Just find a Group...

The only real challenge I see with trying to encourage bigger than 4 person groups is one of logistics.

For any group to be successfull there has to be some kind of sinergy. Four people, even strangers will either mesh or fall apart in a short period of time. Usually mesh unless you have that one square peg trying to fit a round hole. Given that, 4 person groups, reguardless of the challenge they face will adapt to each other quite quickly, in the game enviroment that means that they'll sort out quickly who is/should be doing what, and will fall into style/combo quickly.

Once they've done that, they'll be able to take on bigger challenges before they know it. This usually becomes apparent when a mistake is made but the resutling zerg of mobs on the group is still taken out succsefully. This is usually also a high point of the groups experiance. Not mechanical exp, but the subjective, emotional kind.

What happens when you start to try to put together larger groups is interpersonal dynamics will start to get in the way.

You can watch any 4 person group fly along in perfect harmony, even 4 strangers in a pickup group. Take a second group who's doing the same thing and combine them into what *should* be an 8 person supergroup and you'll see the dynamic fall apart. It could be a result of alpha personalities clashing, mixed or unclear goals emerging, or even just the sheer complexity of keeping 8 people moving in one direction.

I've seen this in the workplace. If I expect any group of people larger than 3 to actually get anything done, I'm going to make sure that there's at least 1 person nominally in charge. In a real world enviroment this can be a challenge, in a game world all but impossible.

There are players out there who quickly gain the repution of putting together good groups. Everyone wants to play under them. They're 'natural' leaders.

But....

They're also few and far between. Which means that the average group is going to be made up of 4+ people who all either have no goals in mind, or all want different goals. In a group of 4, that will usually shake itself out pretty quick. Greater than 4 and it usually shakes itself apart.

I've seen it in Taskforces. You are part of an 8 person team, by mission 3 you're down to 6, and my mission 5 it's somewhere between 2 and 5 people. But, that smaller group can usually take on the same challenge that the bigger group couldn't. We've all been in the group where a mission was taken with 8 people in the group, there was a wipeout and 3 leave, the mission is still set to having 8 players yet the smaller group of 5 manages the threat without a problem.

Does that mean that the three who left were crappy players? Absolutly not, they could have been the 3 best/most experianced ones in the group, but a smaller group will sort it's dynamics out faster.

My point? I suspect that there isn't a developer on the planet who can make a game where the risk/reward is balanced in such a way as to have groupings of greater than 4 people work together succesfully. It has nothing at all to do with the game and everything to do with how people work together within a given situation.

I'll get off my sociological-anthroplogicial texts now and see if I can find the soap box under all that stuff and give it a kick too!

[ QUOTE ]
"Just find a Group" or "Include such and such in your group."

As long as this game is advertised as one that can be played solo, those are not answers to problems/complaints people post in the forums. Please, if your tempted to make one of those responses, think twice. Your not helping and just adding noise that makes it harder to see the serious rsponses, especially in regards to update 2 which is coming.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of times when I see those responses they are answering someone who is asking why they can't do a very particular thing solo (not all the time, just a lot of times.)

This game has never been advertised as a game in which you can experience all the content solo. So I’m going to choose to dissagree with you if you’re saying those responces are never valid.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Just find a Group" or "Include such and such in your group."

As long as this game is advertised as one that can be played solo, those are not answers to problems/complaints people post in the forums. Please, if your tempted to make one of those responses, think twice. Your not helping and just adding noise that makes it harder to see the serious rsponses, especially in regards to update 2 which is coming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every MMOG should be group based at some point (read as group nessecary).

Otherwise it should be a LAN or single player title.

And why on Earth would you pay a monthly fee for a game that you could solo 100% of the content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking for myself, I have a group-only character (defender), a solo-only character (scrapper), & two flexible characters (blaster & scrapper) who will team or solo according to availability & personal choice.

I find I experience the story of my missions & arcs better as a soloer than as part of a group - even when the group is RL friends - because I can take time to read all the mission text, every clue, all the speeches, etc. So grouping is social, soloing is for content.

And, of course, after an eight- to ten-hour day spent dealing with needy, garrulous &/or idiotic clients, sometimes I don't want to deal with anyone else!

And that "personal choice" thing is really it - whether you comprehend it or not, some people really do want to adventure solo, & generally understand that not all content will be open to them. (Although I do think that personal contacts should offer soloable (but not solo-only) missions & story arcs.)

