event whether you have a crowd of 50 or 2, but that speaks more to the complete streamlining, blandness and lack of any difficulty of that game- where other than the stupid fire elemental in metrica province (and cheap underwater areas that rely on the extremely broken underwater combat) there's zero challenge. If I had to chose between having bland, easy, repetitive content (ie- Orr zerg rushing aka GW2 endgame) that is always accessible and challenging content I have to know my role to do but I have to sometimes wait half an hour for a group- I'd much rather wait for a fun experience than always be experiencing mediocrity.
its not that i ton't like them, it more like i ton't like to be in queue when i do quests
its not that i ton't like them, it more like i ton't like to be in queue when i do quests
Fair enough, at least with both 'contests' and 'events', there will be something for people who don't like queues like you, and people who are ok with them like me- so it would seem PWE it taking both our demographics into consideration, which I think is a good thing.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
So someone runs up to the monster you are killing hits it one or two times and get full xp/loot from it ? Not sure how nit works in GW2
The be in the party of the one that hit it first system was made to avoid ksing.
You get your own loot separate from the person who initiated the fight. And as for the party system, do you know HOW many times I waited for mobs to spawn just to have a tank run over, pull them all, and leave nothing for me? As a priest, it was enough that I would log out for days at a time and wait 'till no one else was on just so I could get some loot/quests completed. I used to run into people or groups of people who would do this, and I'd spend tons of time just waiting for them to leave. They'd clean a whole area, wait for the next spawn sets, and I might get one or two while they took ALL the rest. A cycle that I HATED and repeated every other day I did quests alone.
0
denkasaebaMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Yes, I do realize that in GW2 you can, through perseverance and time, do almost any event whether you have a crowd of 50 or 2, but that speaks more to the complete streamlining, blandness and lack of any difficulty of that game- where other than the stupid fire elemental in metrica province (and cheap underwater areas that rely on the extremely broken underwater combat) there's zero challenge. If I had to chose between having bland, easy, repetitive content (ie- Orr zerg rushing aka GW2 endgame) that is always accessible and challenging content I have to know my role to do but I have to sometimes wait half an hour for a group- I'd much rather wait for a fun experience than always be experiencing mediocrity.
I completely utterly agree. I'd add the personal quest to the "challenge box", since it has some parts that aren't easy at all (aka: broken, especially if you play an elementalist against destroyer crabs), but this doesn't make the endgame less boring. Hyjal and Icecrown were 10000 times better than Orr.
Dilige, et quod vis fac (Love, and do what you will)
It's not so much about having easy group making- it's about the rest of the game. For example- most of the time it is healers and tanks that are the two things you wait for to get a dungeon group. However, if you make all classes capable of two roles, you make more healers and tanks. Add in dual spec and they'll have that second spec even while levelling, or make respeccing something you can do any time you want and you have a large pool. Reduce reliance on heal/tank specific stats (ie- in WoW they changed pure '+heal' gear into just spellpower, where they are now you can heal and dps in the same gear) and you lose the excuse of 'I don't have the right gear for it', you end up with a group that can very easily fill the heal/tank role, as the only excuse to not would be 'I do not like to do it'.
I don't agree with your idea there sir. Making all classes capable of two roles is what TURNED WoW into World of Paladins. Anyone who played WotLK into Cata can tell you if you played a pali/druid, you win. Hands down. Especially since they could change from heal-tank-dps at any point and always be better at it than other base classes of just those types. And if Cryptic were to add in dual-spec in this game, it's no longer D&D. You can multi-class, but you can't just change your character class because it's inconvenient at the time. I understand that getting into dungeons and all is challenging if people aren't looking for EXACTLY the same dungeon/class combination you are, but answering this by making every class be every other class is a terrible plan. And the combining stats to make parties more preferable for every class? I've heard something similar to that before, I think it was in a school debate...something about kids weren't passing tests, so make the tests easier...
