Scaling instances: Small groups, duos and 2-boxers getting the short end of the stick?

[liveja]

Sinder65 wrote:

I admit that Deep Forge, Scion, and even Obelisk of Ahkzul quite easy, but i dont think many family guilds will be doing them with 3-4 people at 3am very soon.

Why not? Don't sell them short, especially if you don't even know them. I'm about 99% positive that my two guildies & I -- warden, Swashy, necro -- could handle the first room of OoA, even with me not spec'd for tanking. If we can do it, as a VERY family guild, I don't see why anyone else can't. & no, none of us have our mythicals; I think only the Warden even has VP access, & she's only been there once at the most.

Finally -- & I mean no offense, I'm only going by your own words -- I note that you said something about you "know" that the people with whom you group "suck." Now, I'm not agreeing with you, because I don't know them, nor do I have any idea why you say they "suck", for example if you're just joking when you say that. But I will say that if they "suck", that is not SOE's fault, nor is it a valid reason to say there's no content for you & your friends.

Simply put, players need to either learn how to not suck, or else they need to learn that their suckage is their issue alone.

[BriarHaven]

Davngr1 wrote:

i think soe should bring back the "easy" & "hard" settings from poets but make it actually mean something:

  easy:                                                                    hard:

40% of hp                                                                100% hp

 40% offensive skill mobs                                        120% offensive skill mobs

 100% tresured drop chance                                   0% tresured drop chance

10% legen drop chance                                            100% legen drop chance

1% master chance                                                      10% master drop chance

   this way the zone would still hold some challange and reward for both full groups and small groups but would still encourge full groups.   

 these changes would not be very hard and ofcourse some instances/drops would not be available to "easy" modes.

This is well stated. Also, it is true many players go into pickup groups which will not normally function as well as a guild or standard group.   There are those who play regularly together or there are players who play in groups with 2 - 4 players.    We saw such features used with Splitpaw already and used in "small" instances thoughout the game designed specifically for small groups.   

Also, this feature is used in many MMOGS. I do not understand why people would be against this feature as it keeps most players engaged with the content. The more people who engaged in the game = more people who pay and support the game.

Bottom line, there are different gaming styles. The shard system was designed as an alternative system designed for players who may not be keen to raid (different style of game play support again).  This feature will also keep more poeple engaged in the content until the next release.   

Bottom line, this suggestion is a win win situation for all if such a feature is implemented to the new expansion.  

[Noaani]

Davngr1 wrote:

i think soe should bring back the "easy" & "hard" settings from poets but make it actually mean something:

  easy:                                                                    hard:

40% of hp                                                                100% hp

 40% offensive skill mobs                                        120% offensive skill mobs

 100% tresured drop chance                                   0% tresured drop chance

10% legen drop chance                                            100% legen drop chance

1% master chance                                                      10% master drop chance

   this way the zone would still hold some challange and reward for both full groups and small groups but would still encourge full groups.   

 these changes would not be very hard and ofcourse some instances/drops would not be unavailable to "easy" modes.

While the idea behind that is fine, it simply does not work in practice.

If you remove 60% of the HP from most zone bosses in TSO and also dropped their offensive output, no small group is going to be able to kill mobs like Mageolemus or Bricktop (who is not even a boss) due to simply either not having the DPS to deal with the script, or not having the survivability if they do manage to have the DPS.

The above 2 mobs are simple examples, and are some of the less complex scripts (though they fall almost half way through TSO progression). In order for these mobs to be made killable by a group of less than 5 average geared/4 well geared toons, the entire encounter needs to be redone. This is a time intensive task for SoE, as they have already said themselves that it takes as long to do that sort of thing is it would to simply make a second instance.

While I have nothing at all against adding solo/small group content to this game, in small amounts (RoK had too much), if they are going to add it, they need to do it right. The above suggestion is not the right way.

[BriarHaven]

Noaani wrote:

Davngr1 wrote:

i think soe should bring back the "easy" & "hard" settings from poets but make it actually mean something:

  easy:                                                                    hard:

40% of hp                                                                100% hp

 40% offensive skill mobs                                        120% offensive skill mobs

 100% tresured drop chance                                   0% tresured drop chance

10% legen drop chance                                            100% legen drop chance

1% master chance                                                      10% master drop chance

   this way the zone would still hold some challange and reward for both full groups and small groups but would still encourge full groups.   

 these changes would not be very hard and ofcourse some instances/drops would not be unavailable to "easy" modes.

While the idea behind that is fine, it simply does not work in practice.

If you remove 60% of the HP from most zone bosses in TSO and also dropped their offensive output, no small group is going to be able to kill mobs like Mageolemus or Bricktop (who is not even a boss) due to simply either not having the DPS to deal with the script, or not having the survivability if they do manage to have the DPS.

The above 2 mobs are simple examples, and are some of the less complex scripts (though they fall almost half way through TSO progression). In order for these mobs to be made killable by a group of less than 5 average geared/4 well geared toons, the entire encounter needs to be redone. This is a time intensive task for SoE, as they have already said themselves that it takes as long to do that sort of thing is it would to simply make a second instance.

