Announcements
Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2
Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.
It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.
To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.
Personally, I liked, in order of time spent playing, but not necessarily in order of what was most fun:
1) Solo
2) Duo with rl friend/family
3) Full eight creeping chaos of doooooooooommm!!!
Eight was wild and woolly in CoH. I've played 5 on other games since, and it never has the same... energy of a full team of 8 rolling in CoH.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
There's a lot I didn't like about SWTOR, but one thing I did like is that some of the content designed for teams allowed me to ignore all the warnings and make a solo attempt anyway. Sometimes, with some characters, I was actually able to succeed. Most of the time I was not. But it felt "right" because ultimately I was the one who decided I really needed a team for this, and not a bouncer at the gate barring entrance.
Spurn all ye kindle.
The single biggest reason I can think of for needing a team size cap of 5 is that people's graphics cards will be less strained to handle it. The thing is, CoX had teams of 8 and I don't remember that being an overly bad problem in CoX (that said, I never had a rig that was wanting for graphics ability). Also, if the team size max is 8, people can still decide not to build teams of more than 4 or 5 just to keep their computer from overheating if they need to. If you cap the team size at 5, you're eliminating the 6, 7, and 8 options from those people who might want it, just to guarantee that nobody ever has graphics card issues, which people will still have when doing Trials, large zone-wide events, or even just standing around the Park talking to the popular contacts or in the dance club. So for one thing that graphics card strain is unavoidable anyway, in some places, and for another it can still be handled on a person-by-person basis if those people just form teams of 4-5 by choice and roll with that. Also, there are graphics settings controls (or I expect there to be) which could reduce the lag to the point where you're maybe ok with 8 people, if that's what you want to do.
A team cap of 8 gives everyone the freedom to stop at 5 by choice, a team cap of 5 does not offer the same flexibility to the people who like/want larger teams. And there will be larger groups of toons running around for various reasons. We might get iTrial-like TFs that can scale from 4 to whatever three or four full teams is.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Continuing on with the team breakdown....I remember the most powerful steamrolling teams being
1 Tank/Brute
1 Any DPS
1 Control/Dominator
1 Any Buff
4 Any Debuff
The more debuff the quicker the flow from mob to mob.
I still don't understand the opposition of regular team sizes larger than 8 as this restricts no one. I would however understand opposition to having minimums in normal missions and TFs as this restricts everyone. Of course we all have differing opinions and I will leave it as such.
I reserve the right to have an opinion. You reserve the right to not agree.
Personally, I think people don't want the 8 man team because it reminds them too much of CoH. There are some on here that want to try to get as far away from CoH as they possibly can, which for the life of me I can't understand why, and will try to push for as many things as possible to make sure that it's not some kind of CoH clone. Funny thing is, we've already established that CoT isn't going to be a CoH clone. But that doesn't mean we can't still try to keep it as close to the original game that we all loved and dearly miss and for why this game is even being developed in the first place!
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
If they need to avoid teams of 8 as a max in an attempt to avoid copyright issues, I would go to either 10 or 7. If you think you can scale up all of the basic NPC-contact given missions to 10 people, go with that, if not, the size limit of 7 is better than 6 because when you have that 8th person, you have to then divide the team into 2 teams of 4, which is at least balanced. If the limit were 6, this means when you have 7 you have to divide into a team of 4 and a team of 3, and then it's a fight to decide which team get's the extra person, etc. That 4th person could be the difference between being able to do a TF or not, for example. The 4 vs 3 decision might also be the point at which you can get an AV in the mission instead of an EB, possibly. More often than not, the leader of the team would probably pick the 3 other people he wants to do a 4-person team with and then kick the other 3 to the curb.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Personally I would prefer having more options instead off less. A higher maximum team size does not hinder anyone and offers more flexibility. I think it is well established by now that the difficulty will adapt itself to the team size, balance will not be an issue.
They pretty much do let you walk in through the front door solo (and as long as you meet the minimum level requirement in some cases) of dungeons and raids[1]. At least in Wildstar/World of Warcraft they do.
