Let's talk about buffing/debuffing

[eldaec]

Nope, they don't. If a cleric is required for a group to kill the same mobs, then it's going to be even more required for the soloer... or the soloer has all that downtime to compensate.

Why would a soloer be killing the same mobs?

A group needs a cleric because a group needs balance across it's members because it has to kill monsters of higher level (which, like players, rise in strength exponentially) to cancel out the effect of xp division. The need to organise that balance is the penalty you pay for grouping.

Last time I looked, soloers rely on getting 100% of the xp from killing lower level mobs.

Well, to me this just means you shouldn't have buff classes. It doesn't tell us anything particularly about the nature of appropriate buffs beyond that.

This seems like a strange jump in your logic.

You shouldn't have buff classes *because* they don't share xp? Why not just make them share xp?

Just going back to your previous arguments....

1. Firstly, I believe in strong solo play. Having buff spells either makes it nearly impossible for the soloer, or requires all soloers to be in hybrid classes that can buff themselves.

This only applies when buffs are giving benefit on the top of the xp equation (group effectiveness), without adding weight to the bottom (xp divided by n members).

In the case of a soloer competing vs one person + a full set of buffs, you are fighting more than one person. This *should* be harder. And it's no different to the fact that you will lose out to organised groups.

The balance here, should be xp sharing, and the group organisation overhead.

2. It adds to a problem most MMOGs have of stat and damage inflation where the gap between the high-end content and the starting content becomes fairly mind-boggling.

Again, this comes down to making adding a buffer-class to your party as much as possible like adding any other member to your party, one buffer should add the same amount of effectiveness as one of other classes regardless of whther you are in a half group party or a 10 group zerg. Then the content balance is down to how big the groups are that each encounter is designed for. Which is entirely a subjective preference.

I'd accept that in the current state there is a problem here, because you end up with a small number of buffbots having a disproportionate effect on outcomes, because they can buff a very large raiding party, and so their benefit to raid effectiveness scales up indefinitely with raid size.

This should not be hard to fix. Anti-buffbot measures such as range on buffs and maximum number of buffs do most of it. Xp-sharing though buffs  would do the rest.

3. Such spells become, effectively, a time sink that adds little to fun. All encounters must be geared with the idea that the characters may have all the buffs appropriate to their level. This forces them to buff just to access said content. On the other hand, if you don't account for that, then a bunch of people may whine that your content is too easy.

This one is your best point by far.

And for me it's about saying, ok, from above we've established that the buffer role should be as much a part of the group as any other, and as a result it has to active and fun in battle.

Passive time sink buffing for generic stat boosts is, I agree, a pointless design feature.

[SirBruce]

Nope, they don't. If a cleric is required for a group to kill the same mobs, then it's going to be even more required for the soloer... or the soloer has all that downtime to compensate.

Why would a soloer be killing the same mobs?

Equivalent mobs.  Whatever to get the same exp/loot.  In most games, this is the same mob.

A group needs a cleric because a group needs balance across it's members because it has to kill monsters of higher level (which, like players, rise in strength exponentially) to cancel out the effect of xp division. The need to organise that balance is the penalty you pay for grouping.

It depends on how the game is structured, but this is generally not true.  To cancel out the effect of xp division, groups need to kill either higher level mobs, or simply MORE lower level mobs per unit time.  But this is true totally without a cleric... they recover just as a soloer without a cleric does.  By ADDING a cleric, a group will probably gain more exp per unit of time, because they'll have the benefit of timely heals, shared damage, and so on.

This seems like a strange jump in your logic.

You shouldn't have buff classes *because* they don't share xp? Why not just make them share xp?

No, you shouldn't have them because you have the problem you suggest; that they can't gain xp on their own so the group needs to bonus...

This only applies when buffs are giving benefit on the top of the xp equation (group effectiveness), without adding weight to the bottom (xp divided by n members).

This applies in either case.  Go ahead and add the weight at the bottom.  Yes, the soloer kills mobs of so much experience per hour.  But a group of characters of the same level as the solor of n members can kill those SAME mobs.  Each individual can kill the same number per unit time.  So the total number of mobs is the same... in effect, the group kills more and faster.  That, ALONE, makes up for the division of experience among n members.  It's simply - 1 player can kill 1 troll in 1 minute; 2 players can kill 2 trolls in 1 minute.