While I have nothing at all against adding solo/small group content to this game, in small amounts (RoK had too much), if they are going to add it, they need to do it right. The above suggestion is not the right way.

There had been other MMOGs which have done this successfully such as D and D Online.       Further, they could do it as missions ie this is seen with Splitpaw or even Bloodlines.    So, yes, I and other players feel this can be done and have seen this done in this game and others.   

Reality is there are many gaming styles used within EQ II which are already being supported.   It is logical to extend this support to this expansion too so many can enjoy its content.   Also, there are different gaming styles being supported thoughout the game to 80.   It should not stop at this point.    

Botton line though this can be a win win situation.    Hard core group players and small group players would be glad for such an upadate as it keeps everyone engaged within the game and supportiing it financially.   

[Seidhkona]

/sarcasm_on If you complain about not being able to 2-box TSO instances enough, maybe one day you can also get T8 raids that can be two-boxed as well. /sarcasm_off

EQ2 has about 6,000 quests. The game includes solo content, heroic content, and raid content:

• Solo means one or more can do it.
• Heroic means it's is designed for a group of six people, not two.
• Raid means it is designed for multiple full groups, depending on the raid, usually four full groups.

There's not a problem with TSO, there's a problem with your understanding of what "heroic" means. A couple of high-end very well-geared people might be able to tackle a heroic instance with just two, but that's not what heroic instances are designed for.

If it's not a challenge, then where's the fun? Get you a group! Or learn to six-box, I guess.

[BriarHaven]

"Heroic means it's is designed for a group of six people, not two."

Actually, not, many small groups can do this ie 2 - 4 players.    Also, reality in this game are there many pick up groups.   These groups will not funtion, normally, as well as players who game together regularly.    Because these dungeons appear to be more difficult for pick up groups, this too would be a logical alternative.   

But why would you be against such a suggestion?  If you and your group wish to perform the harder mode, you can do so with greater rewards.      It is a win situation for you and a win situation for pickup groups or small groups.

[Kendricke]

BriarHaven wrote:

"Heroic means it's is designed for a group of six people, not two."

Actually, not, many small groups can do this ie 2 - 4 players.    Also, reality in this game are there many pick up groups.   These groups will not funtion, normally, as well as players who game together regularly.    Because these dungeons appear to be more difficult for pick up groups, this too would be a logical alternative.   

But why would you be against such a suggestion?  If you and your group wish to perform the harder mode, you can do so with greater rewards.      It is a win situation for you and a win situation for pickup groups or small groups.

Why not simply create a harder mode for the dungeons that exist and use the current standard as "easy" mode.  Isn't that also a win-win?  After all, SOE wouldn't have to reevaluate the difficulty they want for the shards coming into the economy that way, since the bar is already set. 

Truly, isn't the difficulty for dungeons such as Deep Forge and Scion of Ice already easy enough?  These aren't terribly difficult dungeons. 

[Noaani]

BriarHaven wrote:

But why would you be against such a suggestion?  If you and your group wish to perform the harder mode, you can do so with greater rewards.      It is a win situation for you and a win situation for pickup groups or small groups.

Personally, I care because of the development time it would take.

SoE have stated that attempting to take an existing zone, and scaling it to be suitable for a small group would take as much developer time as creating the zone did in the first place, and will almost definatly result in bugs that could take a long time to fix on top of the development time.

Any time spent by a developer on attempting to do this is developer time not spent on other areas of the game (they will not hire a developer simply to implement this, and their developers are not sitting around doing nothing waiting for the next great idea from the forums that they can implement).

You can feel free to continue to talk about it, that affects no one, just be aware that SoE have already stated that an option such as this is not on the cards. They would sooner create a small group instance from the beginning, which is also something that is unlikly to happen (though more likely than scaling based on group size).

[BriarHaven]

Noaani wrote:

BriarHaven wrote:

But why would you be against such a suggestion?  If you and your group wish to perform the harder mode, you can do so with greater rewards.      It is a win situation for you and a win situation for pickup groups or small groups.

Personally, I care because of the development time it would take.

SoE have stated that attempting to take an existing zone, and scaling it to be suitable for a small group would take as much developer time as creating the zone did in the first place, and will almost definatly result in bugs that could take a long time to fix on top of the development time.

Any time spent by a developer on attempting to do this is developer time not spent on other areas of the game (they will not hire a developer simply to implement this, and their developers are not sitting around doing nothing waiting for the next great idea from the forums that they can implement).

You can feel free to continue to talk about it, that affects no one, just be aware that SoE have already stated that an option such as this is not on the cards. They would sooner create a small group instance from the beginning, which is also something that is unlikly to happen (though more likely than scaling based on group size).

Actually, this would be time well spent as it would encourage more people to be engaged in the end game and keep them playing. Thus, supporting the overall game's quality and funds for potential future expansions and help support you and other players in game.

They have the technology already as the dungeons are "supposed" to scale to level.  But I suspect this was the intension to make different modes but release date loomed and they did not complete this task.