Nor does the fact that one is soloing one's missions necessarily equate to not interacting with anyone else. I leveled a character to 50 solo in DAoC while being a guild leader, & my chat lines were always full with general talk, RP scenarios, & advice.

[ QUOTE ]

For a group, I'd think you'd have at least one defender &/or controller with some form of status protection or alleviation, which should help the situation; if you've got more than four people, you really ought to have two. Although two lines (Empathy & Kinetics, I think) offer only an after-the-fact effect, Storm's is single-target only, & Dark Miasma has nothing.


[/ QUOTE ]

And thats one of the things that worries me PicassoCat.
I know Statesman want to have controllers wanted more in a group, but are they planning on having one required all the time?

Is this game turing into eq2 where you have to have 1 of each AT?

I usually duo with a FF defender, Empt Defender or a DM scrapper. With the new patch it looks like thats going away.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And this is a great goal, I want to see this happen. But right now the current trend is in introducing status effects. At level 10 there where very few mobs with status effects, the occasional Edilon or Lost Blaster. By 40 it seems the only challenge is chain stunning or holding mobs and well that is not what many people consider to be a fun challenge.



[/ QUOTE ]

No - the Status effects are not meant to be the way that things get "harder" in the overall sense. The current changes to Rikti and Nemesis bring them into line with the difficulty of other groups (Malta, Carnival). So now all groups are of equal difficulty (that's the goal!).

Now the Inspirations and powers that protect oneself from stunning, etc. are very, very needed. And that's a good thing. Tackle the high level groups without preparation and a hero is in deep trouble - quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Status Effects are overused and plain old not fun. I would rather the mobs have higher damage, longer range, more debuffs, ANYTHING but status effects.

Either that, or have high end mobs drop nothing but Iron Wills.


Or you could always add a status effect line of pool powers for those of us who don't have pocket Defenders.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Put your group of eight together. It doesn't really matter what you put in the group with one exception. I'll get to the exception.
I will outrun them and not by a little. At level 38 we clocked it. I earned XP at a rate of 190,000 per hour solo. Go to whatever zone you like. Good luck. How about Crey's Follies? Is that hazard enough? Freaks. Carnival area by the Rikti crash site.
Then I will assemble a group of 4 and we will outrun them again.
Then I will assemble a group of 2 and we will outrun the four.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're absolutely correct. The problem is, once again, that the high level players (38) can battle against foes that are much, much higher level than they are. A small group of said heroes can find a spawn appropriate for them...whereas what's tough enough for a full group of 8 level 38's? It's much, much tougher for that large group to find something that's a challenge - and can give them great XP - than it is for the the small group.

That issue is next up - right after the Expansion goes live.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real problem with making +4 tougher at the 30+ levels is that exp ia already painful there (allegedly) and limiting people to -1 to +1 mobs will make the exp even harder to earn. Yes, you have said you will compensate with more exp, but MMOG experience says you will inadequately adjust (on purpose or not.)

I also have to say that this thread has been educational. I had no idea about the hazard vs trial zone purpose. That isn't communicated anywhere coherently. If less than 1% of players read these boards, how are the other 99% supposed to understand the design intention here? I see groups of 5+ hunting in Steel Canyon all the time, yet you are saying in this thread that they should be in different zones.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, it seems the plan is to make it such that you must group to take on white con mobs and get even LESS xp than you get today. Thus the future of this game seems to be forced grouping with terrible XP. Soloing will be possible, but your XP will be next to nothing. Missions will become impossible as the even con mobs and bosses won't be doable by a solo player at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I got at all. He seemed to be pretty clear that a player should be able to solo three even con minions. The difficulty of many enemies 30+ is simply too easy, and taking out 3 of them is very easy for a solo player. The plan is to boost the difficulty of those 30+ enemies, but still keeping the balance of approximately three minions to one player.

[/ QUOTE ]
The whole "3 white cons per hero" garbage has me choked. Please explain to me how my lvl 27 Fire/Energy Blaster, who can take down an entire group of orange minions in two shots, is going to be effected by this.

Are they going to make the mobs so much harder to kill that I'll have no choice but to fight lower level mobs? (Thereby nerfing EVERYONE.) Or are they going to nerf my "Build Up - Aim - AoE - AoE" combo so that it does less damage? (Thereby nerfing Blasters (and probably everyone else who uses Build Up)).