But then, other factors make it NOT equal.  For instance, having a buffer in the group.  Or the fact that because of diversity and mutual support, a wider range of skills available, etc. each group member usually has LESS risk even if fighting the same mobs.  And as you suggest, it's more often the case that groups can fight HARDER mobs than the soloer can... even if the increased experience can't make up for the difference after the division among n players is accounted for, such mobs often drop better loot and allow access to higher-end content that the soloer simply cannot get to at the same level.

Any way you slice it, grouping inherently already has benefits over the soloer.  And now you want to add BUFFS to that, and experience BONUSES?  You're basically killing solo play.  You've rendered it completely unable to compete.

2. It adds to a problem most MMOGs have of stat and damage inflation where the gap between the high-end content and the starting content becomes fairly mind-boggling.

Again, this comes down to making adding a buffer-class to your party as much as possible like adding any other member to your party,

Sorry, I don't see what this has to do with what I said.  I was talking about buffing adding to the general problem of the advancement gap and stat inflation and so on; this has little to do with the buffer class specifically.

Bruce

[Margalis]

I think you guys are talking details but talking around the real issue, which extends far beyond just buffing/debuffing. Im MMORPGs there is a hugh push for specialization and perfect group chemistry.

The "jack of all trades" type character rules in real life, but sucks in MMORPGs. In a MMORPG you want a character who specializes in taking damage, a character who specializes in dealing damage, and a healer. (Tank, nuker, healer)

MMORPGs must always be balanced for the optimal group. That means to make the encounter the right difficulty I, as a designer, must assume everyone is in the perfect group, buffed to maximum level, etc. (If anything, I can make it too tough, because people can always level up further)

Buffing is just part of optimal play. Having a dedicated healer is usually part of optimal play. Having someone who specializes in damage (but may have crappy armor) is also usualyl optimal play.

Buffing is just the most boring and least interactive of these.
---
A soloer is forced to be a jack of all trades, but in a group 6 specialized people will do far better than 6 well-rounded people. So the right group of 6 people can usually do more than 6 times better than a soloer on their own.

This introduces a lot of other problems as well, like having to wait around because no healers are currently available.

If you don't solo, there is basically no risk to being a specialized character. You may not have any armor, but another guy in your group specializes in keeping the enemy occupied.

IMO, simply changing enemy behavior to make specialization more risky would be a great thing. Maybe the enemies can tell that the black mage has REALLY SUCKY armor and realize it's worth their while to attack them. Or maybe they realize that Paladin has really great armor, get frustrated, and attack someone softer.

In a game where playing well rounded characters was more of an option you could solo more effectively and form a wider variety of groups without sitting on your ass waiting for the perfect chemistry.

[eldaec]

Why would a soloer be killing the same mobs?

Equivalent mobs.  Whatever to get the same exp/loot.  In most games, this is the same mob.

Only game I've played where soloers kill the same level of mob as groupers is SWG. And SWGs group mechanics are generally considered to be broken. (So, for that matter, is combat in general)

If you can kill the same mobs solo as in a group - why would anyone go to the trouble of incurring the organisation overhead of grouping?

No, you shouldn't have them because you have the problem you suggest; that they can't gain xp on their own so the group needs to bonus...

Ok, I think I understand your point better from that, but I don't see it as a problem that a specific class is better at grouping than soloing (so long as they can be approximately as effective in small or large groups). By making buffing an active skill, you remove the problem of buff classes not being able to get groups and thereby get xp, because the class can no longer be botted.

But then, other factors make it NOT equal. For instance, having a buffer in the group. Or the fact that because of diversity and mutual support, a wider range of skills available, etc. each group member usually has LESS risk even if fighting the same mobs. And as you suggest, it's more often the case that groups can fight HARDER mobs than the soloer can... even if the increased experience can't make up for the difference after the division among n players is accounted for, such mobs often drop better loot and allow access to higher-end content that the soloer simply cannot get to at the same level.

All true - but also true with any diversity between player characters. The imporvement you suggest applies to adding any class to a group that still fits in the overall balance of the group.

I don't see a problem with a group of level 30 characters together being able to access higher level content than a solo level 30. In fact I tend to think of it as being a big part of what a MMOG is about.

The changes I suggested with active buffing to bring the buffer into the group and along to the encounter are only intended to remove the special condition of buffers helping groups without taking a share of the reward (and of course, to make buffing more fun).

Any way you slice it, grouping inherently already has benefits over the soloer. And now you want to add BUFFS to that, and experience BONUSES? You're basically killing solo play. You've rendered it completely unable to compete.