0
sugram84Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 1Arc User
No, you're told your queue is ready and can click a button to enter. Or later as long as that event is actively recruiting. You're never yoinked.
that's not my point? u still get interrupted & u have to chose between event & ur quest, when i want to go when i finish quest but then i need to be on queue again & same thing happens again & in the end i can't cause i ton't like to W8 long time, i hope dev's will deal with that issue
0
sugram84Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 1Arc User
I don't agree with your idea there sir. Making all classes capable of two roles is what TURNED WoW into World of Paladins. Anyone who played WotLK into Cata can tell you if you played a pali/druid, you win. Hands down. Especially since they could change from heal-tank-dps at any point and always be better at it than other base classes of just those types. And if Cryptic were to add in dual-spec in this game, it's no longer D&D. You can multi-class, but you can't just change your character class because it's inconvenient at the time. I understand that getting into dungeons and all is challenging if people aren't looking for EXACTLY the same dungeon/class combination you are, but answering this by making every class be every other class is a terrible plan. And the combining stats to make parties more preferable for every class? I've heard something similar to that before, I think it was in a school debate...something about kids weren't passing tests, so make the tests easier...
i agree, that capable of two roles is good, the secret world has this system to, i'm not saying that 1 role system is bad but i'm saying that two role system is better more fun, i like healer but i never play with healer, u know why? healers die if they solo & their damage is bad/low to, with healer i'm always depending on others but i like to be strong support, that i have good dam & wont die easy, & so far in all games helers are so weak u cant even solo mane quests with out getting killed 20 times when other die only 5 times, weaker then mage's & wisards, at lest in games i have play'd
only game where heler was fine was not a MMO, it was NWN2, i mean favoritesoul class, cleric was still bit weak but playable, better then in MMO'S, this posts give dev's a lot of info so i hope they take them on count & solve problems what are in other games & solve them here , i mean that they wont repeat mistakes here, mistakes what other games have
I like the idea of an open group format, especially one in which I can control. Though I am concerned about one thing off the top of my head. Would there be a limit to this grouping? Most games only only allow 5 to 6 people in a squad/group. As a healer in PWI I can have up to 9 other people with me in a squad under certain circumstances. If I am the only healer, this can test your abilities at times. I'm just wondering once a squad has maxed out, would the left over people in an area then start an new auto squad?
I don't agree with your idea there sir. Making all classes capable of two roles is what TURNED WoW into World of Paladins. Anyone who played WotLK into Cata can tell you if you played a pali/druid, you win. Hands down. Especially since they could change from heal-tank-dps at any point and always be better at it than other base classes of just those types. And if Cryptic were to add in dual-spec in this game, it's no longer D&D. You can multi-class, but you can't just change your character class because it's inconvenient at the time. I understand that getting into dungeons and all is challenging if people aren't looking for EXACTLY the same dungeon/class combination you are, but answering this by making every class be every other class is a terrible plan. And the combining stats to make parties more preferable for every class? I've heard something similar to that before, I think it was in a school debate...something about kids weren't passing tests, so make the tests easier...
Nobody said anything about making all classes similar to each other. And the reason druids and pallies became the ultra class in WoW was because ONLY they could have multiple roles- you say making all classes capable of two roles it what made WoW all about pallies, when the exact opposite is true by your exact reasoning- most classes had only one role, a few had two and two had all three.
I'm not asking for every class to fill every role- but I think most can fill two roles. (I'll admit I'm going off 3rd edition, as I never had any interest in 4e so I'm not sure how classes changed). All classes can be/should be capable of filling a DPS role, and to my understanding that's more than possible. The following classes should be able to fill a second role too though-
-Bards as healers/support
-Clerics as healers or even tanks (though I hear they finally got their armour nerfed in 4e)
-Pallies as tanks, maybe healers
-Ranger healers
-Fighter tanks
-Barb tanks
Some of the roles might also take a bit of alteration- but any game will alter to fit what needs to be there.
-Wizards with defensive spells and control can fulfill an alternative tank style
-monks as dodge tanks
-rogues as either dodge/debuff tanks or with high UMD as magic item specialists/off healers
You don't have to change what all those classes already do- merely enhance some things such as the weakness of ranger/pally heals.
Before you guys go into a more argumentative mode, let me remind you that in 4e we have something called primary and secondary role. Primary role is what depends on class and in which you are really good at naturally, but there is something like secondary role too. So a cleric for example, can be ... sorry... is a leader in primary role, but he can be a striker as secondary role. Or a leader+controller.
You can also have a tertiary role. However, remember the more you flatten out for versatility, the less effective you start becoming in your primary role. However, you will always remain better in your primary role, than for example, a person having it as secondary role.
There are synergies in roles too. So if you want to be a striker and controller, you may need to invest equally in strength and intelligence while increasing your stats, or blah blah blah.
I think I explained enough, I am too lazy to type more ...