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are going to make mob harder to kill. I don't see the purple patch going away, so the only way to make tougher fights that require groups is to add HP/power to higher level mobs. I am guessing you will see a group of 4+ heroes needed to take out a groups of +4 level mobs. As long as they increase xp to compendate for higher risk (risk=reward), I do no see a problem with this. When you solo, you fight -1,0, +1, +2 depending on your class/build. When you group you take on +2, +3, +4, +5 for more risk/reward. Suddenly groups are actually needed, tanks are needed, and controllers are needed.

Buildup is not the part of your buildup/aim/aoe/aoe combo that will be nerfed. It is the AoE part. I also have a fire/energy blaster. It makes my energy/energy blaster look almost worthless in comparison. With massive AoE strikes, xp is only limited by how many +2 can fit into the AoE area. You had better enjoy this while you can, because I am guessing it will end soon.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For a group, I'd think you'd have at least one defender &/or controller with some form of status protection or alleviation, which should help the situation; if you've got more than four people, you really ought to have two. Although two lines (Empathy & Kinetics, I think) offer only an after-the-fact effect, Storm's is single-target only, & Dark Miasma has nothing.


[/ QUOTE ]

And thats one of the things that worries me PicassoCat.
I know Statesman want to have controllers wanted more in a group, but are they planning on having one required all the time?

Is this game turing into eq2 where you have to have 1 of each AT?

I usually duo with a FF defender, Empt Defender or a DM scrapper. With the new patch it looks like thats going away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Required? No, but if status effects are that much of a concern, then your choices are to add defenders &/or controllers (note: TWO ATs to choose from); to form a group where everyone has personal status protection (scrappers, tankers, some defenders & some controllers, so FOUR ATs); or to run without protection & rely on inspirations (some defenders, some controllers & blasters).

There is also the possibility of maximizing defense, or capping accuracy debuffs, to prevent status effects from landing in the first place. Again, some ATs/powersets can provide this (self or group), others can't.

Or the possibility of defeating mobs quickly enough that status protection isn't an issue - for which you need blasters, or scrappers.

You can group successfully with virtually any combination of ATs (see the defender forum for all-defender group results, for example), but for specific types of effects (status protection, damage, defense, healing) some ATs will have it in useful amounts, & some won't.

For what it's worth, I also don't like seeing an increase of status effects at low levels; based solely on my characters (which are, thankfully, past those levels), my defender didn't get her defense/resistance buff till 8th level & my scrapper didn't get her status protection till 10th. Increasing status effects at levels where most powersets can't yet have specific protection doesn't seem to be a useful trend.

[quoteAnd why on Earth would you pay a monthly fee for a game that you could solo 100% of the content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe because that is how some people like it? Everyone else isn't you, shocking as that may seem.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you actually play your game from time to time? I keep hearing you say that you do, but if your toons are good for 3 minions, than I can only guess you are playing a controller.


[/ QUOTE ]


3 minions = 1 hero is the desired goal. That's approximately what it is at levels 1 to 22 or so. Past that, heroes become disproportionately powerful. That WILL be addressed soon after the expansion goes live (that has priority at the moment).

[/ QUOTE ]


If this is the case, I'm SERIOUSLY hoping theres an appropriate exp change. You said yourself you were happy with people's rates of advancement. I dont mind fighting fewer, but more challenging foes to level (Id prefer it actually). Something like this would also help balance AE vs single target heroes. However, post 30, slowing the game down this noticably isnt a good thing IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen it in Taskforces. You are part of an 8 person team, by mission 3 you're down to 6, and my mission 5 it's somewhere between 2 and 5 people. But, that smaller group can usually take on the same challenge that the bigger group couldn't. We've all been in the group where a mission was taken with 8 people in the group, there was a wipeout and 3 leave, the mission is still set to having 8 players yet the smaller group of 5 manages the threat without a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, this is a common misconception. Mobs in indoor missions (and task force missions) spawn dynamically. When you enter a mission, only the first few mob groups are spawned. Those spawns take the number of players on your team into account. There are no mobs at the back half of the mission (or upper floors, depending on the layout) at this point. Mobs only spawn once your group approaches and, even then, they only spawn within a certain radius of your group.

So, if your group consists of 8 players when you enter, then the mob spawns will take that into account, and the first few spawns you encounter will be quite difficult (at least 2 lts and maybe 2 bosses per spawn, in addition to 6 or more minions).

If, however, your group gets wiped, and 3 or 4 players quit the team, only the mob spawns that were there when you left will be the same. Any new spawns (at the back of the mission, or on the upper floors) will adjust themselves to the new group size.

