Supporting Large Parties

[Semli]

A trend I've seen, and it is only to be expected, is to try and do quests with as few people as possible.  I'd like to address it here.

I actually really like to see parties loaded up with 8 people.  It makes me feel like I'm rolling out in style and that there should be no troubles ahead.  I also think, from an OOC perspective, its better to include as many people as you can when you quest, even if the reality is you probably would only trust your friends and you get more loot with less complaints trucking through it without the extra people.

For me, nothing is worse than getting turned away by the three dudes with levels and equipment while they go run a QA alone.  While I have yet to complete a quest that pays you gold at the end (not for lack of trying, mind you) there were certain quests in EfU that couldn't be profitable if you took a bunch of others and divided the gold evenly, such as Dunwarren Spiders.  It was simply much more profitable to simply suck a potion or two down along the way and trudge through it with your two leveled buddies.  If anyone wants to really argue that point, try completing a QA then explaining to everyone else that shot their crossbow poorly the entire time why they deserve less gold than you.  I'd rather pull my teeth out because it sounds way more fun.

So, maybe on top of whatever XP multiplier system there is running in the background, there should be a reward system that scales somewhat, where NPCs pay more (or less) at the end and the crates along the way spawn an extra goodie or two.  I realize scaling quests means more mobs for better parties, but that doesn't necessarily guarantee more loot (particularly if the quest in question has mobs that do not drop loot).

Let me know what you guys think.

[kassan_rift]

I think its a non-issue at present, and would rather the Dm team finish up their debugging and get back to enjoying what they've put so much hard work into.

Attempting a quest with fewer characters generally involves more risk for the party, and they should be rewarded for it. The smaller parties which tend to do better seem to be the ones composed of individuals who know each other and work well together, and it would seem wrong to me to penalize a group for cooperating well.

[Howlando]

You generally will get more XP with larger parties, and quests where the NPC gives out gold will in EFUA quests give out gold scaled to the total size.

Loot you find in chests won't scale to parties though, and that would be complicated to change.

I welcome discussion on this topic though.

[Sandstorm]

I think it's cool as it is, but to encourage large parties, quest givers might give an exponential amount of gold. Like, 3 people would get 110 gold each, 4 people would get 120 gold each, 8 people would get 160 gold each, and such. There are not that many questgivers right now though. =(

[Semli]

To clarify the OP a bit and not really in response to anything that's been posted yet, I think it's simply a better gameplay mechanic to find ways to encourage as many players as possible to work together.  I really dislike turning people away from a quest for any reason that doesn't involve mechanics or their past actions, because I greatly dislike it when it happens to me personally.  Therefore, I believe more people can have more fun if gameplay encourages larger groups and cooperation.  Certain methods of quest design (like Dunwarren Spiders, for the reasons discussed above) discourage this type of gameplay IF the players understand a couple of facts about the EfU static quest system.

To address Kassan, yes, the DMs have quite a bit on their plate right now, and as such, this issue could go on the back burner.  That said, I believe it is a pertinant discussion to have regardless of how long it might have to wait for implementation.

As to your other comment about groups working well together, nothing in my proposed changes discourages teamwork.  It will be as important as ever.  My hope isn't to reduce the loot offered to small parties, it is to give just enough incentive so that people don't care whether there's three or eight people in the group.

[Egon the Monkey]

Speaking as someone who prefers small parties right now, I'd say there's more to their favor than just loot.

I've lately been trying to keep parties smaller and suited to the quest I'm after drops over XP, because it keeps supply usage down actually IMO. There's nothing worse than a large party which doesn't work well together  but still causes a lot of spawns and then panics and falls apart. I find it easier to organise tactics and ensure we all work together in a party of about 3-5. If it goes wrong, it's a lot easier to call a careful retreat. IC, after seeing some bad wipes, you might want to know most of the people there are reliable.

I like to load up on party members if I know it's a quest that'll need it, but I try to be more selective than just "everyone in", because of stuff like archers being unable to hurt most Nightrisers.

As for IC reasoning, loot *is* an IC reason, especially if you are low on equipment. If your call is "We are going to raid Trogs for much-needed supplies", you want to keep your share large. If it's "we must crush the foul undead infesting the barrows", you could go for a big party for maximum smiting.

[RIPnogarD]

I have to say that (for me) smaller parties make for much easier role-playing. Less people = better chance of everybody hearing what others are saying. More party members’ increases the odds of getting one of those players that totally doesn’t listen to anything anybody says and charge off on their own. OOC I am unsure if I should have my PC try to keep up with that hack & slasher and keep them alive or say to hell with em and let em die. I would much rather role-play through a quest than buff at the door and charge through as fast as I can before my buffs end. So big or small, it’s a matter of role-playing to me, (man, I miss the Mithrilsouls!).

I guess that’s why I’m one of the players left behind, but it’s okay with me, slow but steady wins the race.

[dragonfire9000]

Ahhh... Mithrilsouls... I miss my vodka-drinking mean SOB dwarves... Good times.

*slaps himself* Bah! Enough reminiscing! As for the topic of the day, I personally much prefer parties of three, four, or MAYBE five. Four I think is about perfect. You have few people, and they all do their jobs without wondering "Well, isn't the other rogue gonna take care of it?" or "You want to buff him or shall I?" It just works, and strategizing is much easier.

