One mans view of 2.0 and neccessary changes.

Wiz said:
Now, to talk about the real 18 slots/15 classes issue.

First of all, this is completely true. 18 is slightly too small. I do think, however, that 24 is slightly too big, and too close to the way it was previously. Maybe 20-22 would be the answer?

Possibly, but that's the symptom more than the problem. You don't want raid leaders to say, "oh, i'm full on the good classes, let's get another crummy second-stringer in here to hit the cap". Cmal4 is the posterboy of this problem; lots of people think it's gay as hell because most classes won't ever get to see it, and the loots are retardedly good. The way the encounter is set up means if you're not a member of the dream team the closest you'll get to it is being in the raid outside the zone.
 
Wiz said:
That doesn't really matter, we don't HAVE to follow the "X full groups" thing slavishly.

But, tradition! :dance:

That is true though Wiz, 21 could easily be 3 5-man groups and 1 6-man.
 
I think 22 would be fine, I would prefer 24, but 22 would certainly allow for a bit more class distribution.
 
Thinkmeats said:
Possibly, but that's the symptom more than the problem. You don't want raid leaders to say, "oh, i'm full on the good classes, let's get another crummy second-stringer in here to hit the cap". Cmal4 is the posterboy of this problem; lots of people think it's gay as hell because most classes won't ever get to see it, and the loots are retardedly good. The way the encounter is set up means if you're not a member of the dream team the closest you'll get to it is being in the raid outside the zone.

Cmal4 is the way it is because of the 6 man cap though, 6 man cap and 15 classes is pretty bad. :[

I'm probably going to rework cmal 4 into 12 man.
 
Thinkmeats said:
The way the encounter is set up means if you're not a member of the dream team the closest you'll get to it is being in the raid outside the zone.

There was a Dream Team 2.
 
18 people is, indeed, to small, for a raid, making you use a core group for raiding... With soft cap in 2/hard cap in 3, you'd have what? a guild having to recruit people as reserves? Who'd like being a reserve cleric, for example? The 18 man rule reinforces this. Most classes wouldn't even do it into raid.

IDEALLY, with 15 classes, and a softcap of 2 per class, you'd need at least 22 to get all classes in raid game... that is, then 15 classes, 3 extra healers, 1 extra tank, 1 extra DPS, and 2 extra slots, to fill with what you feel comfortable with.

Now, DC. Since I joined SoD (when it was still WR) I've been reading DC is a necesary evil. Well, yeah, but atm is even more evil, for raid game. Technically, you can claim zone with 12, which means 6 people DCing. This means  a ragtag group of non-guilded level 65 could claim any zone, if they were not DCing already.

So, in my opinion, 2.0 solves some problems (small guilds) but creates a new kind of problems. A compromise solution is what I propose. But it'd need GOOD players, who'd be able to regulate themselves. I propose 22 people on raid, or 24, if possible, as hard cap. I also propose DCing not being allowed in raids, but, as I said, this would have to be regulated by players themselves.

I also agree on 1M charms being a little overboard.... 450 mana, just cause you've been playing longer than anyone? And, since they're dropable, you can have them running on your characters, even, this making ANY level 65 char you have better than any other level 65 character. Buying houses IS a good idea, as money sink. Also, having more tier'd buyable items, as ranges, or even weapons. Having top end tradeskills reagents easier to farm would be another money sink.. atm most people don't even try farming those, and paying a tax to tradeskiller, cause you need like TONS of time, for what it will be lost money... and this, basically just means some tradeskillers hoarding all money, not a money sink.

Also, I agree on linear raid zones, adding content to the game, as well as linear group zones, both fully focused on Lore, to increase Roleplaying chances. Sure this requires more staff. But I think SoD has now a decent old players database, who would be up to the task.

    Zaira Rightborn, Level 65 Cleric, 569 AA.
 
Wiz said:
Cmal4 is the way it is because of the 6 man cap though, 6 man cap and 15 classes is pretty bad. :[

I'm probably going to rework cmal 4 into 12 man.

This is great news :toot:. Also I think 24 people for raids is just right, it allows for a nice variety of classes who usually get overlooked, while also keeping room for the needed classes. If you are really opposed to 24 man raids I guess 22 will have to do.
 
I'm probably going to try 21 and see how that works out, I'd rather take things slowly now that the big changes are over.
 
I edited this into my last post, but other people posted before I was done editing o gosh!

Also, I liked the 18 man thing because it reinforced the skill idea. You remember the post: "what if you were THE (insert class here) on a raid, the force dependent on YOU and your skills?"

If each class has a positive raid-filling role (and particularly with the changes to aux tanking, I see this happening) there's really no reason to raise the cap so much. Doing so won't make room for more of those non-raid-desired classes, it will just mean that 3rd wizard, 3rd rogue, etc.

