PDA

View Full Version : Musing about 40-man (or other large number) raids...



Mr.Funsocks
06-06-2013, 03:30 PM
So, yes, it's basically completely impractical in a TCG. But aside from that, it would TOTALLY be awesome to do a large raid boss like that. And in my current state of free time, I was musing about how it might work, mechanically. As a lark. This is only a serious effort if there's actually a good idea. Otherwise it's pointless musing while we all stare at the KS totals.

Idea 1
So, one idea I saw was that everyone is fighting the same boss, but asynchronously. He has the same life total, that's shared across what is basically a completely separate game for each player. You just see his life totals drop as someone else deals damage, but can't directly effect each others' game.

Issue 1
If you have a slow-playing deck, one that's not necessarily going to take a lot of turns, but each turn takes actual time (ie you have to play a lot of abilities), it's going to futz with your ability to contribute. Also, if you're about to die, you can just play slower or stop entirely until everyone else is able to kill him.

One possible solution is to have everyone have to wait on each player to submit their turns before they could move to the next. So everyone finishes turn 1, then Boss's turn 1 starts. When he finishes turn 1 with every player, your turn 2 starts, and so on. Then you can't just take advantage of stalling with time.

Issue 2
It doesn't feel like you're fighting the same boss. You can't impact each other's play. You can't help the other guy with a troublesome troop, or counterspell to save your friend from a nasty hit.

You could instead do it in, say, pairs, or trios. So maybe 7 trios are all playing against the same life total, but there's some actual comraderie and cooperation involved. Of course, that still doesn't make it seem like EVERYONE's playing the same game, you're just playing fewer separate games.

Idea 2
Everyone plays against the same boss, in terms of what cards he has and his life total, and you just have to wait on each person to finish their turn against him, then he gets to take his turn against each of you. You can't directly impact each other, but if, say, the boss has a flying creature in play that Joe can't block next turn, Steve can say "Hey, I got a murder in my hand, want me to take care of it?" You get much more cooperation this way, and you are then all fighting the same boss.

Issue 1
How the heck do you handle who and what the boss gets to target? If he's got a troop, does he get to attack everyone with it that turn, or just 1 person? Having the AI decide who to attack would probably take ages with 20+ targets. If he has a counterspell in his hand, you could have 1 person take their turn to draw it out, then everyone else can go without fear of countering.

Possibly, the boss could just have the use of everything he starts his turn with against every player. Then, at the end of the turn, everything resolves on his side. If he attacked Joe and Steve, and Steve took the hit but Joe killed his troop, he loses that troop against anyone at the end of the turn. If he played a card vs one person, it's in play/in the graveyard for everyone at the end of the turn. This gets confusing though if, say, he plays a troop against Joe and Steve, but Steve counterspells it while Joe does not. Is it in the graveyard, or in play? Or does he have to play the troop against everyone, and it only gets through if no one counterspells it?

Issue 2
You're still all playing different games, though you can see the effects of your allies much more clearly. If you have to synchronize the boss's board at the end of each turn, it has to be either all or none. Either 1 counterspell of a troop the boss is playing prevents it from coming into play for everyone, or you need everyone to counterspell it. Or some proportion in between. If this is the case, some decks/spells may be incredibly overpowered vs a boss or completely useless. If everyone has to counterspell a card to keep it out of play, you aren't going to see anyone packing counterspells, because the likelihood of EVERY player having it ready is slim. On the other hand, if only 1 person needs to get that counterspell, or that creature destruction, or whatever it is, then you get extremely specialized decks. Which, lets be honest, could also be fun.

Idea 3
Just like the normal raid-boss game, but streamlined for time. Like Cory has said about multiplayer, with a digital game it very quickly becomes too time consuming with each player you add who has to pass priority. So... some things that might help make that easier:

Issue 1
Every player has to pass priority on every action. That's what takes so long with multiple players, every person clicking pass every time a card is played, every time an ability is activated, every phase of every player's turn, you have to get 10, 20, 40 players to click a button. With PvP games, you can't really get around this: The enemy players don't know what the other side is going to cast, and don't know if they will need to react to it. But in a PvE match, the players can communicate what is going to happen, and predict when they'll need to interrupt.