So your perception that a smaller group is better at handling missions set for larger groups is not quite correct. It only seems that way. If you want to test it for yourself, go in with a group of 8 players and, when you encounter your first mob spawn, count the number of minions, lts, and bosses. Then have 3 or 4 people quit the team and leave. Continue on until you encounter another mob spawn and count the minions, lts, and bosses again. You'll find that the makeup of the mob spawn has changed, based upon the number of players who are presently on your team.

I assume it's done this way for several reasons. For one, it keeps the server load to a minimum. Having a mission automatically create and keep track of hundreds of mobs as soon as you enter would cause the server to slow to a crawl. (Multiply that by 100's of missions and you have a problem with servers crashing constantly.) Another good (depending upon your point of view) reason would be to prevent single heroes from creating a 3 or 4 person team so that a mission spawned the appropriate number of mobs for that team, and then having the other players leave so that he/she could solo a much more difficult mission for more xp. (Hopefully the promised mission difficulty sliders will address this.)

(Devs: feel free to jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong.)

so it's simple.

Everyone will re-spec to SINGLE TARGET ATs.

in 3 months we'' say "Remember when people actually took FIREBALL? heh, those were the good ole days..."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is closer to the spirit of my statement - but the crux here is "decent rate of speed." Some Archetypes do it faster than others. Controllers, and to a degree Defenders & Tankers, solo slowly. That's totally acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Totally acceptable? To whom? Not the players.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one I play with minds. Go find a nice soft spot and grow up. Life is hard. Wear a helmet.

I think it's clear now that Statesman doesn't understand what many players find fun. Thank you for clarifying that, Statesman.

More status effects? As if standing in one place watching yourself be defeated is 'fun'? Umm, yea.

Fight -more- mobs? Players already do that (herding) but Statesman talks out of one side of his mouth and says 'fight more mobs' while out of the other he indicates that herding (which those who do it actually enjoy) is something they need to address? Many players ARE fighting more mobs ... as many as they can herd and compact and stack. Herding takes some player skill. Stacking them does too. Good twitch factor there. My god! Players ACTUALLY ARE doing what you suggested, and liking it, and benefitting from it (heck, one of the few ways in which tankers are SUPER USEFUL) -- gotta nerf that, doesn't fit with the 'vision', right?

Fight tougher mobs? As some have pointed out, there's a hard cap at con +4. Damage and effects drop like a rock past con+5. Sure you can hit con+5, but it'll take a team quite a long time to kill con+5 (it was the purple patch's band-aid follow-up that did this, until it, you couldn't even hit con+4). It takes so long that it's not worth it. Faster and easier to go fry a bunch of con+2 to con+3's. The purple patch (and its follow-up band-aid) did that to the game. Rather than bigger, tougher fights of con +8 to con+10, now it's LOTS of smaller fights of con+1 to con+3. Better exp/time and risk/reward in that spot. Make it more difficult and it'll be vaporizing con-1 to con+1's unless exp for the harder fights is SERIOUSLY ramped up....

Do missions? Not sure what mission bonus exp is on Test right now, but let me say traversing 3 zones eats a PILE of time. That's time NOT earning EXP. Takes longer when grouped, too. Mission EXP needs to be ramped up enough to compensate for this downtime, becase a street-sweeping group of 2-4, has no downtime. 1 controller or defender and 1 blaster properly synergized can kill non-stop in a hazard zone or on the street.

Some say nerf AoE's? That solves nothing -- it's just more nerfing. Probably sounds appealing to Statesman though as it slows down leveling for both AoE users AND those teamed with them. Wouldn't be fun though. Fight that takes 10 seconds now would take a minute, perhaps? That's LESS exp/time folks. Less powers for you to experiment with. Less superheroism and more supergimpyness. A better approach is to BUFF SINGLE TARGET ATTACKS THAT PLAYERS HAVE, INSTEAD.

Grouping makes this game. Right now, grouping is pretty broken. Valari's been probably the most vocal on this thread about why and I feel he's right on target. Like him, I also feel Statesman and Cryptic 'don't get it anymore' ... or that perhaps 'the vision is getting in the way of fun'.