If you want a better distribution of classes in raids, then the clear solution is to make sure every class has a positive raid function.
 
Allielyn said:
I edited this into my last post, but other people posted before I was done editing o gosh!

Also, I liked the 18 man thing because it reinforced the skill idea. You remember the post: "what if you were THE (insert class here) on a raid, the force dependent on YOU and your skills?"

If each class has a positive raid-filling role (and particularly with the changes to aux tanking, I see this happening) there's really no reason to raise the cap so much. Doing so won't make room for more of those non-raid-desired classes, it will just mean that 3rd wizard, 3rd rogue, etc.

If you want a better distribution of classes in raids, then the clear solution is to make sure every class has a positive raid function.

Which is practically impossible with 15 different classes because there isn't really 15 different roles.

It would require rebuilding the game from ground up.
 
shanara99 said:
18 people is, indeed, to small, for a raid, making you use a core group for raiding... With soft cap in 2/hard cap in 3, you'd have what? a guild having to recruit people as reserves? Who'd like being a reserve cleric, for example? The 18 man rule reinforces this. Most classes wouldn't even do it into raid.

IDEALLY, with 15 classes, and a softcap of 2 per class, you'd need at least 22 to get all classes in raid game... that is, then 15 classes, 3 extra healers, 1 extra tank, 1 extra DPS, and 2 extra slots, to fill with what you feel comfortable with.

I have to completely disagree regarding the move from 18-22. Group balance is currently nearing perfection with 18 people, creating extremely intimate encounters that require every player to be on the ball 100% of the time. We've been re-learning Mani's for the past few days and I have to admit that finally getting them down was the most rewarding experience I've had on SoD thus far. With 22 people, you can easily fill a 'proper' or 'ideal' raid out, padding your errors by adding an extra healer or extra tank here or there. In an 18-man raid, you have to make choices depending on the encounter. Sometimes you'll need an extra chanter, sometimes an extra tank, etc. The raids take skill.

If we push the cap up to 21-22, not only will we have to deal with a partial group, which is annoying in itself, but you really give people an unnecessary crutch. The beauty of the current setup is that every player's skill matters. There is now strategy involved in picking the proper raid setup based on mob. You don't have a cookie cutter 6 cleric 6 wizard 3 tank setup, and there are possibilities for a paladin as an offtank, a necro being selected for DPS, etc. Increasing the cap will only cause guilds to fill the spots with more of the same old boring classes we saw flood raids previously. We've been experimenting with raid sizes and ended up with 5 healers: 2 clerics, 2 druids, 1 shaman. If the raid size were increased, you'd see an extra shaman, a few paladins, and maybe even necros brought in to help out with the healing. Similarly, guilds will just stack DPS like Wizzies, etc. There is already a greater feeling of accomplishment knowing that everything went right, why diminish that by adding in a few extra people? My manis example, which I mentioned earlier, shines through perfectly here. Our first few fights, we had issues with our strat due to the new changes, but we finally got it down. Unlike before, where the perfect strat alllowed us to kill Mani's on our first attempt, despite numerous slipiups, we got our asses handed to us when we slacked on heals, didn't get rid of a dot on some of our dps, or had a horrible rogue (cough) pull agro. These are examples of mistakes that should make or break raid encounters and the more people that are added to raids, the more room for error exists.

I think that the current shift in guilds that took place with Phoenix Rising and Defiance is a great example of why 18-man raids work perfectly. I don't want to get into the details of the Phoenix Rising/Exodus split, but from what I was told it was not on 100% nice terms. In the past, or even witha 22-man raid model, a great guild would have broken down and formed one quality guild with the best 22 people, leaving the rest to exp all day, sit in limbo in hopes of joining one of the other top guilds, or quit. Obviously the new guild was able to put together a solid raid on NDHK, but the PR guys bounced back and took down PoTorment, just one day after the split! Similarly, Defiance had a few inactive players and some of us moved to a new guild. Rather than letting the rest fall to the wayside, Tapein and Balthor have done a great job of revitalizing interest and Defiance already put together strong numbers tonight.

I can toss up a few of the raids we've been putting together so far, but I don't think that making exceptions for the few people who have been excluded is the solution to what A FEW see as a problem. It's much easier for a guild like Chaotic Winds to put together a raid force, as well as the new up-and-coming 50's who plan to raid when they hit 65. Moving the raid number to 22 only hurts those who initially were supposed to be helped.

Encounters are now more difficult, fun, exciting, with a higher learning curve, and it needs to stay that way. All I can ask is that we give 18-man raids a chance. I know that some people are upset that they have been left out, but notice that there are now 6 high-end raiding guilds as Prison level or higher, as opposed to the 4 previous. I have to admit, and I hate to do so as it comes off as entirely arrogant, that if the cap was implemented at 22, you would still only see four guilds, with the remainder of their 36-man rosters put on the bench indefinitely. Hell, our paladin actually gets loots now!
 