Now using their "teaming" tools (looking for team/looking for raid) and what not, where you get teleported to the dungeon/raid from anywhere in the world... if you try to enter by THAT method, you will need a full group (or whatever the rules are for them... Looking for Raid in WoW has a minimum number now, so you don't need to wait for the full 25 to start it I believe)
This is why I have actually been against a "minimum number" to start Raid/Dungeon style content in CoT and scaling that down all the way to a single player level. And also why I am against mechanics that actually require 100% of the maximum number of players to be alive at any point in time in fights.
Of course, you ahve to remember that for these games, the vast majority of their content is NON-instanced, so it is strange for them to actually *limit* the player going through the front door. Infact, they are more of the rule "if you can see it, you can get there" in terms of feel. In CoX it was a case of "You don't know where to go until you get the mission".
And although it didn't happen often, you could have multiple missions all use the same door (somehow).
Not kidding. I once spent 8 missions (out of 12 that we did) going in and out of the same door *EACH* and every time. I never knew that the office could be rebuilt that fast... and that there was a cave system behind the same door that lead into an atrium.
[1] Depends on the game for raids, some games you have to have at least one other person in the "raid group" to go in, others you can just waltz in through the front door.
Hey all. First post but a long time CoH/CoV player. I think 10 or 12 to a team would be a good thing too. Not to big and not small. Having played games where it limited you to 4 to 8 (unless you were doing an OP like in SWTOR), 10 or 12 would be a nice size group that is well manageable in my opinion.
Welcome Ghost-Spectre!
The comic book universe is a strange place.
Perhaps that door was a secret entrance that was enchanted or used portal tech to transport you to a secret location...
or at least that's the story I went with in my head to maintain suspension of disbelief :P.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
It sounds from what Gangrel wrote above that your basic deal in a lot of MMOs is that you're either fighting open-world stuff that's just out there, like the street sweeping we did in CoX, complete with places like Monster Island and the Clockwork Paladin, etc, then there are queues you can jump into to join a raid. The queue for the raid has a certain minimum to get it to fire and/or they only fire every so often in order to give poeple the chance to get into the one they want with their friends, etc.
What you could do is have that, then also have an NPC for each raid that lets a "private party" try to do the raid, with no added queue people. That way a single person could talk to he contact and start their own instance of the raid just for themself. They should be warned vehemently and profusely by the NPC and maybe even by out-of-immersion warnings that they're attempting to do something originally intended for X or more people, but I'm willing to let them try. Your private party could consist of just you and a few close friends, just your SG, or whatever. No random people at all from the queue just the us Cool Kids that are in the Cool Kids Club.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
I always realized the the different mission right into the same next door was just a limitation of the game itself, so never had to use anything but my imagination in thinking it was somewhere else.
In terms of them firing off, it is either when you have a full group (typically for dungeons). Some games allow you to join the group finder already in a "partial" group, and then the missing members can be filled out with randoms. Or you can just walk to the entrance and go in.
Or if you have a full group you can "cheat" the LFG interface, buy joining up as a full group and getting the free TP there.
The NPC thing is overthinking it. It is basically "get your friends together and go to the entrance and in you go". Doesn't matter if its a dungeon or raid, as long as you meet the level requirement, you are not prevented from walking in through the front door. The only limitation is if you try to bring in MORE players than the instance allows (this would be like trying to bring an Itrial 3 team raid into a normal CoX mission. Aint going to happen).
Now saying that, that is NOT to say that you cannot add extra options to the "Looking for X" interface. CoX had the ability to *lock* an iTrial raid so no new people could join it and as long as you had the minimum number of players for the itrial you could just get it started.
And grab a free teleport to the start of the instance.
Hell, you could even do the same with dungeons and their equivalents if you wanted to 2-4 man a dungeons/team event and didn't want to walk to the mission interface.
I like the idea of having a "TF giver" for these things in the open world like the TF-givers that CoX had if for no other reason then just because it gives people wanting to do that TF/Trial a place to hang out and look for other people to join up with. I used to do that a lot in CoX, and in CoX they used to make the whole team gather in the same zone to start, which I kind of liked actually. Having a place to go to look for more peeps to join a team for a specific TF would be nice.