[erin]

Noaani wrote:

You can feel free to continue to talk about it, that affects no one, just be aware that SoE have already stated that an option such as this is not on the cards. They would sooner create a small group instance from the beginning, which is also something that is unlikly to happen (though more likely than scaling based on group size).

Link?

[Flotten]

Soluss2 wrote:

Flotten wrote:

Full_Metal_Mage wrote:

Exactly, but some people do because they need to be "hand held".  Lets look at real life, lets take hunting... I can go hunting with 2 friends (group of 3) and bag the SAME size deer as a group of 24 (raid).  I love how people think that just because they stand around with 23 other people they are somehow entitled to more.  Its just plain lazy and selfishness.

People should be rewarded by the time and effort, not how many people they are with.  And please dont give me that crap about how difficult it is to organize 24 people, it isnt difficult at all.  The only person who will have a hard time is the LEADER who is trying to coordinate a bunch of idiots who dont pay attention and are just there to loot a corpse after each battle.

But if you do subscribe to the false theory that grouping is somehow hard and difficult, then I would assme that someone who six boxes has even more difficulty... so should he get more or better loot?

Note: I dont multi-box

Raiders spend hours upon hours upon days/weeks/months making sure 23 other people get everything they want to. 

Another dreamer.  Sorry, raiding is not harder.  Running six boxes would be more difficult.

I probably spend more time in the game than any raider, if you think time matters then im entitled to a lot more loot.

[Flotten]

Kendricke wrote:

Flotten wrote:

Given the same amout of invested time, people are entitled to the same thing, deal with it.

I spent nine hours raiding last week.  Does that mean anyone who spent nine hours soloing is entitled to the same rewards my guildmates and I pulled in?  Absolutely not. 

It absolutely does... Time = effort, period.

[Kendricke]

Flotten wrote:

Kendricke wrote:

Flotten wrote:

Given the same amout of invested time, people are entitled to the same thing, deal with it.

I spent nine hours raiding last week.  Does that mean anyone who spent nine hours soloing is entitled to the same rewards my guildmates and I pulled in?  Absolutely not. 

It absolutely does... Time = effort, period.

I've worked 100 hours over a two week period at a desk in a comfy office.  I have an uncle who has worked 100 hours in one week on a construction derrick in the Gulf of Mexico.  Strangely, his pay for 100 hours was more than double what my 100 hours pay was.  I daresay he may have worked slightly harder for his pay than I did.

Time absolutely does not equate to effort.  I can log in right now and spend nine hours in game chatting with friends from the comforts of my guildhall.  Meanwhile, members of my guild will spend that SAME nine hours levelling up characters by 10 or more levels, running three or more Shadow instances, or tradeskilling through a couple of missions.  In nine hours, I can run several heritage quests back to back on several characters, or I can spend that time just checking the broker. 

Time does not equate to effort.  Not in this world.  Not in a virtual world.

[katalmach]

Sigrdrifa@Lucan DLere wrote:

• Heroic means it's is designed for a group of six people, not two.

Actually, it doesn't. I just targetted a heroic mob and the description clearly says: "This heroic encounter is well-matched to a group of three or more". So really, heroic (not my personal opinion, no, it's clearly stated in the game) means it's designed for a group of three or more people. At least, that's what it should be.

Anyone who thinks that RoK had too much small grou p content is wrong. RoK had too much solo conte nt - as a duo/trio player who hates soloing, RoK had absolutely nothing to offer me. E very single expansion previous to RoK had something for my group. The original game had loads of things to do, DoF had Sanctorium, Vault of Dust, Clefts - and as my duo got better, we progressed into being able to do Shimmering Citadel and Poet's Palace. KoS had Sanctum, which was insanely challenging at first, but lots of fun. It also had Nest and PoA, both of which had great opportunities for small groups. EoF had Mistmoore Catacombs and a variety of instances. The only thing RoK had was Sebilis, and a few areas in Chardok. Hardly enough to keep my interest. Small groups want challenges - not mindless errand tasks, but not impossible group zones either. I'm not asking for my duo to be able to clear everything in TSO; I'd be quite happy if even two of the twenty instances were tailored to a group of about three. I don't see how that would be unfair or take anything away from the six-man groups.

[katalmach]

Kendricke wrote:

I've worked 100 hours over a two week period at a desk in a comfy office.  I have an uncle who has worked 100 hours in one week on a construction derrick in the Gulf of Mexico.  Strangely, his pay for 100 hours was more than double what my 100 hours pay was.  I daresay he may have worked slightly harder for his pay than I did.

Time absolutely does not equate to effort.  I can log in right now and spend nine hours in game chatting with friends from the comforts of my guildhall.  Meanwhile, members of my guild will spend that SAME nine hours levelling up characters by 10 or more levels, running three or more Shadow instances, or tradeskilling through a couple of missions.  In nine hours, I can run several heritage quests back to back on several characters, or I can spend that time just checking the broker.

Time does not equate to effort.  Not in this world.  Not in a virtual world.

