Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Can there be a 8 man version for NiP?


Slowpokeking's Avatar


Slowpokeking
01.17.2013 , 06:30 PM | #1
Just like other HM OPS bosses, maybe it can add something like WOW vanilla's kazzak, if more than 8 people fight it, it will enrage?

Chaqen's Avatar


Chaqen
01.17.2013 , 07:41 PM | #2
Quote: Originally Posted by Slowpokeking View Post
Just like other HM OPS bosses, maybe it can add something like WOW vanilla's kazzak, if more than 8 people fight it, it will enrage?
I am not certain but i am quite sure you could come close to killing it with 8 people that have NiM EC on farm. I have done it with 12 i think before TFB came out, so overall the dps check is rather low in that fight, and there are multiple ways of doing it with only 2 tanks.
-La'Mis Legacy- Proud Member of Hatred and PUGS

Biskibis-Operative -- Kemenotic-Marauder -- Chaqen-Darksin -- Wallabe-Sniper -- Belsapher-Mercenary

Slowpokeking's Avatar


Slowpokeking
01.17.2013 , 08:15 PM | #3
Quote: Originally Posted by Chaqen View Post
I am not certain but i am quite sure you could come close to killing it with 8 people that have NiM EC on farm. I have done it with 12 i think before TFB came out, so overall the dps check is rather low in that fight, and there are multiple ways of doing it with only 2 tanks.
I mean Bio should make a 8 men version of NiP.

Thundergulch's Avatar


Thundergulch
01.18.2013 , 07:48 AM | #4
No, this boss is meant to be difficult, and with 16 people that haven't done it before it's pretty difficult.
I don't understand why people want easier ways to do stuff.
16 people in full Rakata can do this fight.

Krewel's Avatar


Krewel
01.18.2013 , 09:42 AM | #5
A more irrelevant boss for this game is Dreadtooth with 5+ stacks. Last I heard anyone providing concrete info on this behemoth with 8 stacks, it was said that you need 24+ people to kill him ... in a contested area. After the 1.3 exodus (and even before) getting 16 people organized in an open area is an arduous task (for a retarded faction like Empire on TOFN almost an impossibility), getting more than that is just ludicrous. Once upon a time it was a normal thing to kill dribbling bosses on lower level planets with 3-4 raid groups, but getting codex entries can only entertain so many people for so long.

They should just remove this concept of world bosses for level 50 or scale them down to 8 man, because at this point this aspect of the game only demonstrates the general apathy of players and the total lack of interest of said people. This is not WoW nor some classic MMO, world bosses are a thing of the past (just like 40 man raids), but not solely because the devs are incompetent, but because the mentality of players has changed for better or worse. The fact of the matter is that there are far more 8 man guilds than 16, so both Nightmare Pilgrim and Dreadtooth are thus inaccessible to the majority of players (but I have to say that Dreadtooth with multiple stacks is, in a way, a nifty solution), and in this game, which has a severe shortage of content in the first place, this type of exclusive policy only brings more bad than good.

My 2 cents, at least. Idk, this whole Dreadtooth thingy is to me like the new space missions - very short, and not so sweet. And now, if only we knew what that Dread Guard Mask does (or will do) ...

Slowpokeking's Avatar


Slowpokeking
01.18.2013 , 04:48 PM | #6
Quote: Originally Posted by Thundergulch View Post
No, this boss is meant to be difficult, and with 16 people that haven't done it before it's pretty difficult.
I don't understand why people want easier ways to do stuff.
16 people in full Rakata can do this fight.
They can keep the same difficulty but make a 8 men version of it. Since small guild cannot get 16 all the time.
What does it have to do with difficulty?

Thundergulch's Avatar


Thundergulch
01.18.2013 , 04:53 PM | #7
Quote: Originally Posted by Slowpokeking View Post
They can keep the same difficulty but make a 8 men version of it. Since small guild cannot get 16 all the time.
What does it have to do with difficulty?
Snowball effect.
Then you will have people wanting a 2 man version of HM TFB because their guild can't get 8 people online.
This encounter is designed for 16 people, you can always pug the ones you can't fill with guildies, but asking for an easier version so 8 people can do it is not the answer.

Kitru's Avatar


Kitru
01.18.2013 , 05:24 PM | #8
Quote: Originally Posted by Thundergulch View Post
Snowball effect.
That's a bit of a fallacious argument. The developers have already allowed all content to be done as either 8m or 16m with the exact same rewards. It wouldn't be a snowball effect to ask for an 8m version of ops grade content because all other ops content already *has* 8m versions. It's not asking for something that isn't already available for absolutely everything else for endgame, which *could* be interpreted as a snowball effect were it implemented.

The best reason that I can come up with would be that it would require either separate coding to vary the strength depending on the number of players currently in combat (such that, if there are only 8 stacks of the debuff active, the boss is only set up for 8m whereas if there are more than 8, he converts to 16m) or a separate click with the different mechanics, which, regardless of how you do it, means some degree of work.

Personally, I would *love* it if the devs would actually create an 8m version of NP, mainly because it's a bit unfair to restrict a specific piece of endgame content to the exclusive domain of those guilds that can field 16 people with regularity. For those of us that really don't enjoy the hassle of dealing with 16 people at a time, it's a truly rare occasion when you're capable of doing NP; allowing for an 8m version would mean that more than just a tiny minority of players actually end up doing that piece of content.
Walls of Text? I *love* Walls of Text!
My New Class Idea
Shadow Class Rep - Suggest/Review Questions Here
Quote: Originally Posted by Fende View Post
Listen to Kitru. Kitru knows all.

IAmViiOLENT's Avatar


IAmViiOLENT
01.18.2013 , 05:27 PM | #9
With a very strong group it is possible to 2 tank, 2 heal, and 5 dps this fight. I understand you want an 8 man version, but I personally doubt that BW has the time or ability to allow that to happen, seeing as its now "old" content. DT with 5+ stacks is the new highest open area group content.

schnopsnosn's Avatar


schnopsnosn
01.18.2013 , 05:42 PM | #10
Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
That's a bit of a fallacious argument. The developers have already allowed all content to be done as either 8m or 16m with the exact same rewards. It wouldn't be a snowball effect to ask for an 8m version of ops grade content because all other ops content already *has* 8m versions. It's not asking for something that isn't already available for absolutely everything else for endgame, which *could* be interpreted as a snowball effect were it implemented.

The best reason that I can come up with would be that it would require either separate coding to vary the strength depending on the number of players currently in combat (such that, if there are only 8 stacks of the debuff active, the boss is only set up for 8m whereas if there are more than 8, he converts to 16m) or a separate click with the different mechanics, which, regardless of how you do it, means some degree of work.

Personally, I would *love* it if the devs would actually create an 8m version of NP, mainly because it's a bit unfair to restrict a specific piece of endgame content to the exclusive domain of those guilds that can field 16 people with regularity. For those of us that really don't enjoy the hassle of dealing with 16 people at a time, it's a truly rare occasion when you're capable of doing NP; allowing for an 8m version would mean that more than just a tiny minority of players actually end up doing that piece of content.
Easier solution:
Separate encounter on the other side of the wall that spawns the 8m-version.
So it's still possible to underman it.