Maybe I'm missing some of the context of where you are coming from here, but in current MMOGs (which have depressing passive buffs), EQ is the only one I'm aware of where the most efficient way for experienced players to level alts isn't already by soloing (at least, it wasn't when I left).

I have no problem with people who choose to solo, but the gap in effectiveness that already exists (primarily due to the organisation overhead not being compensated for) in DAoC and SWG in particular locks new players out of the game because experienced players are not willing to group with them. If there is any one thing that will kill long running MMOGs like EQ, it's the fact that long standing players have no incentive to help out newbies.

So I admit it, while having soloing as an option is nice, I'm much more worried about making the game work for groups than soloists.

Sorry, I don't see what this has to do with what I said. I was talking about buffing adding to the general problem of the advancement gap and stat inflation and so on; this has little to do with the buffer class specifically.

Only point I was making was that by strong top end limitations on what a buffer adds to a raid size army, and by keeping the buffer active in the group (and hence sharing the rewards) you reduce any such problem to the same as it is for any other class.

[SirBruce]

Why would a soloer be killing the same mobs?

Equivalent mobs.  Whatever to get the same exp/loot.  In most games, this is the same mob.

Only game I've played where soloers kill the same level of mob as groupers is SWG. And SWGs group mechanics are generally considered to be broken. (So, for that matter, is combat in general)

You are confusing what is commonly done as what one CAN do.  I already pointed out later in my post that groups often tackle higher-level mobs that the soloer can't... that's orthogonal to this point.  THIS point was that groups killing same-level mobs as the soloer still come out ahead of the soloer, even after you divide by n.

BTW, you should try more games.  Just off the top of my head, I've experienced groups taking on the same mobs as soloers in many games: UO, AC, AC2....

If you can kill the same mobs solo as in a group - why would anyone go to the trouble of incurring the organisation overhead of grouping?

Because the benefits often outweigh it, such as increased safety, reduced downtime if you have a healer, better killing power if you have a buffer... and that is before the group experience BONUS many MMOGs have.

No, you shouldn't have them because you have the problem you suggest; that they can't gain xp on their own so the group needs to bonus...

Ok, I think I understand your point better from that, but I don't see it as a problem that a specific class is better at grouping than soloing (so long as they can be approximately as effective in small or large groups). By making buffing an active skill, you remove the problem of buff classes not being able to get groups and thereby get xp, because the class can no longer be botted.

Again, you seem to be talking about something way out in left field that has nothing to do with my point.  You said buff classes can't gain exp on their own; they need a group.  Therefore you need to add all these group bonuses for the buffer, which I think kills solo play.  Therefore, I would not have a buff class.  This doesn't mean no buffs at all... just no buff classes.

But then, other factors make it NOT equal. For instance, having a buffer in the group. Or the fact that because of diversity and mutual support, a wider range of skills available, etc. each group member usually has LESS risk even if fighting the same mobs. And as you suggest, it's more often the case that groups can fight HARDER mobs than the soloer can... even if the increased experience can't make up for the difference after the division among n players is accounted for, such mobs often drop better loot and allow access to higher-end content that the soloer simply cannot get to at the same level.

All true - but also true with any diversity between player characters. The imporvement you suggest applies to adding any class to a group that still fits in the overall balance of the group.

Yes, it does.  So what?  That doesn't invalidate my point.  Again, you seem to be locked into this argument from the "buffer class" perspective when that was just a minor point to my general "Buffing sucks and I'm for strong solo play" theme.

I don't see a problem with a group of level 30 characters together being able to access higher level content than a solo level 30. In fact I tend to think of it as being a big part of what a MMOG is about.

That's because you're group-centric, and that's fine.  However, it basically KILLS the game for the soloer.

How about instead that a group of level 30 characters together access the SAME content than the solo at level 30?  Or maybe the soloer gets a bonus for taking a greater risk?  This doesn't effect your group enjoyment at all.  You get the benefits of the group, such as safety and diversification, in exchange for a reduced reward.  Risk versus reward... that's a big part of what a game is about, right?

The changes I suggested with active buffing to bring the buffer into the group and along to the encounter are only intended to remove the special condition of buffers helping groups without taking a share of the reward (and of course, to make buffing more fun).

I was never intending to critique the entirety of your suggestions.  Just putting my suggestins out there... solo play should be strong, and giving groups even more benefits than they already have is not appealing to me.