Well, I spent my last nine in-game hours running Kaladim for two guildies, getting them several levels. I also healed/tanked OOB, COV, Nest, SOS, Unrest and Mistmoore Catacombs. I did tradeskill quests, explored Moors and levelled my third crafter some. I made a couple of epic tradeskill updates for a few guildies, and I made food, drink and furniture for the guild. I did the harvest cloak quest, and I harvested for my guild hall depot. I healed on a Lyceum raid and I got my Jarsath Wastes hammer, starting from scratch. I bought a couple of masters from the broker and played some LoN to get a painting for my guild hall. I completed several L&Ls and ran some guildies through a couple of HQs . I also levelled my guild to 55.

Is that enough effort for you to consider that per haps, yes, I DO deserve a duo instance or two in T SO? Have I worked hard enough to get some enjoymen t out of TSO?

[liveja]

BriarHaven wrote:

So, yes, I and other players feel this can be done and have seen this done in this game and others. 

You know, this sort of argument befuddles me entirely. You say you have seen the type of game you want in OTHER games ... so why are you playing THIS one? Why are you trying to get the devs to change THIS game so it will be more like that OTHER game?

Why not just play that OTHER game, that already has the changes you seek????

/boggle

[BriarHaven]

Because this game supported small groups and casual players up to this point.   I also like the crafting system.      

But these are suggestions I and others are making which are as valid as your own point of view.   These are suggestion boards. 

In the end, yes, we will vote with our pocket books given that there are diverse MMOGs on the market. Therefore, I make these suggestions as I wish this game to succeed from 3 - 5 years from now because it is a very good one, if not the best.

Finally, it need not be my playing style versus your game style. The devs can create content for diverse styles of play which they have done in the past: EOF, DOR, SP, BL, Small dungeons.   We ask they continue this support.   

In the end the game as a whole wins, if people are included in the content and not excluded. 

[liveja]

BriarHaven wrote:

Because this game supported small groups and casual players up to this point.

I'm not quite sure why you think it no longer supports those players. My guildies are about as casual & small group as you're going to find, & TSO works out just fine for us. What are we doing right to enjoy this expac so much, that other people apparently aren't (for whatever reason) doing?

[BriarHaven]

BriarHaven wrote:

Davngr1 wrote:

i think soe should bring back the "easy" & "hard" settings from poets but make it actually mean something:

  easy:                                                                    hard:

40% of hp                                                                100% hp

 40% offensive skill mobs                                        120% offensive skill mobs

 100% tresured drop chance                                   0% tresured drop chance

10% legen drop chance                                            100% legen drop chance

1% master chance                                                      10% master drop chance

   this way the zone would still hold some challange and reward for both full groups and small groups but would still encourge full groups.   

 these changes would not be very hard and ofcourse some instances/drops would not be available to "easy" modes.

 

Please refer to this suggestion.  Small groups 2 - 4 people do not appear to be supported.  

[Kendricke]

Possumu@Splitpaw wrote:

Kendricke wrote:

I've worked 100 hours over a two week period at a desk in a comfy office.  I have an uncle who has worked 100 hours in one week on a construction derrick in the Gulf of Mexico.  Strangely, his pay for 100 hours was more than double what my 100 hours pay was.  I daresay he may have worked slightly harder for his pay than I did.

Time absolutely does not equate to effort.  I can log in right now and spend nine hours in game chatting with friends from the comforts of my guildhall.  Meanwhile, members of my guild will spend that SAME nine hours levelling up characters by 10 or more levels, running three or more Shadow instances, or tradeskilling through a couple of missions.  In nine hours, I can run several heritage quests back to back on several characters, or I can spend that time just checking the broker.

Time does not equate to effort.  Not in this world.  Not in a virtual world.

Well, I spent my last nine in-game hours running Kaladim for two guildies, getting them several levels. I also healed/tanked OOB, COV, Nest, SOS, Unrest and Mistmoore Catacombs. I did tradeskill quests, explored Moors and levelled my third crafter some. I made a couple of epic tradeskill updates for a few guildies, and I made food, drink and furniture for the guild. I did the harvest cloak quest, and I harvested for my guild hall depot. I healed on a Lyceum raid and I got my Jarsath Wastes hammer, starting from scratch. I bought a couple of masters from the broker and played some LoN to get a painting for my guild hall. I completed several L&Ls and ran some guildies through a couple of HQs . I also levelled my guild to 55.

Is that enough effort for you to consider that per haps, yes, I DO deserve a duo instance or two in T SO? Have I worked hard enough to get some enjoymen t out of TSO?

What is a "duo" instance, anyway?  How do you balance an instance so that it's challenging for a Guardian/Templar AND for a Swashbuckler/Ranger combination?  Does that type of coding magically write itself for each of the 576 potential two-class combos?  Once you have those 576 combinations figured out, do you then take the various achievement combinations into account? 

...or do you simply design the content so that a tank/healer can work the encounters?  Honestly, how do you design any of the current encounters for just two classes?