I also had the idea that the regular queues would be totally first come/first served, would fire off either as soon as full or on a timer, whichever comes later, so in slow periods, the TFs would fire off as soon as they had the minimum number of people needed, and during busier times, the TFs would fire off every so many minutes, and probably be full or nearly full when they do. This could lead to groups of friends getting split up due to their relative positions on the queue order, etc. Whereas the "exclusive" version would give the person forming the team total control over the team composition, within certain specified parameters (level ranges, maximum number of toons allowed maybe, etc) and would only even be possible if the person forming it (or maybe even everyone in it) were paying a sub for VIP access. In another thread I even put forth the idea of letting the non-subbers pay some Stars to get in on that one time, meaning that the non-sub person would need to either pay a sub, or pay a small fee for each and every run of a TF they want to do this way, fees to be paid in Stars at time of the TF launch. The "exclusive" way would, in addition to giving the people doing it precise control over who is in and out, and when it starts, would also have better XP/swag rates in the raid/trial/TF itself and /or at the end to make up for the fact that it costs real money (sub paid or individual "ticket cost" fees paid by non-subbers) to do that way.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Have no problem with this at all. It is something a little bit different. Other games have used them (like CoX as you have said) and SWTOR as well.
If a group of friends were in a group and the group leader puts them into the queue for a raid, then I would assume that the group would be kept together. If they all signed up by themselves, then I can see them (possibly) ending up in different groups/raids. It all depends as to what is needed at the time from the servers point of view.
Hell, you could even extend the players individual ignore list to the selection process that you would be far less likely (or NOT AT ALL) to end up in a group with the "ignored" player.
The reason as to WHY "looking for group" stuff works as they do in other games is because they have a range of parameters already set for the searching mechanism. And they also typically fill the holy trinity system to ensure that the group *does* have a chance to completing the content as it has been designed[1].
Yeah, not touching this one.
This really does stink of "Pay to win" in my mind. Without the increase of drop rates and the "define how the server picks your raid" I can see that being a sub option I am for it.
Its just a more automated version of what players could normally do just by communicating with each other[2].
As soon as a "paid raid" gets better rewards, players will assume Pay 2 Win and money grabbing.
[1] That is not to say that it cannot be completed with a different group setup, but that the LFG interface will typically not allow you to throw in 5 support/healer classes and let you go. I know that the WoW and Wildstar ones require you to have a "valid group" if you want to use the LFG interface and away you go. If you want to try something different, you go through the main entrance.
[2] Shock horror... interaction with real life people.
To be clear, my vision of the standard queue would NOT allow people (by design) to enter their entire current team into the raid queue. The way I'm envisioning it, everyone who get's in a queue would be treated as an individual all the time, and when the queue fires off, you get a message telling you to either A) click "OK" to drop out of your current team and join the raid team you were enqueued for, or B) stay on the team you're on and lose your place in the queue once and for all (meaning you don't leave your current team and you're basically dropped out of the queue and are no longer enqueued for anything, and you don't do the raid). When people decide to drop out at the last minute like that, the queue software selects the next person in the queue and offers them the option of join or drop, etc until it get's a full load of people for the TF or runs out of interested individuals in the queue.
Then, it monitors the queue length and resets the cool-down timer for that raid. If the queue fills to the maximum for the raid before the timer is done, it cycles over and starts a new raid early, if the queue never get's full before the timer runs out, it starts the next raid when the timer runs out, if and only if the present queue has the minimum number of people in it to start the raid. If people opt out to the point where the raid is now under the minimum and the queue is empty, it returns everyone that didn't opt out back to the queue and tells them that the raid misfired due to insufficient number of people and that they have to wait for another cool-down time period, or until the queue get's full, whichever comes first.
I would also stipulate that the queue software does not discriminate based on class, so you COULD end up on a team of all tankers, for example, if that's all there were in the queue. For one thing CoX was not quite as "trinity-required" as most games and for another, this is part of the fun and challenge and non-idealness of the queue system that would push people toward forming their own VIP teams, thus encouraging people to subscribe.