0
denkasaebaMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited November 2012
I can see everything viable... but not ranger healers. Ranger tank seems viable (since they were basically tanks up to 4e)
Dilige, et quod vis fac (Love, and do what you will)
Before you guys go into a more argumentative mode, let me remind you that in 4e we have something called primary and secondary role. Primary role is what depends on class and in which you are really good at naturally, but there is something like secondary role too. So a cleric for example, can be ... sorry... is a leader in primary role, but he can be a striker as secondary role. Or a leader+controller.
You can also have a tertiary role. However, remember the more you flatten out for versatility, the less effective you start becoming in your primary role. However, you will always remain better in your primary role, than for example, a person having it as secondary role.
There are synergies in roles too. So if you want to be a striker and controller, you may need to invest equally in strength and intelligence while increasing your stats, or blah blah blah.
I think I explained enough, I am too lazy to type more ...
I was thinking from 1st/3rd Edition perspectives, so I hadn't even considered secondary roles. I just don't want everyone to be able to run around and play every role perfectly. I dont mind seeing a druid who can control a battlefield and another who can take all the hits, I just don't want to see 1 druid who can do both flawlessly. I hate when it comes to the point where a class can fill every role simultaneously without even trying. As long as they keep it so that you can only fill one role fully, I'm happy.
I was thinking from 1st/3rd Edition perspectives, so I hadn't even considered secondary roles. I just don't want everyone to be able to run around and play every role perfectly. I dont mind seeing a druid who can control a battlefield and another who can take all the hits, I just don't want to see 1 druid who can do both flawlessly. I hate when it comes to the point where a class can fill every role simultaneously without even trying. As long as they keep it so that you can only fill one role fully, I'm happy.
Giving example of druid, their primary role is that of controller. They have two ways to fight - one using animal form and close combat - other from far off using abilities.
If you choose to specialize in animal forms (close combats) you take secondary role of striker. (Though you can take some other secondary role, but that would be kind of stupid if your strength is close combat).
Similarly, if you go the path of standing far away and controlling grasses and stuff - your secondary role is that of leader. So you can buff/heal etc. other people. Close combat won't be your forte.
You can ofcourse take all three - but that would mean rearranging your abilities, ability stats (STR, WIS etc.) and other things and to balance them out. This will actually make you weaker in other roles.
So you can be -
Maximized Controller (with weak role of leader{you take those powers but you do not balance stats for leader})
Controller+leader (how it should be - versatile and strong, optimized - having one stat high, other stat high too but lower than primary)
Controller+leader+striker (jack of all trade but unoptimized and weak)
or something like that. This is just to give you an idea how it is, but if you have any questions on it let me know and I can go into details. But mind you, NWO is based on 4e, not a copy of 4e. So a lot I say here would be moot in game.
0
denkasaebaMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I was thinking from 1st/3rd Edition perspectives, so I hadn't even considered secondary roles. I just don't want everyone to be able to run around and play every role perfectly. I dont mind seeing a druid who can control a battlefield and another who can take all the hits, I just don't want to see 1 druid who can do both flawlessly. I hate when it comes to the point where a class can fill every role simultaneously without even trying. As long as they keep it so that you can only fill one role fully, I'm happy.
I didn't read the whole thread, but i suppose that your fear comes from WoW, where multirole classes like druid or paladin are often overpowered.
I don't think it will be the case: in 4e there are many examples of subrole builds: i could name the whole monk class, the sorcerer class, some warlock builds, the druid class, etc. For instance, the druid class in 4e is defined as a primary controller, but its builds really shift it into a good secondary role. For instance the predator druid has a decent single target DPR, but it pays this DPR with reduced control.
The sentinel druid, which is a build appeared in the essential line, is technically a leader but it has really strong defender or controller secondaries... and this means it doesn't really do the leader job as other "pure" leaders do.
If Cryptic manages to keep this balance into the mmo, and it shouldn't be too hard, we'll have good balance between roles.
Dilige, et quod vis fac (Love, and do what you will)
St. Augustinus
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited November 2012
I know Cryptic's intent with the build specifics in classes is to lock down specifics or sub roles depending on the build, but it all depends how the build is literally built in the MMO game and if we have multiple builds per class. This is something initially that will shape the party system at release and not simply allow for a delay. Time will tell at release.
Comments
true, what ever they do i hope GM'S here will learn from problems we all pointed out & try to do it better in this game
i have never play'd WOW cause monthly fee games are waste of money
thats why I love ddo.
On normal - even epic - practicaly everyone can solo.