[liveja]

BriarHaven wrote:

Please refer to this suggestion. Small groups 2 - 4 people do not appear to be supported.  

But have you TRIED it? Or are you just reading what other people have said & forming an inference that may or may not be valid? I'm almost positive that three good players -- & by good, I mean "skilled", not "well geared" people could clear much of the Obelisk of Anakzul, & possibly portions of other instance as well. Granted, I don't "know" if it can be done or not, but since some people have reported soloing the first room, I'd imagine it wouldn't be all that hard to trio it.

In any event, I'm not really sure why the 6-player group has now evolved into the "new hardcore", into which previously only "raiders" were lumped.

[BriarHaven]

No, I agree with you there. Six people is not the new raid.      But in many instances in prior releases can be done by  smaller groups could and run them.  I do all the time with my hubby with the current content.   In most releases, small groups have completed the content or part of it. 

But needing six players to complete missions can be hard to obtain or pick groups commonly fail.    To make this expansion more viable, long term, I would propose and others have proposed a scaling option or small group missions.   A group is 2+ or more people after all.  

Bottom line, with the prior expansion group people felt excluded do to solo content.  With this year's content Solo poeoples and small group users sem to be left out.    There is a happy medium between the two such as with EOF.      It about supporting diverse styles of game play with each expasnion, especially, as we need to wait a year for each release.  

[Kendricke]

BriarHaven wrote:

No, I agree with you there. Six people is not the new raid.      But in many instances in prior releases can be done by  smaller groups could and run them.  I do all the time with my hubby with the current content.   In most releases, small groups have completed the content or part of it. 

But needing six players to complete missions can be hard to obtain or pick groups commonly fail.    To make this expansion more viable, long term, I would propose and others have proposed a scaling option or small group missions.   A group is 2+ or more people after all.  

Bottom line, with the prior expansion group people felt excluded do to solo content.  With this year's content Solo poeoples and small group users sem to be left out.    There is a happy medium between the two such as with EOF.      It about supporting diverse styles of game play with each expasnion, especially, as we need to wait a year for each release.  

Have you tried Obelisk of Ahkzul?  It doesn't typically award shards, but there are three relatively easy named which drop legendary armor, a chest which contains around 15pp, and one of the most interesting/fun group encounters in the game (one word: boing!).  For relatively casual players, this should be considered the entry level dungeon.  Till you've at least ATTEMPTED this dungeon, you should not be complaining about a lack of content. 

Even if you're having issues with other Shadow Odyssey dungeons, the Obelisk should be considered an EASY dungeon - even by Kunark standards.

[Amise]

Kendricke wrote:

Possumu@Splitpaw wrote:

Kendricke wrote:

I've worked 100 hours over a two week period at a desk in a comfy office.  I have an uncle who has worked 100 hours in one week on a construction derrick in the Gulf of Mexico.  Strangely, his pay for 100 hours was more than double what my 100 hours pay was.  I daresay he may have worked slightly harder for his pay than I did.

Time absolutely does not equate to effort.  I can log in right now and spend nine hours in game chatting with friends from the comforts of my guildhall.  Meanwhile, members of my guild will spend that SAME nine hours levelling up characters by 10 or more levels, running three or more Shadow instances, or tradeskilling through a couple of missions.  In nine hours, I can run several heritage quests back to back on several characters, or I can spend that time just checking the broker.

Time does not equate to effort.  Not in this world.  Not in a virtual world.

Well, I spent my last nine in-game hours running Kaladim for two guildies, getting them several levels. I also healed/tanked OOB, COV, Nest, SOS, Unrest and Mistmoore Catacombs. I did tradeskill quests, explored Moors and levelled my third crafter some. I made a couple of epic tradeskill updates for a few guildies, and I made food, drink and furniture for the guild. I did the harvest cloak quest, and I harvested for my guild hall depot. I healed on a Lyceum raid and I got my Jarsath Wastes hammer, starting from scratch. I bought a couple of masters from the broker and played some LoN to get a painting for my guild hall. I completed several L&Ls and ran some guildies through a couple of HQs . I also levelled my guild to 55.

Is that enough effort for you to consider that per haps, yes, I DO deserve a duo instance or two in T SO? Have I worked hard enough to get some enjoymen t out of TSO?

What is a "duo" instance, anyway?  How do you balance an instance so that it's challenging for a Guardian/Templar AND for a Swashbuckler/Ranger combination?  Does that type of coding magically write itself for each of the 576 potential two-class combos?  Once you have those 576 combinations figured out, do you then take the various achievement combinations into account? 

...or do you simply design the content so that a tank/healer can work the encounters?  Honestly, how do you design any of the current encounters for just two classes?

The same way you balance it so that it's challenging for a guard/temp/warden/illusionist/assassin/warlock versus a bruiser/mystic/brigand/necro/ranger/dirge, I would imagine. If there are 576 duo combinations, how many six-person group combinations do you figure there are?

The obvious answer is to gear it towards a certain type of group and leave the others out in the cold. Which is what has been done, to a significant extent, in many of the game's heroic instances.

