Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Grouping: ur doin' it wrong


Heezdedjim's Avatar


Heezdedjim
02.20.2013 , 10:13 AM | #11
Quote: Originally Posted by Darevsool View Post
a level difference of 5 is HUGE in terms of in game combat.
No, it isn't. If this was true, then FPs would not be rated for ranges that are up to 6 levels wide. Also, the range at which you can be auto-grouped into them is even wider, because it will let you in a little lower, and will still group you into it when you're a couple levels higher. The time and effort required to complete the content is substantially the same regardless of the level of players in the group. You might have some chance of dying if you screw up at the lowest levels, and no chance of dying at all on the highest, but that's about it.

To the extent that level matters more at lower levels than at high levels, this is already accounted for by the point at which things go grey to you at each level (it happens with smaller gaps at lower levels than it does at higher levels). If the level of the lowest level person in the group would represent green content for the highest level person, then there is no reason for nerfing the lowest level's XP. If the lowest level would be grey for the highest level member, then nobody should get any XP from the group.

CosmicKat's Avatar


CosmicKat
02.20.2013 , 10:48 AM | #12
I think you forgot the actual reason grouping doesn't work so well in TOR.

#1
The only game to ever release with less group content, and less reasons to group, has been Solitaire.

Jeweledleah's Avatar


Jeweledleah
02.20.2013 , 10:54 AM | #13
Quote: Originally Posted by CosmicKat View Post
I think you forgot the actual reason grouping doesn't work so well in TOR.

#1
The only game to ever release with less group content, and less reasons to group, has been Solitaire.
looks at all the group quests on every planet, ability to share conversations, not to mention flashpoints...

huh? I guess its not group content then?

ok then

I COULD bring up other MMO's that have no leveling content other then dungeons that you actually need to group for, but... they are not subject to same rules apparently >_>

jorill's Avatar


jorill
02.20.2013 , 11:03 AM | #14
Quote: Originally Posted by CosmicKat View Post
I think you forgot the actual reason grouping doesn't work so well in TOR.

#1
The only game to ever release with less group content, and less reasons to group, has been Solitaire.
Each planet has several heroics groups about a flashpoint per level and had one op at release and the second op was released soon after so im not sure what you are talking about. If you dont like the group content that is completely understandable but what you said just isnt true

RuQu's Avatar


RuQu
02.20.2013 , 11:19 AM | #15
Quote: Originally Posted by Darevsool View Post
I was referring to grouping with the same level players, or similarly leveled. Within 2-3 levels I haven't seen much of an xp nerf that you're referring to. A level gap, of say 5, yes, there is a BIG hit to xp. My opinion is that it's there on purpose to keep people from power leveling "lowbies" through stuff. I think it's a good policy to have.
I just ran a random group last night, my first one since returning to this game, and the group finder put me (19) in a group that ranged from 16-22.

The group XP for any random should not have a power-leveling correction in effect. Period. If it puts me in that group, that run needs to be worth my time. That means I need to get a reasonable amount of XP and credits per hour, at least comparable to what I would get questing with my time.
Brushing off the dust on my Assault Cannon. Time to get back in the fight.

CosmicKat's Avatar


CosmicKat
02.20.2013 , 11:26 AM | #16
Quote: Originally Posted by Jeweledleah View Post
looks at all the group quests on every planet, ability to share conversations, not to mention flashpoints...

huh? I guess its not group content then?

ok then

I COULD bring up other MMO's that have no leveling content other then dungeons that you actually need to group for, but... they are not subject to same rules apparently >_>
There's a big difference between "group content" and solo content that can be done while grouped.

One's a mutiplayer game, the other isn't.

RuQu's Avatar


RuQu
02.20.2013 , 11:33 AM | #17
Quote: Originally Posted by CosmicKat View Post
There's a big difference between "group content" and solo content that can be done while grouped.

One's a mutiplayer game, the other isn't.
Every planet has quests that require a team. If you can solo all of the H4 content without out-leveling it, then you are in the extreme minority.
Brushing off the dust on my Assault Cannon. Time to get back in the fight.

CosmicKat's Avatar


CosmicKat
02.20.2013 , 11:47 AM | #18
Quote: Originally Posted by RuQu View Post
Every planet has quests that require a team. If you can solo all of the H4 content without out-leveling it, then you are in the extreme minority.
Yes you are correct. Each planet has roughly 1 or 2 truely group-oriented Heroics. They are also purely optional, and most can be done in less than 30 minutes each.

It's an MMO. Group content should be the majority of content, not a few optional quests. Designing an MMO to be 95% solo game makes no sense at all. It would seem to be pretty obvious to me that making a multiplayer game actually mutiiplayer for the majority of the play experience would be a no-brainer.

RuQu's Avatar


RuQu
02.20.2013 , 11:51 AM | #19
Quote: Originally Posted by CosmicKat View Post
Yes you are correct. Each planet has roughly 1 or 2 truely group-oriented Heroics. They are also purely optional, and most can be done in less than 30 minutes each.

It's an MMO. Group content should be the majority of content, not a few optional quests. Designing an MMO to be 95% solo game makes no sense at all. It would seem to be pretty obvious to me that making a multiplayer game actually mutiiplayer for the majority of the play experience would be a no-brainer.
If it is so obvious, and such a great business model, you should start a consulting firm and make millions advising pretty much 100% of the MMO market.

Is there even a single major title that works like you claim should be a no-brainer for the industry? Not one that I've played.
Brushing off the dust on my Assault Cannon. Time to get back in the fight.

Heezdedjim's Avatar


Heezdedjim
02.20.2013 , 11:58 AM | #20
Quote: Originally Posted by CosmicKat View Post
It's an MMO. Group content should be the majority of content, not a few optional quests. Designing an MMO to be 95% solo game makes no sense at all. It would seem to be pretty obvious to me that making a multiplayer game actually mutiiplayer for the majority of the play experience would be a no-brainer.
Some people can only play 30 minutes at a time, and it can often take longer to get a group than it takes to run an instance. Others have to deal with unavoidable interruptions (i.e., kids) when they play, so committing to a group run is either impossible or irresponsible, when you might have to go /afk or log off for a while halfway through.

There is also a high correlation between people being in the situation of having little time or lots of interruptions, and those same people having more money to spend on the game (in other words, being the ones who dump a lot of cash on stuff like cash shop loot). Making a game that doesn't offer a lot of playable content for those people doesn't make an awful lot of sense from a developer's perspective, assuming that the developer is in this business to make some money.

Having lots of content that you have to group for is good, because requiring a group means it can give good rewards, for the increased time and effort put in. Making a game that requires a group for everything, all the time, is a great way to have a really tiny player base (and a really crappy looking quarterly report).