And on other difficulty u post a grouping and wait a moment.
I never EVER waited more than 20-30 mins :P. If I did I went solo - and thats it.
For me auto-grouping kills MMO. Im sorry but thats what it does for me.
I dont like being put in a group with random people. And I hate being forced to group with someone.
Sometimes I want to solo. Sometimes I want to go with certain ppl I know. And sometimes I want to go with randoms.
But I never want to be forced to do anything.
It irritates me that in gw2 sometimes I had to play with so big idiots that it was hurtfull for me and everyone around...People who do not listen to tactic, people who run around like a chicken without a head or people who "shout" things in language I dont understand or things like "hey sexy .... wanna go on side?" etc., or even worse people who were following me with no reason all the time until I logged out.
I just hate it. And I want to avoid it.
And well.... In other games it was "Oh look <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> posted lfm, I know him, we played so much some time ago". Playing like that u can make realy great friendships - really because I met some of these ppl in real life and we get on really well. In GW2 when u do not really choose with who you group you practically do not look at their nicks/you treat them all like randoms - sort of hirelings - for a one instance.
Oh and pikes getting award for hitting once - that is also not fine : P.
And really reallyh I prefer to wait 10-15 mins on grouping rather than the above.
Sorry for that but... thats my opinion.
I would prefer a more traditional system where you make your own party, tbh the click on a button to queue up for dungeons and the like sounds like the system they have in Forgotten world.
Neverwinter Thieves Guild
Yeah, loot is another part of the game where gw2 can't be a term of comparison since, well... there's no loot in gw2.
I agree with the last part.
St. Augustinus
And the cleric taketh out his tome and wipeth the dust off with broom, taken frometh the body of a recently burenedeth witch. He wipeseth of the dust and begineth reading.
There waseth a time when the content of DDO was not solo ableth, yes, it was not so at launcheth. Neither was it just after laucnheth nor it was just before launcheth. There waseth a time when Ieth waited moreth than oneth hour, not two, not zero but oneth hour - but the groupeth had not rogueth. Some groupeth calleth me - the clericeth but nay, they were refused.
And so it waseth before.
the cleric closes the tome and throws it in the iron maiden - with its nails still wet with blood and locks it up inside. Then he proceeds in common tongue...
The whole point of forced grouping(Quests requiring a group) actually was good for DDO as people became more social and most of the times were ready to take new people and teach them quests. However, later bringing in hirelings and making much content solo-able made that "social" part go away as elitist mentality started arising and groups started to have demands for power builds etc. Quests became more like a mundane tasks to go over and over again with same kind of power builds.
I hope NW doesn't fall in that pitfall. It completely destroys the social part in the MMOs. They should lay stress on grouping. RaiderZ would be an ideal example in my opinion.
well i have not play'd ddo more then to lvl 15 cause all quests are locked after that & i quit, i play'd it when it went to F2P, at F2P early stages, i remember rogue was duff with bow
yes Events
I'd much rather have grouping that matches the gameplay- and gameplay that awards participation and teamwork. Dungeons and Dragons is ultimately about a party working as a team- that's what pnp is about, games are about, even if you read all the novels they are generally about a team working together to make up each other's strengths and weaknesses (the original Dragonlance trilogy is a perfect example of this). I'd rather not see grouping become a mindless mash up of whoever comes, since there is absolutely no need to work together- and that's the biggest flaw of GW2's grouping system and content, and on their forums has been the target of nonstop criticism.
Of course, having DDO's 'you must group, which includes at least a healer, tank, caster, rogue and two others (prob one more healer and dps)' most of the time leads to epic long waits, and in that game there's hundreds of dungeons so getting the one you want can also be a challenge. If you have though a lot of solo-able content with several dungeons dispersed between you make it easy to find something to do while waiting, and generally people willing to do it.
It's not so much about having easy group making- it's about the rest of the game. For example- most of the time it is healers and tanks that are the two things you wait for to get a dungeon group. However, if you make all classes capable of two roles, you make more healers and tanks. Add in dual spec and they'll have that second spec even while levelling, or make respeccing something you can do any time you want and you have a large pool. Reduce reliance on heal/tank specific stats (ie- in WoW they changed pure '+heal' gear into just spellpower, where they are now you can heal and dps in the same gear) and you lose the excuse of 'I don't have the right gear for it', you end up with a group that can very easily fill the heal/tank role, as the only excuse to not would be 'I do not like to do it'.