There are some instances in the game where group make-up is irrelevant: you can go in there with a tank, healer and four DPS, or a tank, two healers, three DPS, or a monkey and a box of wet tissues and still win.

There are others where you need a much more specific set of group members to complete the entire instance.

The point being, you're picking up on this issue as it pertains to small groups as a reason not to provide the content, but it's a non-issue because it's already SOP in the whole game. Yes, it would be more difficult if you are designing an encounter for 2-4 people, but I doubt it is impossible, as you make it out to be.

[Yella]

Kendricke wrote:

Possumu@Splitpaw wrote:

Kendricke wrote:

I've worked 100 hours over a two week period at a desk in a comfy office.  I have an uncle who has worked 100 hours in one week on a construction derrick in the Gulf of Mexico.  Strangely, his pay for 100 hours was more than double what my 100 hours pay was.  I daresay he may have worked slightly harder for his pay than I did.

Time absolutely does not equate to effort.  I can log in right now and spend nine hours in game chatting with friends from the comforts of my guildhall.  Meanwhile, members of my guild will spend that SAME nine hours levelling up characters by 10 or more levels, running three or more Shadow instances, or tradeskilling through a couple of missions.  In nine hours, I can run several heritage quests back to back on several characters, or I can spend that time just checking the broker.

Time does not equate to effort.  Not in this world.  Not in a virtual world.

Well, I spent my last nine in-game hours running Kaladim for two guildies, getting them several levels. I also healed/tanked OOB, COV, Nest, SOS, Unrest and Mistmoore Catacombs. I did tradeskill quests, explored Moors and levelled my third crafter some. I made a couple of epic tradeskill updates for a few guildies, and I made food, drink and furniture for the guild. I did the harvest cloak quest, and I harvested for my guild hall depot. I healed on a Lyceum raid and I got my Jarsath Wastes hammer, starting from scratch. I bought a couple of masters from the broker and played some LoN to get a painting for my guild hall. I completed several L&Ls and ran some guildies through a couple of HQs . I also levelled my guild to 55.

Is that enough effort for you to consider that per haps, yes, I DO deserve a duo instance or two in T SO? Have I worked hard enough to get some enjoymen t out of TSO?

What is a "duo" instance, anyway?  How do you balance an instance so that it's challenging for a Guardian/Templar AND for a Swashbuckler/Ranger combination?  Does that type of coding magically write itself for each of the 576 potential two-class combos?  Once you have those 576 combinations figured out, do you then take the various achievement combinations into account? 

...or do you simply design the content so that a tank/healer can work the encounters?  Honestly, how do you design any of the current encounters for just two classes?

You are making it way more difficult than it really is. I'm curious about your motivation, why exactly you want to remove anything doable by smaller groups?

Making an instance duoable is pretty simple, all you need really to do is lower mob level and adjust mob dps/hp appropriately. You dont need to balance it to N*N combinations any more than you would need to balance an instance to the N*N*N*N*N*N combinations with full groups (which incidentally involves far more combinations).

[Talz]

Yella wrote:

Kendricke wrote:

Possumu@Splitpaw wrote:

Kendricke wrote:

I've worked 100 hours over a two week period at a desk in a comfy office.  I have an uncle who has worked 100 hours in one week on a construction derrick in the Gulf of Mexico.  Strangely, his pay for 100 hours was more than double what my 100 hours pay was.  I daresay he may have worked slightly harder for his pay than I did.

Time absolutely does not equate to effort.  I can log in right now and spend nine hours in game chatting with friends from the comforts of my guildhall.  Meanwhile, members of my guild will spend that SAME nine hours levelling up characters by 10 or more levels, running three or more Shadow instances, or tradeskilling through a couple of missions.  In nine hours, I can run several heritage quests back to back on several characters, or I can spend that time just checking the broker.

Time does not equate to effort.  Not in this world.  Not in a virtual world.

Well, I spent my last nine in-game hours running Kaladim for two guildies, getting them several levels. I also healed/tanked OOB, COV, Nest, SOS, Unrest and Mistmoore Catacombs. I did tradeskill quests, explored Moors and levelled my third crafter some. I made a couple of epic tradeskill updates for a few guildies, and I made food, drink and furniture for the guild. I did the harvest cloak quest, and I harvested for my guild hall depot. I healed on a Lyceum raid and I got my Jarsath Wastes hammer, starting from scratch. I bought a couple of masters from the broker and played some LoN to get a painting for my guild hall. I completed several L&Ls and ran some guildies through a couple of HQs . I also levelled my guild to 55.

Is that enough effort for you to consider that per haps, yes, I DO deserve a duo instance or two in T SO? Have I worked hard enough to get some enjoymen t out of TSO?

What is a "duo" instance, anyway?  How do you balance an instance so that it's challenging for a Guardian/Templar AND for a Swashbuckler/Ranger combination?  Does that type of coding magically write itself for each of the 576 potential two-class combos?  Once you have those 576 combinations figured out, do you then take the various achievement combinations into account? 