So, take advantage of it. Priority during player actions is completely skipped for other players, unless a stop is called. In the original MtG ManaLink game, you could right click on a turn phase, you could tell the game to deliberately stop at a point, ie during your enemy's upkeep, and give you priority. You could do this for other players, ie if you wanted to make sure you cast a spell for an ally during their upkeep phase, you could just click on it and tell it to stop there and wait for your priority. Similarly, if Joe was declaring attackers, and wanted Steve to give his Gnomish Buttbutcher a +3/0 buff before combat, Steve could ask Joe in chat to give him that chance, and Joe could click a button that send priority directly to Steve as he passed his priority, without requiring everyone else to pass. You could also set regularly reoccurring priorities (ie Joe could set it to pass priority to Steve after every declare attackers phase).

Then, for the bad guy's action, just put the priority in 1 place: On the raid leader. Boss plays troop, priority passes to the raid leader, he just says in chat "Anyone got a counter?" "No?" and passes priority for the whole team. The turns would still likely be glacially slow, but when every player is planning every action in coordination with everyone else, it likely won't seem as bad.

nearlysober
06-06-2013, 03:32 PM
Anything above 3-4 players would make the wait time too boring.
Anything that doesn't follow the basic turn/response format won't work.

Not sure what you're really proposing here...

larryhl
06-06-2013, 03:34 PM
TCG Flash games like Clash of the Dragons and Legacy of Heroes have world raids where each player joins a raid group and they keep hitting this ridiculous boss until they die. The amount of "damage" they do is totaled (or certain damage tiers equate to a certain number of points), and at the end of the event (event has a timer only), each player gets loot based on how much damage they dealt. They're pretty ridiculous and fun.

Mr.Funsocks
06-06-2013, 03:38 PM
Anything above 3-4 players would make the wait time too boring.
Anything that doesn't follow the basic turn/response format won't work.

Not sure what you're really proposing here...

Well someone didn't take the time to even read the intro. Good contribution, thanks!


TCG Flash games like Clash of the Dragons and Legacy of Heroes have world raids where each player joins a raid group and they keep hitting this ridiculous boss until they die. The amount of "damage" they do is totaled (or certain damage tiers equate to a certain number of points), and at the end of the event (event has a timer only), each player gets loot based on how much damage they dealt. They're pretty ridiculous and fun.

So is it the case that "fast-playing" decks without any complicated combos end up doing far more damage, because they can churn turns faster? That's the only thing I don't like about that idea, it turns a turn-based game into a speedy clickfest game.

Brumby66
06-06-2013, 03:41 PM
They won't make a system that requires players to wait on other people to submit their turn. That's pretty much the reason I suggested idea #1. As far as certain decks being slow due to too many actions, I see this as a dps issue. This system would actually have a measurable number which is a good and bad thing. I also think the boss should have global effects. I'd like to hear everyone in voice chat gasping at the same time lol. This would be a different system, but I'm not sure there is another way to implement large scale pve without downtime.

nearlysober
06-06-2013, 03:41 PM
I read the intro... where you said this only works if there's a good idea.

Then I read the rest where you pointed out why none of the ideas work. Did I miss something?

larryhl
06-06-2013, 03:41 PM
So is it the case that "fast-playing" decks without any complicated combos end up doing far more damage, because they can churn turns faster? That's the only thing I don't like about that idea, it turns a turn-based game into a speedy clickfest game.

Nope, since it's limited to raids, you'd basically be one shot without other raid members to back you up. Boss decks are usually stacked to be really unfair.

Also, easy ways to limit clickfests is to give a certain number of tickets per day, so you just use your allotment for the day. Probably also ends up being fairer across the playerbase.