Any way you slice it, grouping inherently already has benefits over the soloer. And now you want to add BUFFS to that, and experience BONUSES? You're basically killing solo play. You've rendered it completely unable to compete.

Maybe I'm missing some of the context of where you are coming from here, but in current MMOGs (which have depressing passive buffs), EQ is the only one I'm aware of where the most efficient way for experienced players to level alts isn't already by soloing (at least, it wasn't when I left).

Yes, I think you are.  Just about every MMOG I've played has groups being more efficient... EQ, AC1, AC2, E&B, etc.

I have no problem with people who choose to solo, but the gap in effectiveness that already exists (primarily due to the organisation overhead not being compensated for) in DAoC and SWG in particular locks new players out of the game because experienced players are not willing to group with them. If there is any one thing that will kill long running MMOGs like EQ, it's the fact that long standing players have no incentive to help out newbies.

You keep bringing up this overhead and organization issue, which in my experience just isn't as big a factor as you claim.  It IS compensated for by experience bonuses, decreased risk, and so on.

Your issue about vets grouping with newbies is a wholly seperate issue.  That doesn't say people don't group in SWG because solo play is so strong... it says vets don't have a reason to group with newbs, probably for design reasons.    My bet is a lot of those vets group with other vets.  But, I admit, I have not played SWG in months, so perhaps the character of the high-level game has been quite changed.  If so, good for SWG... I'm all for strong solo play.

So I admit it, while having soloing as an option is nice, I'm much more worried about making the game work for groups than soloists.

Well, I think you can make a game that works for both EQUALLY.  The people who WANT to group WILL group because that's what they like... not because it confers some advancement advantage.

Only point I was making was that by strong top end limitations on what a buffer adds to a raid size army, and by keeping the buffer active in the group (and hence sharing the rewards) you reduce any such problem to the same as it is for any other class.

The problem is the same for that CLASS, but it increases the problem OVERALL, because the buffing adds to the whole stat inflation, gap between high-end and low-end, etc. problem.  That's a problem with ANY buffing in a game; it has nothing to do with a buffing CLASS per se.

Bruce

[Arnold]

The "jack of all trades" type character rules in real life, but sucks in MMORPGs. In a MMORPG you want a character who specializes in taking damage, a character who specializes in dealing damage, and a healer. (Tank, nuker, healer).

Some MMORPGs are like that.  UO and Asheron's Call are notable exceptions, where "jack of all trades" types ruled.

[Margalis]

The "jack of all trades" type character rules in real life, but sucks in MMORPGs. In a MMORPG you want a character who specializes in taking damage, a character who specializes in dealing damage, and a healer. (Tank, nuker, healer).

Some MMORPGs are like that.  UO and Asheron's Call are notable exceptions, where "jack of all trades" types ruled.

That's true I suppose...but how old are those games? That certainly doesn't seem to be the trend.

[Sairon]

Buffs should be replaced by auras.

[Sairon]

I have no problem with people who choose to solo, but the gap in effectiveness that already exists (primarily due to the organisation overhead not being compensated for) in DAoC and SWG in particular locks new players out of the game because experienced players are not willing to group with them. If there is any one thing that will kill long running MMOGs like EQ, it's the fact that long standing players have no incentive to help out newbies.

You keep bringing up this overhead and organization issue, which in my experience just isn't as big a factor as you claim.  It IS compensated for by experience bonuses, decreased risk, and so on.

Your issue about vets grouping with newbies is a wholly seperate issue.  That doesn't say people don't group in SWG because solo play is so strong... it says vets don't have a reason to group with newbs, probably for design reasons.    My bet is a lot of those vets group with other vets.  But, I admit, I have not played SWG in months, so perhaps the character of the high-level game has been quite changed.  If so, good for SWG... I'm all for strong solo play.

In my experience the organization issue is a big time sink. Geting a group togheter usually takes ATLEAST 30 mins, more than often a lot more, it's usually faster for a healer though. And then when you're finally starting to XPing, people with essential roles starts leaving. Which means you have to pause and find a replacement.

If soloing would be just as good as teaming nobody would team, because of all the fuzz of geting a team togheter. People will always do things the most effecient way, without grouping MMORPGs would be so boring, and that's not mainly because grouping is so super fun. But because it's in groups you meet people. I would guess that 95%+ of my MMORPG friends
have been found through grouping.