...or do you simply design the content so that a tank/healer can work the encounters?  Honestly, how do you design any of the current encounters for just two classes?

You are making it way more difficult than it really is. I'm curious about your motivation, why exactly you want to remove anything doable by smaller groups?

Making an instance duoable is pretty simple, all you need really to do is lower mob level and adjust mob dps/hp appropriately. You dont need to balance it to N*N combinations any more than you would need to balance an instance to the N*N*N*N*N*N combinations with full groups (which incidentally involves far more combinations).

I think it has less to do with him wanting to remove anything doable by smaller groups and more to do with him having a brain.

Easier Content = Lesser Quality Loot

Lesser Quality Loot = Forum Hissy Fit

Actually interacting with other players is a much more logical way to get digital swords than creating an entire system to make the acquistion of digital swords easier.

Challenging duo content exists.  More than any group can do on a weekly basis without confessing that they spend way too much of their life in this game.  It doesn't have the latest cutting edge rewards though and that's what this thread is really all about.

[Kendricke]

Amise wrote:

Kendricke wrote:

Possumu@Splitpaw wrote:

Kendricke wrote:

I've worked 100 hours over a two week period at a desk in a comfy office.  I have an uncle who has worked 100 hours in one week on a construction derrick in the Gulf of Mexico.  Strangely, his pay for 100 hours was more than double what my 100 hours pay was.  I daresay he may have worked slightly harder for his pay than I did.

Time absolutely does not equate to effort.  I can log in right now and spend nine hours in game chatting with friends from the comforts of my guildhall.  Meanwhile, members of my guild will spend that SAME nine hours levelling up characters by 10 or more levels, running three or more Shadow instances, or tradeskilling through a couple of missions.  In nine hours, I can run several heritage quests back to back on several characters, or I can spend that time just checking the broker.

Time does not equate to effort.  Not in this world.  Not in a virtual world.

Well, I spent my last nine in-game hours running Kaladim for two guildies, getting them several levels. I also healed/tanked OOB, COV, Nest, SOS, Unrest and Mistmoore Catacombs. I did tradeskill quests, explored Moors and levelled my third crafter some. I made a couple of epic tradeskill updates for a few guildies, and I made food, drink and furniture for the guild. I did the harvest cloak quest, and I harvested for my guild hall depot. I healed on a Lyceum raid and I got my Jarsath Wastes hammer, starting from scratch. I bought a couple of masters from the broker and played some LoN to get a painting for my guild hall. I completed several L&Ls and ran some guildies through a couple of HQs . I also levelled my guild to 55.

Is that enough effort for you to consider that per haps, yes, I DO deserve a duo instance or two in T SO? Have I worked hard enough to get some enjoymen t out of TSO?

What is a "duo" instance, anyway?  How do you balance an instance so that it's challenging for a Guardian/Templar AND for a Swashbuckler/Ranger combination?  Does that type of coding magically write itself for each of the 576 potential two-class combos?  Once you have those 576 combinations figured out, do you then take the various achievement combinations into account? 

...or do you simply design the content so that a tank/healer can work the encounters?  Honestly, how do you design any of the current encounters for just two classes?

The same way you balance it so that it's challenging for a guard/temp/warden/illusionist/assassin/warlock versus a bruiser/mystic/brigand/necro/ranger/dirge, I would imagine. If there are 576 duo combinations, how many six-person group combinations do you figure there are?

The obvious answer is to gear it towards a certain type of group and leave the others out in the cold. Which is what has been done, to a significant extent, in many of the game's heroic instances.

There are some instances in the game where group make-up is irrelevant: you can go in there with a tank, healer and four DPS, or a tank, two healers, three DPS, or a monkey and a box of wet tissues and still win.

There are others where you need a much more specific set of group members to complete the entire instance.

The point being, you're picking up on this issue as it pertains to small groups as a reason not to provide the content, but it's a non-issue because it's already SOP in the whole game. Yes, it would be more difficult if you are designing an encounter for 2-4 people, but I doubt it is impossible, as you make it out to be.

Group content is generally balanced around a tank/healer/dps dynamic.  Solo and duo content is generally built in such a way that any of the 24 classes can handle it.  It's not a linear equation to "adjust" group content for solo/duo combinations. 

Really though, that's not even the point.  Look, if you're asking for more solo or duo content, I can agree with that.  I also want more solo or duo rated content.  I also want more tradeskilling content.  I also want more raid content.  I also want more contested content.  I want more full group content.  I want more broker content.  I want more guild content.  I want more art assets.  I want more achievement options.  I want more illusions.  I want more house items.  I want more dragons.  I want more dungeons.  I want more, more, more, more, more, more, more, MORE.

However, there's a difference between asking for more content and asking for current content to be tuned down to fit playstyle X.  Players who don't raid want group paths to obtain their Mythical epics.  Players who don't group want alternate methods to obtain void shards.  Players who don't tradeskill want different methods to gain grandmaster cloaks or earrings of the solstice or pack unicorns. 