Chances are, given the option of tank or wait a half hour, at least one person in your party will man up.
Anyway, point is- how grouping is done will depend on the game, and GW2's grouping works only for a game where there's absolutely no roles and you're just an insect in a tide of insects crawling all over that giant whatever until it's a carcass, where the only real difference between you and the next person is ranged or not ranged- ie, living or dead. GW2's grouping won't work elsewhere unless the game's like that- and I really hope NWO is nothing like GW2.
I like that they have open world events, 'contests' as they say, too.
Competition and cooperation- two of the staples of an mmo.
u W8 in the queue & do quests & suddenly u get interrupted pi loading screen, not funn
This GW2 method is actually more of a social game because it is all inclusive. Everyone fights, you get a piece of the XP if you are involved. It may eliminate some of the social chit chat but it also eliminates the l33t skilz dudes and wannabe General Patton types who think you have to play the game their way. I have not played much yet, I just started playing. It is a free for all but everyone fights and everyone can heal. I have been healed in the middle of combat by a perfect stranger because they can. I do the same when I can. You want to play and help anyone because y9ou can.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Well, if you do not like events, you do not have to do them- do contests instead which sound to be more like PQs in WAR or rifts in... you know. Unlike most examples in games where the response to 'you do not have to do it if you do not want to' is 'well there is no content for someone who doesn't want that', they are giving both the instance lovers and the open world event lovers something here. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Though, I don't see how doing quests, then going to this group event I chose to queue for because I wanted to do it isn't fun, perhaps you could explain how doing the content I wish to do hassle free and on my terms, with alternatives if I happened to not want to do that, is not fun.
Yes, I do realize that in GW2 you can, through perseverance and time, do almost any event whether you have a crowd of 50 or 2, but that speaks more to the complete streamlining, blandness and lack of any difficulty of that game- where other than the stupid fire elemental in metrica province (and cheap underwater areas that rely on the extremely broken underwater combat) there's zero challenge. If I had to chose between having bland, easy, repetitive content (ie- Orr zerg rushing aka GW2 endgame) that is always accessible and challenging content I have to know my role to do but I have to sometimes wait half an hour for a group- I'd much rather wait for a fun experience than always be experiencing mediocrity.
its not that i ton't like them, it more like i ton't like to be in queue when i do quests
Fair enough, at least with both 'contests' and 'events', there will be something for people who don't like queues like you, and people who are ok with them like me- so it would seem PWE it taking both our demographics into consideration, which I think is a good thing.
No, you're told your queue is ready and can click a button to enter. Or later as long as that event is actively recruiting. You're never yoinked.
You get your own loot separate from the person who initiated the fight. And as for the party system, do you know HOW many times I waited for mobs to spawn just to have a tank run over, pull them all, and leave nothing for me? As a priest, it was enough that I would log out for days at a time and wait 'till no one else was on just so I could get some loot/quests completed. I used to run into people or groups of people who would do this, and I'd spend tons of time just waiting for them to leave. They'd clean a whole area, wait for the next spawn sets, and I might get one or two while they took ALL the rest. A cycle that I HATED and repeated every other day I did quests alone.
I completely utterly agree. I'd add the personal quest to the "challenge box", since it has some parts that aren't easy at all (aka: broken, especially if you play an elementalist against destroyer crabs), but this doesn't make the endgame less boring. Hyjal and Icecrown were 10000 times better than Orr.
St. Augustinus
I don't agree with your idea there sir. Making all classes capable of two roles is what TURNED WoW into World of Paladins. Anyone who played WotLK into Cata can tell you if you played a pali/druid, you win. Hands down. Especially since they could change from heal-tank-dps at any point and always be better at it than other base classes of just those types. And if Cryptic were to add in dual-spec in this game, it's no longer D&D. You can multi-class, but you can't just change your character class because it's inconvenient at the time. I understand that getting into dungeons and all is challenging if people aren't looking for EXACTLY the same dungeon/class combination you are, but answering this by making every class be every other class is a terrible plan. And the combining stats to make parties more preferable for every class? I've heard something similar to that before, I think it was in a school debate...something about kids weren't passing tests, so make the tests easier...