The pay to win angle is something I don't really have a problem with in this system because A) you still have to successfully win the raid to get the stuff, you're not just outright BUYING a better gun or whatever, and B) this is PVE anyway, so everybody wins really. It's not like some guy is outright buying a superpower or better enhancement, they still have to complete the raid to get that, and maybe the raid just gives faster XP and more INF in VIP mode and that's it. You're not getting anything that is being denied to the regular queue people, you're just getting it at a (slightly?) faster rate.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Why would you not want to allow a team to enter the queue? Better if you all teams to stay together. They might not even be full teams, looking for a random person to do something with them at max team. Or a duo looking for the rest of the team for the chosen queue.
And that system looks like it could have a 8 person team queueing up for a 10 person dungeon and one of them being left out because 3 others had already said yes to the dungeon.
I hate the idea of 'blind' queues, where you get in line for something and have little control over the situation you arrive at.
In fact, I'd rather have NO queues at all.
Be Well!
Fireheart
Why would I hand over BETTER system to a non-subscriber who isn't paying monthly fees? Why not reserve that type of "better" for the subscriber?
And besides, the fact that this queue is so blind and dumb makes it fairly easy to manipulate. If you and your friends can log on at a given time when the queue isn't terribly busy, and you all click "join queue" at almost exactly the same time, you can probably all get into the same raid together. But yes, there is the possibility of getting split up, intentionally, that's part of what encourages people to pay a darn sub and do it the more controllable way.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
[quote=RadiacWhy would I hand over BETTER system to a non-subscriber who isn't paying monthly fees? Why not reserve that type of "better" for the subscriber?
And besides, the fact that this queue is so blind and dumb makes it fairly easy to manipulate. If you and your friends can log on at a given time when the queue isn't terribly busy, and you all click "join queue" at almost exactly the same time, you can probably all get into the same raid together. But yes, there is the possibility of getting split up, intentionally, that's part of what encourages people to pay a darn sub and do it the more controllable way.[/quote]
haha. Right, cuz that sounds remotely possible. Now, I'm all about giving subscribers some good perks. After all, I plan to be one. But punishing F2P doesn't necessarily encourage subscribing. Especially when it comes to fundamental gameplay mechanics. You want to entice the F2P crowd to stay around long enough and enjoy the game enough to drop a few micro transactions or, eventually, subscribe. My understanding was this was going to be a "buy-to-play" model with an optional sub anyway. If I dropped $30-50 on this game, then wasn't allowed to play with my friends....I would be "very disappointed."
I do agree that MWM shouldn't give away the Cow, just the Milk. ;)
But I would advise against it being a watered down version of the Milk.
If i ran a Baskin-Robbins ice cream store.
I would most likely give a FREE scoop to any customer.
But, only One Flavor, Vanilla, in this case. But I would not use watered down Milk.
It would defeat the purpose of enticing people with a FREE scoop.
If it was watered down, the richness of the flavor/feel would Not entice them, to come again..
or eventually try Another Flavor, Pay. ;)
The sneaky guy that i am, would keep track of the number of times they got a free Vanilla scoop via some sort of voucher(s) given out once per week (people that like/want your product, the more frequently they come in), and it has a date+logo stamping area on it. And when its about full, around 5 day stamps, i would gently nudge or tease them as a reminder that they are just freeloading and didnt once buy anything the whole week. But never show that I was upset, just that its was noticed. ;)
GUILT tactics, just a bit. >;)
Soon "After" allot of people started to participate in the promo, I would throw in customers showing a Receipt of any sort of purchase from last week, from my store, and other customers would catch on and going forward ALWAYS make at least the cheapest purchase for the 1st month...and eventually, they would get tired of the cheapest thing (same thing can get boring) and try something else that cost a bit more. ;D
Notice how it said Free Vanilla Scoop. Doesn't mean it comes with a free Cone or dish or a container. >;D
(Now ensues great discussion of what would make the players experience a watered down one)
And, what/when/where/how is it OK to water down the Free players? ;)
Or some long drawn out heated argument that ends up getting another thread locked by the Devs.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Well, just take the heat out.
Relax.
Here's the thing....
We've been in this long enough to know that the Dev's aren't idiots. They're obviously passionate, and they're also sensible, rational, and circumspect people and are using CoH as both an inspiration and an object lesson.
What are the chances they won't do precisely what any individual one of us would want? Pretty damn close to 100%.