Wiz said:
Which is practically impossible with 15 different classes because there isn't really 15 different roles.

It would require rebuilding the game from ground up.

But increasing by 3 men won't really increase the diversity you see on raids, it just means instead of having (as a completely arbitrary example), 1 war 1 pally 2 beastlords 2 rangers sitting out on a raid, you'll see 1 war 1 pally 1 beastlord sitting out on a raid.
 
Allielyn said:
But increasing by 3 men won't really increase the diversity you see on raids, it just means instead of having (as a completely arbitrary example), 1 war 1 pally 2 beastlords 2 rangers sitting out on a raid, you'll see 1 war 1 pally 1 beastlord sitting out on a raid.

At least there would be some flexability, because currently only about 5 classes get dibs on the the 3 extra slots (in an ideal world)
 
volvov2 said:
At least there would be some flexability, because currently only about 5 classes get dibs on the the 3 extra slots (in an ideal world)

Sorry, but I have to disagree. If extra slots were to be added, they would be filled by a second rogue, second warrior, and second shaman (in our case), or whichever of the Healer/Wiz/Rog/Tank spots are currently low in a guild's lineup.

I overlooked this post, specifically:
Wiz said:
21/3 is a pretty good number, it seems like it's still low enough to accomplish the same ends as 18, but allows for slotting in more people beyond 1 of each class.

I really don't see what moving the cap from 2 to 3 would accomplish. The current variety seen in raids will be negated by the possibility of 3 clerics, 3 druids, 3 shamans, 3 wizards in every raid. In the current setup, the healers can at most only take up 1/3 of the raid, vs. almost filling 1/2 of it if we pushed the cap to 21. Necros, BST's, Enc's would stlil be screwed. 4 full time healers and 1 padder dropping out attempting to slow (or split 2 and 2 w/ 1 padder slowing) vs. 8 full time healers and 1 padder dropping out attempting to slow... Which sounds more enjoyable?
 
Currently, in the 18 man model, it just feels like all these encounters were originally designed for 18 people. It a ton of fun doing an encounter such as Manifestations in Prison with everyone having to be 100% involved and 100% skilled, rather than having an overload of wizards or magicians to trivialize it. Honestly, adding even three people, the spots will be filled with a third Wizard/Healer/DPS.

I feel like a better change, if possible, would be keeping 18 man raids and changing caps somehow so that 1 of each class must be in the raid. Otherwise, youre gonna have classes left out. Theres no way around exclusion with the change from 36 to 18, but it had to happen and I am glad it did.
 
Well I gave an arbitrary example to show not that you'll have a warrior or a beastlord sitting out, but that "who gets in" will still be decided by raid mechanics and best-class-for-my-slot-buck, rather than providing for a diversity of classes.

Look at your "ideal" class setup. The classes you'll be adding aren't the ones you only have"1" of, nor the ones you've disregarded altoether. They will be the classes you already have "2" of.
 
Lufia said:
Sorry, but I have to disagree. If extra slots were to be added, they would be filled by a second rogue, second warrior, and second shaman (in our case), or whichever of the Healer/Wiz/Rog/Tank spots are currently low in a guild's lineup.

I overlooked this post, specifically:
I really don't see what moving the cap from 2 to 3 would accomplish. The current variety seen in raids will be negated by the possibility of 3 clerics, 3 druids, 3 shamans, 3 wizards in every raid. In the current setup, the healers can at most only take up 1/3 of the raid, vs. almost filling 1/2 of it if we pushed the cap to 21. Necros, BST's, Enc's would stlil be screwed.

I disagree, because currently, at the most we have 1, MAYBE 2 druids sitting out per raid, and usually the rest are the little classes, enchanter, mage, and a few other 'depends on the whether' players.
 
So in other words, this change wouldn't make a more balanced class raid since it appears you already have that? Instead it just allows you to take a couple more, so you don't feel as bad about having people sit out? =/

Doesn't sound like a needed change at all, for that.
 
volvov2 said:
I disagree, because currently, at the most we have 1, MAYBE 2 druids sitting out per raid, and usually the rest are the little classes, enchanter, mage, and a few other 'depends on the whether' players.

Are you running 3 of each class or 2 of each class groups? When you've got more than 2 people sitting out per raid, it really sounds like you need to trim down your active raiding roster, rather than calling for an increase to the raid size. We all knew that 18-man changes were going in well in advance and the current raid size allows for each class to play a key role. Is it really necessary to include more than one of each class in every raid?
 
Back
Top Bottom