The replay value of this game is what makes quick leveling speed a GOOD THING. I have a level 50. I also have a level 48. Neither are FOTM builds, I just have a lot of time on my hands as of late. When the 48 hits 50, I'll roll up another character of a different AT and play that. But if Statesman wants to slow things down even more, cancelation may be a better and more entertaining option. Why roll another character if I'm going to grind again, even slower??? Grind's already slowed down far too much from release, as far as I'm concerned, which hurts reply value.

-- Xurbax

Kindof off topic but if villians get boosted in the post 25+ range, since heros will need to be boosted to help compensate I'm curious why not create a system of boost strings. Scrappers would have an increased likelyhood to critical per hit in a string of attacks, you discussed boosting tanker damage per hit on an attack basis, you could make Controller holds/immobiize/sleep/confuse more accurate and less resisted per hit that is resisted or not for the same type of attack, making it easier to maintain a hold than to initially land one, and when one is resisted the second attempt is increasingly more likely to land based on duration on ones holds etc..., Defenders and Blasters could have an ever increasing boost to accuracy for each single target attack that hits. Definately prefer an approach that boosts archtypes where they need it over nerfing one archtype or another.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here are the cliff notes. The xp gained per mob defeated goes down as you add players. At 4 players, you have capped the difficulty of mobs you can face (+4 your level) and have found the largest concentration of mobs you can face. THE XP LOST DUE TO ADDITIONAL PLAYERS CAN NO LONGER BE MADE UP BY FIGHTING HIGHER LEVEL MOBS OR MORE MOBS BECAUSE OF THE PURPLE PATCH


[/ QUOTE ]

Just so that I'm clear - the larger the group, the larger the spawn. The problem is not the "purple patch" - the problem is that players are approaching MOB spawns that are simply too small for their group.

Oh - low level trials - Sewers (upper). Faultline.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is impossible to find spawns large enough to challenge at 8 person group outside of a controlled environment.

Trial areas are controlled environments. Missions are controlled environments.

The purple patch is the problem at this point, but you keep dodging the issue. Either that or you cannot fathom why a group of 8 would rather run around in a street or hazard zone than doing a trial for the umpteenth time. Repetition isn't fun. Variety is the spice of life. Trials are the only option you are offering at the present, and those are very limited in number and are level restrictive.

Right now we're faced with repetition and no challenge with a change of scenery on occasion, or your suggestion of repetition with the exact same scenery every time.

Sorry to say it, but you do keep dodging it. You must have picked up the new elude and 6 slotted it.

Sailor eX
"Not in the face!"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If 1 hero takes out 12 minions, by your own math, that is 480 xp just for him. To get the same 480 xp each, your group of 8 has to kill 55 minions in the same time period. Your groups cannot kill 55 as fast as a decent soloer can kill 12.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, they can. IF the group goes to the zones with the spawns of the appropriate size...

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this zone with a spawn of 55? I've been all over test in update 2 and haven't found it yet.

Sailor eX
"Not in the face!"

[ QUOTE ]

Just so that I'm clear - the larger the group, the larger the spawn. The problem is not the "purple patch" - the problem is that players are approaching MOB spawns that are simply too small for their group.

Oh - low level trials - Sewers (upper). Faultline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive me if this is already covered in subsequent pages. I'm still plowing through it.

Does anybody else have a problem with a developer telling us that we are playing the game wrong?

That just does not sit right with me. I am getting this "working as intended" flashback that is not pleasant.

[ QUOTE ]

Fight -more- mobs? Players already do that (herding) but Statesman talks out of one side of his mouth and says 'fight more mobs' while out of the other he indicates that herding (which those who do it actually enjoy) is something they need to address? Many players ARE fighting more mobs ... as many as they can herd and compact and stack. Herding takes some player skill. Stacking them does too. Good twitch factor there. My god! Players ACTUALLY ARE doing what you suggested, and liking it, and benefitting from it (heck, one of the few ways in which tankers are SUPER USEFUL) -- gotta nerf that, doesn't fit with the 'vision', right?


[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts exactly, agree 100%.

[ QUOTE ]
The replay value of this game is what makes quick leveling speed a GOOD THING. I have a level 50. I also have a level 48. Neither are FOTM builds, I just have a lot of time on my hands as of late. When the 48 hits 50, I'll roll up another character of a different AT and play that. But if Statesman wants to slow things down even more, cancelation may be a better and more entertaining option. Why roll another character if I'm going to grind again, even slower??? Grind's already slowed down far too much from release, as far as I'm concerned, which hurts reply value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good comment. There are 137 possible AT combinations in this game. If all ATs (and combinations therein) were equally fun to play and levelled at a (relatively) even pace, then the replayability of this game would be enormous. Even if it only took two months of casual play to reach 50 with any one AT, if the game were fun (and the grind were less painful) many, many players would stay with CoH just so they could experience the game through the eyes of a new build. As it is (and as it's shaping up to be), getting to 50 is a painful grind; doing it with more than one character is boredom incarnate.