What are the chances that they'll do something that ruins the game? Pretty damn close to 0%.
It's all good, so let's just discuss.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
I'd completely oppose the 'standard queue' you're proposing. When I team up with my friends its because I want to play with them, not be scattered across who knows how many different raids. It sounds like your system would do a great job of discouraging people from teaming up with others.
One of the great things that helped build the CoH community was that you could get on a team with people and stay teamed up across multiple missions/TFs/etc. I made a number of friends that way. Deliberately destroying teams in order to queue runs counter to that.
Pretty much all my thoughts, concerns, issues, and downright resistance and absolute hatred of Radiac's idea can be summed up in the "Pay to Raid' thread that got locked down by the Devs. None of my opposition to this "idea" has changed and it never will. I do not see further discussing this "idea" as I seriously feel that it will lead to the exact same end result of the "Pay to Raid" thread.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
The basic premise I'm hearing that opposes my idea of subscriber versus non-sub queues is that the non-subscribers are not being treated as well as the subscribers. To which my reply is "YES. That was the intention."
It defies common sense to expect anyone in their right mind to deign to pay a $15/month subscription to ANYTHING when they can get the same thing without paying a subscription at all. Somehow, somewhere the game has to have a thing that is visibly, noticeably, and measurably better that what the non-sub is allotted. Every time I try to come up with a place where the game could be improved or upgraded for the sub-paying customers and worsened and downgraded non-subs, the basic reaction is "THAT'S UNFAIR!". And I agree, it is unfair, but isn't also unfair to ask some people to pay money every month to keep a game rolling and let others have all the same stuff without paying that same monthly sub cost?
I'm all for those of us who intend to pay a subscription getting our money's worth out of that subscription, as any rational person would want to do. As soon as you say you're going to GIVE the non-sub people all the same stuff WITHOUT them paying the monthly sub for it, you lose me. Everyone else here seems to be in favor of protecting the privileges of the non-sub player. I'm looking at it from the standpoint of preserving the privileges of the paying subscriber.
I'm personally not interested in trying to entice people into paying a sub by giving them everything they would want WITHOUT paying that sub. I mean, what percentage of the non-subbers simply cannot afford to pay a sub, period? You're NOT going to be successful in enticing them to pay anything ever if they simply don't have the money, so that's a lost cause, and you're kind of obligated to give the paying subscribers more for their money, aren't you?
If the VIP version of the raid entry isn't somehow better than the non-sub version, this is one less place where you can make the sub experience better than the non-sub experience. If you lose too many of those places where one thing is better than the other, nobody has any reason to pay a sub.
People hate "Subscription only"
People hate "no sub ever, just micro transactions"
People hate hybrid models.
In short, people hate paying money for stuff they want.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
I oppose your queueing suggestion because it is community-destroying, not due to any VIP versus F2P aspects.
You can have different levels of service/whatever, but all levels, including the base F2P one, should be designed to encourage the community, not discourage it.
As a compromise, I think it would be enough of an incentive for subscribing if that enables you, as team leader, to enter some kind of lobby, where you could see who is in the queue and pick from that pool. And then click "start" when everyone is ready.
However one should respect that teams want to stay together and the routine should at least try to keep teams intact when possible. If there is room for eight and only a team of six and a team of three enter the queue, one will have to be left out.
But to soften the blow, there could be a dialogue box asking if they want to stay together and wait a little longer or split up and most likely get into the action much faster.
I have expierienced similar systems and the worked pretty well. And honestly, getting seperated from the team for a short time did not have that strong of an impact on me or my friends. We would just rebuild the team and talk about what we had expirienced. Some had better teams, some had really bad ones and that gave us something to talk about.
Or... We could keep the heat in.
Rock on. I'm not the droid you're looking for :P.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
I did try to warn you.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
True dat. Fair enough :).
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
my concern is also more about system breaking apart teams of friends and then reforming teams randomly from a pool of players...and invariably everyone is shunted to different teams. part of the fun is playing together...a shared experience...
Bob:"remember that wipe we did on Dr Evilrobot?"
Jane: "yeah! that was the worst ever especially when Jack decided to dance emote in the middle of the massive AOE of Doom!"