This is typically where I draw the line for myself as to whether or not I like a suggestion for new/different/changed content or not.  You want more content for playstyle X?  Great!  So do I.  You want to change the content which is currently designed for playstyle Y so it fits playstyle X?  Well, now I probably disagree with you. 

It's not about whether it's possible or even if it's difficult.  It's about whether or not such a thing is "right".  I don't think players who can't form up raids should have their Mythicals.  I don't think players who can't put together groups deserve void shards (which are only used for legendary set items).  I don't think players who don't tradeskill should have pack unicorns.  I believe if players want rewards which are set aside for a particular playstyle, then the players should adopt that playstyle at least long enough to gain that particular reward.

Recently, the question was raised on these forums as to whether or not Mythicals should be made available to non-raiders - should the difficulty to obtain Mythicals be adjusted?.  Ilucide answered the question thusly:  "...that's a question I'm fine with answering definitively. No, it should (and will) not. There's a caveat here though - as there becomes new content, new items, new achievements, new levels, the relative difficulty in obtaining older items (in this case Mythical Epics) will decline naturally. And that's something that we expect, both as players and developers."

I agree with his statement.  More to the point, I agree with the underlying logic that supports such a statement. 

So no, I don't believe that current dungeons should just be scaled down to fit a particular playstyle.  If anything, I believe NEW dungeons should be created that could cater to different playstyles...but I do not feel that such dungeons should award the same or similar rewards that are currently reserved for other playstyles. 

[freel]

I think what those of us who enjoy playing in small groups, who are not raid geared, do not have master spells, etc. are asking for is some dungeon content that we can enjoy that offers rewards that will help us be able to do more. It's not like we're asking for a single thing to be taken away, we just want content that we can play. The overland zones don't offer us enough variety or rewards. Also some of us don't have the time it takes to devote to the new style of instances.

We also grow weary of these comments that because our playstyle is different we are inferior and thus do not deserve quality rewards. We work just as hard doing what we do in this game. We enjoy more variety in our playstyle, so while we don't spend hours in raids or even adventuring, we do spend what we consider quality time playing the content that has been developed for us to play.

Before I go further - I think its really silly to talk about working hard in a game. I work for a living. I play a game - I don't like to consider it WORK!

I would venture to say that people who do not raid spend more time enjoying the vast amount of varied content. We should be rewarded for being well-rounded players not punished because we don't play what some consider as the "right" way.

Before ROK we could always enjoy at least some of the high-end content. After begging the devs finally toned down Karnor's so we had a chance of success. Unfortunately since that is not an instanced zone, we still don't have much chance there as those who could fight successfully in other zones seem to enjoy camping all the names, thus shutting us out.

It's a shame when a portion of the player base is devalued and made to beg for content we can enjoy. It's even more shameful for members of what once was a community to tell us we're not worth developing content for. I've been an EQ junkie since 2001 - I'm addicted, so I stay despite feeling more and more like I'm not wanted.

I did the raid thing in EQ1 and was just as arrogant as some of you excluding players from our guild because they couldn't play enough or weren't geared right, didn't have a high-end computer, etc. etc. etc. Those days are past and now I understand that this is a game with a huge potential for different playing styles. Every style deserves respect, because not a single one of us is better or deserves more than someone else.

I've posted so many times about the need for balance. Instead of developing 15 new instances for high-end players, develop 8 for high end, 4 for medium and 3 for easy - that's balance and equal opportunity. It makes no difference why anyone plays the way they play - the point is that we all just want a chance to play the game we love. So please stop judging others and expecting us all to be alike. Jebus!

[Noaani]

erin wrote:

Noaani wrote:

You can feel free to continue to talk about it, that affects no one, just be aware that SoE have already stated that an option such as this is not on the cards. They would sooner create a small group instance from the beginning, which is also something that is unlikly to happen (though more likely than scaling based on group size).

Link?

LINK

This is the best link I can get on short notice.

Although it is talking about raid instances, the basics are identilce (scaling based on number of players present).

[Noaani]

Amise wrote:

If there are 576 duo combinations, how many six-person group combinations do you figure there are?

2.

Tank - Healer - DPS and Tank - Healer - DPS - Utility.

The remaining 2 - 3 slots can be filled up with anything if you have that basic sorted (incidently, tank != fighter, DPS != mage or scout, they are roles to fill, not positions on a class archtype tree).

Try and run an instance without people filling these roles, it will not go so well.

This does not translate well to duos, or even trios, as there is no defination of roles that need to be filled in such groups.

Does a duo need to comprise of a tank and healer, a tank and DPS or a healer and DPS? If it still needs the three basics of a normal group in order to perform well on the content provided, that means a lot of classes are going to be unable to perform in duos. If you need to provide tanking, healing and DPS, then hybrid classes are the only valid choices.

Then you have the issue Kendricke mentioned, once you have your duo or trio sorted out, how do you balance content around them all. If content is made hard for a coercer - wizard - fury combo, then it would be near impossible for a guardian - templar - troubador combo. Is the latter any less valid a trio combo than the former? Who is to even say it is or isn't?