To Statesman: If you want players to stick with the game, then make it fun to play. Make the goals (which we need many more of) reachable. Give us the opportunity and freedom to experience the game the way that WE want to experience it, and stop trying to force us into your "vision". Let us (all ATs) be heroes. This isn't a tabletop PnP roleplaying game. You're not a Dungeon Master.

[ QUOTE ]
Zones are different than missions because they are broken down into 3 categories: city, hazard & trial. City zones spawn mobs designed for 1 to 3 heroes, hazard zones spawn things for 3 to 5 heroes, and trail zones spawns mobs designed for 5 to 8 heroes.

So, in street sweeping, we've noticed that large groups (say 5 or more) going around city zones - and then complaining that group XP isn't good. When, quite frankly, these groups are street sweeping in areas that don't have anything to challenge a group that size. Risk = reward. And because there's less risk, they don't get as much XP. But if the same group were to go into a Hazard Zone, they'd find larger spawns, and reap the benefit of the group XP bonus.

Note - missions scale to the team size. There is sometimes a delay in when the mob sizes scale up to a new size team....


[/ QUOTE ]

I read through this thread hoping to see a comment from Statesman about the problem of security restrictions but I didn't see it. If I missed the comment, I apologize. That said, the reason that the group I play with hunts in city zones almost exclusively is because of the spread in levels between our characters.

Half of us joined 2.5 months ago and we got the rest to join about 1 month or so afterwards. This means that 3 of our group are in the upper 20's and the rest of the group is in the teens or very low 20's.

The problem we run into is that we cannot get into a zone that is appropriate for our team size (5-8) with everyone in the team. I had hoped that sidekicking would allow us to bring our friends into Terra Volta or Dark Astoria but it does not and I have seen the dev posts that say this will not change. This policy effectively eliminates hazard zones as an option for our team.

Trial zones are the same since they are security level restricted as well so we cannot use those either. Basically, that leaves city street fighting or missions as the only option. Unfortunately, missions are a complete joke since our upper 20 level characters can do them without any help from the other team members (even scaled up). We still do missions for variety but basically we are stuck hunting in city zones.

At any rate, this is why we hunt in large groups in city zones (probably why others do as well). Just wanted to let you know that is is not by choice. We are being forced to do it. I would ask you to change the way hazard zones and trial zones work but I have seen the other posts about it. That being the case, I would like to hear any suggestions you have for those of us who play in a diversely leveled group.

Here are our main chars and levels for an example. We usually play in a team of 4-7 people. Currently we hunt in Independence Port or Talos Island and SK the lower level players. Please tell me where I should be playing:
Capt. AZ - level 29 blaster
Tigressa - level 27 controller
Cigbur - level 20 tanker
Iradion - level 25 defender
DeathX - level 21 scrapper
Hot Flash II - level 15 blaster
I in Team - level 17 blaster

[ QUOTE ]
Ah - and as for the argument that mission XP "sucks." Yes, you do reap less XP/minute if you simply travel from your contact immediately to your mission door (which tends to be player behavior). However, if you fight some spawns on the way - and finish the mission with the new XP rewards - I think you'll find that missions are much, much more competitive XP wise.

Oh - and one other thing. The vast, vast majority of players at any given time are on missions. XP or not - it's the most popular part of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a comment on the missions and hunting along the way. About half of the missions I am getting at level 28-29 are in Kings Row, Steel Canyon, or Skyway City. Right now, 2 of the 3 missions I have are in Kings Row. Should I be hunting the greys along the way to that mission? How would that help? Why don't the mission doors appear in zones that are appropriate for my level? Maybe if they did, players would hunt more along the way to the mission.

If you happen to see this and respond to it then thanks for your time. I appreciate the work you guys are doing on the game. It is a ton of fun. I just wanted to express some of the frustrations I (and the rest of my SG) have been dealing with recently.