[SirBruce]

In my experience the organization issue is a big time sink. Geting a group togheter usually takes ATLEAST 30 mins, more than often a lot more, it's usually faster for a healer though. And then when you're finally starting to XPing, people with essential roles starts leaving. Which means you have to pause and find a replacement.

In my experience... and I've been a member of many groups and a few guild raids... the time sink isn't as great as you say.  Furthermore, the bonuses far outweigh the timesink.  Perhaps you just haven't soloed a lot, and don't understand how long it takes to kill many creatures, and how long the recovery time really is.  But perhaps you're just a better soloer than I am.  Or perhaps I've been in better organized groups.

If soloing would be just as good as teaming nobody would team, because of all the fuzz of geting a team togheter. People will always do things the most effecient way, without grouping MMORPGs would be so boring, and that's not mainly because grouping is so super fun. But because it's in groups you meet people. I would guess that 95%+ of my MMORPG friends
have been found through grouping.

This doesn't make much sense.  If people always did things the most efficient way, and you agree that in most MMOGs grouping is more efficient than soloing, then why would anyone solo?  Which is exactly my point... I'm for strong solo play.  So if we make solo play JUST AS GOOD as grouping, then it's a choice to be made.  If you think MMOGs are boring without grouping, THEN GROUP.  GO AHEAD.  DO IT.  And you'll get equivalent reqards to the soloer.  And you'll play with your friends.  And both soloers and groupers will be happy.

I realize you worry that if solo play is too strong, no one will group.  And perhaps that's true... but how is this any worse than the reverse as it is currently, where grouping is essentially forced on people who want to play and level efficiently?  How fun do you think that is for the lone wolves out there?  You say that it won't be fun for you, though... so why not go ahead and group, and get the short end of the stick for a change just as soloers have for the past 10 years?

Bruce

[Sairon]

In my experience the organization issue is a big time sink. Geting a group togheter usually takes ATLEAST 30 mins, more than often a lot more, it's usually faster for a healer though. And then when you're finally starting to XPing, people with essential roles starts leaving. Which means you have to pause and find a replacement.

In my experience... and I've been a member of many groups and a few guild raids... the time sink isn't as great as you say.  Furthermore, the bonuses far outweigh the timesink.  Perhaps you just haven't soloed a lot, and don't understand how long it takes to kill many creatures, and how long the recovery time really is.  But perhaps you're just a better soloer than I am.  Or perhaps I've been in better organized groups.

Guild teams are great in every single way, but often there's not enough of available people within your lvl range to team with. The overhead of gathering a group isn't that much if you find a good group, which sticks togheter. But more than often you get stuck with people which just doesn't know what their doing.

I can agree with solo play in MMORPGs has been a tad to weak, it should imo be viable, but I don't think it should be as fast as grouping. Perhaps as fast as a just bellow average group.

If soloing would be just as good as teaming nobody would team, because of all the fuzz of geting a team togheter. People will always do things the most effecient way, without grouping MMORPGs would be so boring, and that's not mainly because grouping is so super fun. But because it's in groups you meet people. I would guess that 95%+ of my MMORPG friends
have been found through grouping.

This doesn't make much sense.  If people always did things the most efficient way, and you agree that in most MMOGs grouping is more efficient than soloing, then why would anyone solo?  Which is exactly my point... I'm for strong solo play.  So if we make solo play JUST AS GOOD as grouping, then it's a choice to be made.  If you think MMOGs are boring without grouping, THEN GROUP.  GO AHEAD.  DO IT.  And you'll get equivalent reqards to the soloer.  And you'll play with your friends.  And both soloers and groupers will be happy.

I realize you worry that if solo play is too strong, no one will group.  And perhaps that's true... but how is this any worse than the reverse as it is currently, where grouping is essentially forced on people who want to play and level efficiently?  How fun do you think that is for the lone wolves out there?  You say that it won't be fun for you, though... so why not go ahead and group, and get the short end of the stick for a change just as soloers have for the past 10 years?

Bruce

I think the market where people are brought togheter is far greater than where the loner lvls just as fast. And therefor I think grouping will be encouraged in the majority of MMORPGs for years to come.

[SirBruce]

The market might be greater... but do we really know how much?  And even if so, there's still a niche to be made for a MMOG to appeals to soloers.  Remember, solo does NOT mean you don't socialize with other players... it just means you want to do quests and missions and fighting yourself.

Bruce