Jack: "what!?! I was RPing what my character would do at that moment is all...*innocent grin*..."
Bob and Jane: "yeah...riiiight.....HAHAHAHAH"
I can't speak for the rest but when in a team...I enjoy playing with the team just for those shared experiences. in the suggestion above, I could possibly be shunted to a completely new team, and while I may still enjoy playing, it wont be the same as I was hoping to play with my established team.
I would suggest that if a random pool thing was done...established teams should get some kind of option to remain together. if they are short of being a full team, just give them a pop up box asking if they would like to have new members added randomly. or, give a listing of all characters currently sitting in the queue and let them select the new members themselves.
my opinion here has nothing to do with subs vs nonsubs...it is purely from the stand point of playing a game and how I get the most entertainment out of it. :)
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
In terms of the teams getting broken up, I still think the basic "first come, first served" queue can and will be manipulated by people reasonably well to make that not happen terribly often. I mean, if you and the other 4 people on your team all click "enqueue" at like the same time, you'll likely be in consecutive positions in the queue. As long as you maintain communication with each other, all you have to do is ask "Did we ALL just get the 'join or dump out'" message? Ok, then join!" If someone doesn't get the option to join right away, everyone dumps out and re-queues for the next one. I feel like that's pretty fool proof, most of the time, but you still have no control over what classes are represented or what other random Leroy Jenkinses you get saddles with, which is the "Iron cost" of doing the raid as a non-sub basically.
And on the subject of splitting the community, which I agree is a thing to be concerned about in general, I don't think this queue system does that too badly, really. For one thing, the VIPs can still join the regular queues if they need to, and for another, part of the idea was to open up the VIP raid access to the non-subs for a one time fee every time. I know some people hate this idea, but assume for a second that A) NOT ALL TFs will work this way, only some of them which are "premium" raids (the rest will be "regular" and free for everyone to do as much as they want, like the original TFs in CoX) and B) recall that in CoX, the Incarnate System, in it's entirety was completely exclusive to the paying subscribers, non-subs who had HAD some Incarnate stuff LOST it when their sub dropped. If, in this system, the TFs and raids that are gated using the queue tools I'm describing are the analog of the Incarnate Trials form CoX, this system does NOT exclude the non-sub from those trials or from the rewards they yield (like CoX did) but rather just makes people have to queue in awkwardly as a price of not subscribing, and even THEN allows them to queue in the GOOD way for a small fee (a buck or two). This is WAY less divisive than CoX was, and compared to WoW, heck, in WoW you don't even go above level 20 without a sub, which basically makes that a sub-only game with a "try out" option. So it's not the WORST you could do to people I feel, and certainly not as bad as the game we're "spiritual successor" to in any event.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
How about we get back to discussing Team Size and not how to monetize CoT, split the community, create pay to win scenarios, and force people into buying subscriptions that we really don't know anything about?
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Because we do have another thread going on for saying subscription games are better *nod nod*
I don't see a problem with 5 member teams, but if they can make the game work without making it to easy on 8 person teams, I'm not going to complain. Just not sure if we need the 8 person defender teams of making it all trivial :p Well...with the right 8 defenders anyways...lets not think it could be done with just any defender team makeup. :p
Yeah your proposed queue system still stinks of "give us money or you suck balls, and you cannot even be guaranteed to play with your friends. even if you do join a queue in a group".
The queue as a team facility where it is present in other games (Instead of individually) keeps you together. It doens't break you apart. Sure you might have to wait longer for the missing person, but that is how it works sometimes.
So making it work different to other games (and even then quite a bit different) is not a good idea.
I would rather have "Pay per raid" content, than a group finder that doesn't even guarantee if you will play with your friends unless you spend money.
And Pay Per Raid content is WAY down on my wish list. Somewhere below "getting root canal work done without painkillers" and "have brain surgery done by a monkey" kind of thing.
To be honest, the Level 20 limit for WoW is the unlimited free trial. There is no other trial option (apart from the refer a friend/scroll of resurrection) for WoW. To progress higher, you have to buy the game, and then it becomes sub only. Once you stop subbing and you are above level 20... no go for you.
I personally don't think it's necessary to limit teams to 5 people max to ensure some amount of challenge in the missions.