-AZ

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Put your group of eight together. It doesn't really matter what you put in the group with one exception. I'll get to the exception.
I will outrun them and not by a little. At level 38 we clocked it. I earned XP at a rate of 190,000 per hour solo. Go to whatever zone you like. Good luck. How about Crey's Follies? Is that hazard enough? Freaks. Carnival area by the Rikti crash site.
Then I will assemble a group of 4 and we will outrun them again.
Then I will assemble a group of 2 and we will outrun the four.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're absolutely correct. The problem is, once again, that the high level players (38) can battle against foes that are much, much higher level than they are. A small group of said heroes can find a spawn appropriate for them...whereas what's tough enough for a full group of 8 level 38's? It's much, much tougher for that large group to find something that's a challenge - and can give them great XP - than it is for the the small group.

That issue is next up - right after the Expansion goes live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay! Hopefully in time that I can enjoy it with my epic AT char.

Sailor eX
"Not in the face!"

[ QUOTE ]
I read through this thread hoping to see a comment from Statesman about the problem of security restrictions but I didn't see it. If I missed the comment, I apologize. That said, the reason that the group I play with hunts in city zones almost exclusively is because of the spread in levels between our characters.

Half of us joined 2.5 months ago and we got the rest to join about 1 month or so afterwards. This means that 3 of our group are in the upper 20's and the rest of the group is in the teens or very low 20's.

The problem we run into is that we cannot get into a zone that is appropriate for our team size (5-8) with everyone in the team. I had hoped that sidekicking would allow us to bring our friends into Terra Volta or Dark Astoria but it does not and I have seen the dev posts that say this will not change. This policy effectively eliminates hazard zones as an option for our team.

[/ QUOTE ]

<nods> That's the case for us as well. Three of us started in pre-release; another friend got the game about a month later, & another friend got it less than two months ago, so our level spread is currently 14th to 26th. We do missions rather than street hunting, but we've run into periods where the only missions the higher levels had were in level-restricted zones, locking the lower ones out of the group. Reverse sidekicking won't work since the higher levels outnumber the lower ones in this case.

WOW!!! Boy did this thread get off topic... not a bad thing just a surprise. Usually my posts are pretty much ignored in the response department. Even I can't bring myself to read all this thread, and i read a lot here. Kudos to Statesman for the time and effort he's put into this. And Kudos to the posters for trying to get your points across without flaming each other.

I think Statesman doesn't see the "group penalty" which is that an individual's exp/hour usually drops, because he knows they have programed in a bonus for grouping.

Personally, my soloing isn't due to that, i just prefer to make my own decissions and not want to put others at risk. I want to play on my schedule at my chosen rate. But, i like having other people around, to talk to, to help occasionally, and they just add to the content. Its nice knowing your not alone, even though you are playing alone.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Currently, there are no spawns anywhere that are worth tackling with a 5+ person team. Unless you are herding, which looks to me like an exploit, even 4 people is a bit too many.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Trial Zones. These are designed for teams sizes 6 to 8 or so. Those spawns are HHHUUUGGGGEEEE - and challenging (at the low and mid levels). But many people don't take the challenge.

Again, I'm not sure what "penalty" is being allueded to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people not take the challenge? If the respec trial is any indication that's coming, it's because the damn Trials are way too hard to be of interest.

Why soak a half level of debt for a SO that's got a lil twist on the regular SOs, and a badge, when you're going to have to go out afterwards and work your [censored] off to recoup that debt?

Yeah that's fun, sure.

Now I realize some people have done the respec trial and succeeded..and the sewer trial, for example..and succeeded.

Here's the question..take the population that's applicably able to participate in those trials, and split it between who's gone in and failed, and those who have gone in and succeeded.

More than likely..the disparity between the numbers is going to be like comparing the odds of winning the lottery in a crowded state.

Bottom lines States...you need to rethink the trials, you need to rethink this "It's too easy post 30 game" because what you are doing is channeling people into a EQ oriented approach...forced grouping, no killing anything your own level nearly without almost dying in the process. In EQ, for many professions..you couldn't solo a even con without death being imminient. Are you trying to perpetuate the same scenario in CoH?

I sincerely hope not. You have some great plans for future things..but here lately it's like you've completely lost touch with the reality of the game, and somehow channeled yourself into this narrow vision of what's going on..and well..your vision and reality don't match. Reality has precedence, so unless you choke reality...then you really do need to rethink alot of stuff...the respec trial, Oranbega portal missions..the 30+ game, heck even SG might need some reconsideration..cause yoiu surely have a vocal contingent you've made terribly unhappy due to your perceived need to 'fix' something.