But then there 'is' the matter of people getting left, and that really isn't any fun. Seeing eight people go of a-questing with you left behind all on your lonesome... downright depressing, especially for a fighter which is supposed to be universally useful! :(

Yes indeed ladies and gents, this is a complicated one. I think it just depends on the situation.

[Letsplayforfun]

I enjoy both small parties and big ones, so i usually go with the flow.

Small parties in some EfU quests meant less danger (Smelly Sewer, Ogres, etc..), and are interesting tactic-wise because you can actually keep an eye not only on everyone's health bar, but current situation as well. You also get to "know" party mates more precisely, because when you travel with few you actually hear (read) everything that is said. In the end, this usually means they are people your character knows well enough to risk his neck with, and you usually end up with life debts either way. And of course, in some quests you'd get more loot/ coins if there we less folks to share them with.

They are not cool when you leave folks behind getting bored because they'll be alone on the server while others are questing. They are not cool when you choose small parties only to go fast from quest to quest. I certainly enjoy questing nonstop, but not at the expense of other folks not tagging along. I do hate it when there's a group and someone new asks 'what's going on' and gets ignored.

On the other hand, i think it'd be considerate of folks in a group that suddenly gets caught up in something else (ex: conversation) that they quit the group so that other people don't wait 25mn RL for them.

Big parties are fun for the chaos that ensues in QA, and for the rp that usually goes on between some members of the group. You always find some folks arguing in big parties, much less in small ones. I mostly enjoy big parties when there are not many warriors. When you've a bunch of them, the quests are piec'o'cake and you don't even have time to chat that it is over. Even so: some quest go so fast that i don't memorize the names of the PCs i've quested with...

That being said, i wouldn't enjoy having quest caps being raised to 5-8 players for example, because that means for non US players, there will be times when there are so few compatible people on that no one will quest at all.

[Garem]

I'm quite the opposite, Semli. 3-5 people is a nice managable number. When you get "invite-n-army" syndrome, things get really bogged down. It's bad enough in real life when you have 8 people standing around, and it takes time to cut off everyone's conversations, to make sure everyone's ready, to figure out where you're going and how you're getting there... in NWN, these small matters are made infinitely worse for various reasons.

I'd elaborate, but the points being made as to WHY people do that are clear. It's a matter of personal choice. And, just because someone should say it, it's really sort of rude to invite all your friends on a quest if you're not the "initiator". I honestly and truly do not enjoy large parties (aside from a few instances or from time to time). When people just fill up instantly to 8 by getting invit-o-spam, it irks me. Let others enjoy the game as they will. I'm not even going to get into the awkward 9 people in a party because of invit-o-spam. I really, really, really don't like making someone be the last pick of the litter. It means the initiator has to be an asshole because someone else got the Syndrome. THAT is rude. DON'T do that, people.

Oh, plus, people are rediculous about who they quest with a lot because of invit-o-spam and laziness. "Total stranger? Oh, I'm sure he's an alright guy, let's just bring him!" That mentality is silly. This is someone you're trusting your life with.

Again, it's a matter of preference. If you want to have big warparties, fine, start them as you please. But being frustrated that someone enjoys a different style than you isn't fair to them. Some like apples, some like Applejacks. So it is.

I like the system of persistant loot-level and scaled XP and gold reward because it caters to both interests.

But hey, that's just me.

[illuminaughty]

Personally I like smaller parties too. Everything is more manageable and if you work with the same small group you know your strengths and weaknesses, it allows you to function coherently as a group.

What I don't like is when Joe the elf with his bow comes with me to kill skeletons and then demands an equal share when he did all of nothing. If a party member can't contribute in one way or another, they're not coming with me. Gas, grass or ass. No one rides for free.

[Dilandau Kale]

A trend ive noticed thats becoming annoying is selective party choosing where you have a party intntionaly choosing the most suitable classes for the quest and refusing everyone else. I also hate the entire we only have 4 people and thats enough mentality even though its a max 8 person quest. I mean if a charecter has every Ic reason to follow you why should an Ooc mechanic stop him from doing it. (If its following to pvp thats a diffrent thing altogether)

[Jayde Moon]

Gas, grass or ass. No one rides for free.

*whores himself out to illuminaughty*

I'd just like to point out that having a personal preference for smaller parties shouldn't negate the usefulness of a mechanic that prefers larger ones.

Then you have a choice of rewards:

Inclusion might mean bringing more people into the fun for a higher XP gain.

Smaller party might mean having a a more rewarding RP experience with a higher wealth gain per capita.

Then you can choose.

For the record, I prefer a smaller, balanced party.

[Semli]

Interesting discussion so far.  Many of the points about enjoying smaller parties should be taken into account, but I believe Jayde Moon makes a very good point.

"I'd just like to point out that having a personal preference for smaller parties shouldn't negate the usefulness of a mechanic that prefers larger ones."

And yes Dragonfire, we all miss the Mithrilsouls.  You guys haven't lived until you have eight dwarves all axeing their way through a QA while talking about ale and making fart jokes.