For one thing, a lot of people will be soloing a lot of stuff, that's a given, for another in an 8-person team max game, you still can't always find 7 other people to team up with every time you WANT to, or 7 that you would LIKE to team up with even. Also, if 8 is the hard cap max for teams, you can still CHOOSE to form smaller teams if you like them better. Lastly, from what the devs have said about the AI, making it challenging enough doesn't sound like it's going to be a problem, and even if it were, there's always the difficulty slider.
And again, the 8-person max provides the OPTION of a 5-person team, the 5-person max takes AWAY the option of the 8-person team.
The one reason I could concede for 5-person max is if they want to ensure the game doesn't crash older/less capable computers. I don't know the specs to be able to address that, but there ought to be graphics detail sliders too, and again, I don't see why a group of 8 hardcore gamers with fast computers should be limited to having to form 2 separate teams just because the game doesn't allow the 8 person team. Plus those people STILL are left with the problem of having aqlmost no ability to do larger raids, which will be a thing. Eight is what CoX had, and 8 is what I would want he "Spiritual Successor" to have, because I like it better than 5.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
There was a team limit of 5 in Tera. I hated it, because it meant that every danged thing was balanced for exactly 1 tank, 1 healer, and 3 DPS. You really couldn't meaningfully deviate from that.
The team size of 8 in CoX was awesome. You could do Tanker Tuesdays and other oddness.
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
I think most people are leaning towards the 8 man team. I really do believe this to be the magic number in regards to teaming in MMO's. We don't want the Holy Trinity team make up, so no 3 man teams. 5 man teams are pretty much 1 Tank, 1 Healer, 3 DPS. Which, basically leaves a lot of people out of being able to team. Sure with an 8 man team you might have redundancy, and possibly over redundancy, but it allows for a much greater flexibility for team make up. It's not falling back on traditional MMO standards using the Holy Trinity as it's base model.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Defeat the holy trinity by use of Tetra+Tetra!
No no, I didn't mean THAT Tetora ...
[img]http://www.anime-planet.com/images/characters/tetra_log_horizon_2_63098.jpg[/img] . [img]http://www.anime-planet.com/images/characters/tetra_log_horizon_2_63098.jpg[/img]
Most ... annoying ... cleric h34l0r EVAR ...
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
The problem with any Trinity or 'Trinity-plus-DPS' team makeup is that it leaves the Controller stuck at the station. Larger team-limits leave more room for variety.
Be Well!
Fireheart
The number 5 has appeared 919 times
The number 6 has appeared 441 times
The number 7 has appeared 470 times
The number 8 has appeared 539 times
I didn't search for numbers smaller than 5 or larger than 8.
5 seems to be the most popular suggestion.
Personally I don't team, but If I did I'd want 8 to be the maximum, just because it gives the most options.
if the difficulty is scaled to team size you won't have to worry about not having enough people
but if you have that many people it would be nice to let them all play together.
Of course I'd like the minimum number to be 1 for most stuff
and a clear warning in bold red letters (so I won't miss it) when missions are impossible to solo.
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/browse/pub/3185/Crusader-Game-Books
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC48O9dPcNVdeyNM4efAvX6w/videos?view_as=subscriber
Impossible--warn me with bold red letters.
Improbable--DARE me with bold red letters!
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
I see your numbers, but I'd double-check the conclusion, since I seem to recall people often using '5' as an example of Inadequate team-size.
Be Well!
Fireheart
OK I just used Ctrl + f and saw the number of results. then added up the total for all 4 pages.
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/browse/pub/3185/Crusader-Game-Books
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC48O9dPcNVdeyNM4efAvX6w/videos?view_as=subscriber
I prefer 8. allows for scaling back if needed, or wanted, and also can lead to some controlled chaos depending on the team make up.
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
Your conclusion is not supportable using the data you cite. You're making a HUGE leap there which is just not logical to make. I personally said "I dislike 5 as a maximum" or words to that effect a lot. Each instance of the number 5 is not a vote IN FAVOR of that, per se. You're also not counting "eight" as "8" etc.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
If we could have polls on the forums, this would be easy.