that's not my point? u still get interrupted & u have to chose between event & ur quest, when i want to go when i finish quest but then i need to be on queue again & same thing happens again & in the end i can't cause i ton't like to W8 long time, i hope dev's will deal with that issue
i agree, that capable of two roles is good, the secret world has this system to, i'm not saying that 1 role system is bad but i'm saying that two role system is better more fun, i like healer but i never play with healer, u know why? healers die if they solo & their damage is bad/low to, with healer i'm always depending on others but i like to be strong support, that i have good dam & wont die easy, & so far in all games helers are so weak u cant even solo mane quests with out getting killed 20 times when other die only 5 times, weaker then mage's & wisards, at lest in games i have play'd
only game where heler was fine was not a MMO, it was NWN2, i mean favoritesoul class, cleric was still bit weak but playable, better then in MMO'S, this posts give dev's a lot of info so i hope they take them on count & solve problems what are in other games & solve them here
Nobody said anything about making all classes similar to each other. And the reason druids and pallies became the ultra class in WoW was because ONLY they could have multiple roles- you say making all classes capable of two roles it what made WoW all about pallies, when the exact opposite is true by your exact reasoning- most classes had only one role, a few had two and two had all three.
I'm not asking for every class to fill every role- but I think most can fill two roles. (I'll admit I'm going off 3rd edition, as I never had any interest in 4e so I'm not sure how classes changed). All classes can be/should be capable of filling a DPS role, and to my understanding that's more than possible. The following classes should be able to fill a second role too though-
-Bards as healers/support
-Clerics as healers or even tanks (though I hear they finally got their armour nerfed in 4e)
-Pallies as tanks, maybe healers
-Ranger healers
-Fighter tanks
-Barb tanks
Some of the roles might also take a bit of alteration- but any game will alter to fit what needs to be there.
-Wizards with defensive spells and control can fulfill an alternative tank style
-monks as dodge tanks
-rogues as either dodge/debuff tanks or with high UMD as magic item specialists/off healers
You don't have to change what all those classes already do- merely enhance some things such as the weakness of ranger/pally heals.
You can also have a tertiary role. However, remember the more you flatten out for versatility, the less effective you start becoming in your primary role. However, you will always remain better in your primary role, than for example, a person having it as secondary role.
There are synergies in roles too. So if you want to be a striker and controller, you may need to invest equally in strength and intelligence while increasing your stats, or blah blah blah.
I think I explained enough, I am too lazy to type more ...
St. Augustinus
I was thinking from 1st/3rd Edition perspectives, so I hadn't even considered secondary roles. I just don't want everyone to be able to run around and play every role perfectly. I dont mind seeing a druid who can control a battlefield and another who can take all the hits, I just don't want to see 1 druid who can do both flawlessly. I hate when it comes to the point where a class can fill every role simultaneously without even trying. As long as they keep it so that you can only fill one role fully, I'm happy.
Giving example of druid, their primary role is that of controller. They have two ways to fight - one using animal form and close combat - other from far off using abilities.
If you choose to specialize in animal forms (close combats) you take secondary role of striker. (Though you can take some other secondary role, but that would be kind of stupid if your strength is close combat).
Similarly, if you go the path of standing far away and controlling grasses and stuff - your secondary role is that of leader. So you can buff/heal etc. other people. Close combat won't be your forte.
You can ofcourse take all three - but that would mean rearranging your abilities, ability stats (STR, WIS etc.) and other things and to balance them out. This will actually make you weaker in other roles.
So you can be -
Maximized Controller (with weak role of leader{you take those powers but you do not balance stats for leader})
Controller+leader (how it should be - versatile and strong, optimized - having one stat high, other stat high too but lower than primary)
Controller+leader+striker (jack of all trade but unoptimized and weak)
or something like that. This is just to give you an idea how it is, but if you have any questions on it let me know and I can go into details. But mind you, NWO is based on 4e, not a copy of 4e. So a lot I say here would be moot in game.
I didn't read the whole thread, but i suppose that your fear comes from WoW, where multirole classes like druid or paladin are often overpowered.
I don't think it will be the case: in 4e there are many examples of subrole builds: i could name the whole monk class, the sorcerer class, some warlock builds, the druid class, etc. For instance, the druid class in 4e is defined as a primary controller, but its builds really shift it into a good secondary role. For instance the predator druid has a decent single target DPR, but it pays this DPR with reduced control.
The sentinel druid, which is a build appeared in the essential line, is technically a leader but it has really strong defender or controller secondaries... and this means it doesn't really do the leader job as other "pure" leaders do.
If Cryptic manages to keep this balance into the mmo, and it shouldn't be too hard, we'll have good balance between roles.
St. Augustinus