Full group > 8 .. perhaps 10 or 12
Imho:
Positives:
-- Would mean that casual gamers would be more likely to get groups
whereas in the past
-- Would mean some classes, that might be considered luxuary util
classes for grouping purposes, could be part of a group : a.k.a
Friars, Body Cabby, Scout, Reaver, Smite Cleric (just for example)
-- Groups having a fuller list of abilities, that are commonly forsaken
in order to make space for what are percieved to be 'essential'
classes in order to be able to compete.
-- Perhaps redresses the class-utility imbalance for Alb
Negatives:
-- Power gamers would fill the enlarged group with more outright
damage dealers, debuffers, a huge assist train, a dedicated buff
shearer, or 3x more druids with Group Purge.
Bear in mind 'part' of the above is already partly true with the advent
of the Croc Tear ring. You often get Hib/Mid/Alb groups running in
greater than 8, with extra damage dealers and stealther adds in the
sphere of effect.
What I'm suggesting/discussing is the formalisation of this to incorp
them into the actual group to allow improved overall team utility.
As an aside, how many classes are considered non-group friendly in
RvR, or redundant, but that could provide a useful and potentially
battle-changing effect were they part of a group ?
People might say 'just level a croc-tear ring to 10 and run in two
groups' but this defeats the purpose of allowing unfashionable
classes building new group combat-tactics that compliment each
other in ways that simply haven't been explored.
This topic may have been 'done to death' before, I've looked on the
forum and not been able to find anything, but regardless, there's
been nothing recent, so with an ever changing game with ever
growing combinations/abilities - what are people's views on this
given the current patch, and perhaps with one eye on NF.
Imho:
Positives:
-- Would mean that casual gamers would be more likely to get groups
whereas in the past
-- Would mean some classes, that might be considered luxuary util
classes for grouping purposes, could be part of a group : a.k.a
Friars, Body Cabby, Scout, Reaver, Smite Cleric (just for example)
-- Groups having a fuller list of abilities, that are commonly forsaken
in order to make space for what are percieved to be 'essential'
classes in order to be able to compete.
-- Perhaps redresses the class-utility imbalance for Alb
Negatives:
-- Power gamers would fill the enlarged group with more outright
damage dealers, debuffers, a huge assist train, a dedicated buff
shearer, or 3x more druids with Group Purge.
Bear in mind 'part' of the above is already partly true with the advent
of the Croc Tear ring. You often get Hib/Mid/Alb groups running in
greater than 8, with extra damage dealers and stealther adds in the
sphere of effect.
What I'm suggesting/discussing is the formalisation of this to incorp
them into the actual group to allow improved overall team utility.
As an aside, how many classes are considered non-group friendly in
RvR, or redundant, but that could provide a useful and potentially
battle-changing effect were they part of a group ?
People might say 'just level a croc-tear ring to 10 and run in two
groups' but this defeats the purpose of allowing unfashionable
classes building new group combat-tactics that compliment each
other in ways that simply haven't been explored.
This topic may have been 'done to death' before, I've looked on the
forum and not been able to find anything, but regardless, there's
been nothing recent, so with an ever changing game with ever
growing combinations/abilities - what are people's views on this
given the current patch, and perhaps with one eye on NF.
The other question would ofc be, if players wanted that cause it could mean that some classes would have a completely new duty (imagine a light eld on primary mezzing or a healing bard).