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
polls...bah...polls are for the weak! :p
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
Okay, I have read this thread a second time now, doing my best to count and categorize the opinions that were stated here. This is what came out:
-One poster is in favor of a team size of one. Although that may have been a joke...
-One poster advertises a maximum team size of fife to seven
-25 people said they would like it to be eight or higher
-15 people even wanted ten or more as maximum team size. Twelve came up fairly often and 15 and 16 a few times. The highest request I found was 40.
I did this rather hastily, so I could have erred or missed someone. Some posts also were a bit vague and while I did my best to interpret them I am not entirely sure I got everyone right. Also there was one mentioning of a team size of four and one of six, but the people in question later seemed to have changed their minds to eight.
I hope this helps.
...someone was bored.... hehe :p
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
Well yes, I am bored a lot nowadays. Since December 2012, to be precise ;)
I feel ya daw... er, cat.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
Quite a lot. Thanks for the effort!
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
Which makes your numbers almost as invalid as political polls.
Using Ctrl+f will count every single number on the page, including the time stamp on each post, each post number, the Joined date for each person who posted, and the Last Seen time stamp for each person who posted. Just for starters, the 2015 in all those timestamps invalidates your results for the number 5..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32
True but it had the desired effect
To get people looking at what the consensus is
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/browse/pub/3185/Crusader-Game-Books
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC48O9dPcNVdeyNM4efAvX6w/videos?view_as=subscriber
I feel so used...
...
Nah, just joking ;)
I highly doubt having a team size the same as CoH would ever be an intellectual property issue, or otherwise all the games with 5-person teams would be suing each other over it.
That said, having played CoH, I was greatly spoiled by the 8 person team. I feel more than 8 could be too much in a mission situation. So put me down for a team of 8 with some kind of system like the league from CoH for raids, GMs, etc. If CoT can't be 8 for either balance or technical reasons I really hope we can have at least 6. From my experience with GW2 there was so many times we had 6 friends online and someone had to be left out of running a dungeon.
-----------------------------------------
I never set anything on fire accidentally!
The Titan Legacy - Defender of the Inner Flame
Just to reiterate my opinion, I think CoT should have at least 8 person teams. That's 8. Not less than 8, although more than 8 might be an option. 8, not non-8 numbers. A number that looks like 8.
That should tweak TMP's numbers a bit. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8D
LOL
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/browse/pub/3185/Crusader-Game-Books
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC48O9dPcNVdeyNM4efAvX6w/videos?view_as=subscriber
A Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20:
Then did he raise on high the Holy Teaming of Antioch, saying, "Bless this team, O Lord, that with it thou mayst take down thine enemies, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou formest the Holy Team. Then thou must gather to 8. 8 shall be the number of the gathering and the number of the gathering shall be 8. Nine shalt thou not gather, neither shalt thou gather seven, excepting that thou then proceedeth to 8. Ten is right out. Once the number 8, being the number of the gathering, be reached, then propel thou the Holy Team in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
I love you guys.
We may fight and grouse and bitch and moan at each other, but I have to say this is one of the best bunch of crazies I've ever been involved with.
ALL HAIL THE VOCAL MINORITY! LONG LIVE THE VOCAL MINORITY!!!
One more thing:
Eight- The word for "eight" (八 Pinyin: bā) sounds similar to the word which means "prosper" or "wealth" (發 – short for "發財", Pinyin: fā). In regional dialects the words for "eight" and "fortune" are also similar, e.g., Cantonese "baat3" and "faat3".
The number eight in context of Chinese meaning of numbers represents a feeling of inclusion. This kind of supernatural balance is personified by the eight Xian (Chinese term for spiritually evolved, enlightened, or immortal).
Legend states these eight immortals were first humans who overcame the worldly challenges and confines to evolve into spiritual advanced beings. To the Chinese mind, number eight has that "anything is possible" feel to it.
The [Death] Sheep [from Hell] is the Chinese zodiac symbol, and South/Southwest is the Feng Shui coordinate for number eight .
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
Mendicant: ROFLMAO
Static: You beat me to it.
Empyrean: This, of course, means that four-person teams are screwed.
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
LOL, true. Dead as doornails, poor things.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
Pages