Trothael
06-06-2013, 03:42 PM
Have multiple groups of 3-4 players each fighting individual bosses.
Each of the bosses is a smaller part of one large raid boss.
Depending on how you kill each body part, or the order you kill them in affects how the raid boss reacts.
The boss occasionally throws out global damage, but people in certain areas can choose to defend other areas and take more damage in the process. Maybe some other mechanics where one group affects another like that.

Mr.Funsocks
06-06-2013, 04:08 PM
They won't make a system that requires players to wait on other people to submit their turn.

Why not?


I read the intro... where you said this only works if there's a good idea.

Then I read the rest where you pointed out why none of the ideas work. Did I miss something?

Yes, apparently... Whatever, if you dun wanna read lots of text carefully, you probably shouldn't read my posts. They're lengthy and very exact in their wording.


Have multiple groups of 3-4 players each fighting individual bosses.
Each of the bosses is a smaller part of one large raid boss.
Depending on how you kill each body part, or the order you kill them in affects how the raid boss reacts.
The boss occasionally throws out global damage, but people in certain areas can choose to defend other areas and take more damage in the process. Maybe some other mechanics where one group affects another like that.

Yeah, I saw that one in an earlier thread too. I kinda like it, but then how do you synch it so you can't game the system and have one group play 20 turns while another group just waits?

Stok3d
06-06-2013, 04:09 PM
Have multiple groups of 3-4 players each fighting individual bosses.
Each of the bosses is a smaller part of one large raid boss.
Depending on how you kill each body part, or the order you kill them in affects how the raid boss reacts.
The boss occasionally throws out global damage, but people in certain areas can choose to defend other areas and take more damage in the process. Maybe some other mechanics where one group affects another like that.

I like where you're going with that. Say there are 4x "parties of 3ppl" that are able to join the same raid. If one of the parties die, your screen will flash that someone has died and that part of the boss he was fighting doubles up on another party which can quickly become a snowball effect to wipe the raid. That lends itself to many interesting ideas

Mr.Funsocks
06-06-2013, 04:11 PM
I like where you're going with that. Say there are 4x "parties of 3ppl" that are able to join the same raid. If one of the parties die, your screen will flash that someone has died and that part of the boss he was fighting doubles up on another party which can quickly become a snowball effect to wipe the raid. That lends itself to many interesting ideas

Ooo, I like that idea... it really forces everyone to carry their weight.

Trothael
06-06-2013, 04:12 PM
Yeah, I saw that one in an earlier thread too. I kinda like it, but then how do you synch it so you can't game the system and have one group play 20 turns while another group just waits?

Make it so there are more areas of the boss to take out than there are groups of players.
Each team fights the boss at their own teams pace.
Whenever a team clears an area, they move onto the next free area.

Then, have one area on the boss that has ridiculously high health. That area only opens up once the other areas have been cleared or have someone trying to clear them (So that there's no downtime). Players fight that at their own pace as well, but all of them play against one single health total. Once that's done, the raid is over.

Trothael
06-06-2013, 04:13 PM
I like where you're going with that. Say there are 4x "parties of 3ppl" that are able to join the same raid. If one of the parties die, your screen will flash that someone has died and that part of the boss he was fighting doubles up on another party which can quickly become a snowball effect to wipe the raid. That lends itself to many interesting ideas

It works in large and small numbers of groups as well. Large quantities of groups would lend itself to multiple phases though, which is why 40 man raids could work.

Grimthorn
06-06-2013, 04:14 PM
Something like Trothael just mentioned:

If you enter a raid as a group of say 16. Maybe you have 2 paths the group must follow, so you group the raid members into 2 teams. If one group fails, the raid is over.

As a player dies, they are out for the raid. they'd still get loot from all drops for being part of the group, but can't be selected for future matches. As the waves happen, the # of participants get lower and lower. All the 'dead' spectating if they wish.

Once you get to the final boss, you'd fight 3 at a time slowly weakening the boss. As players die, they are either removed or given the opportunity to be healed back into play. If removed, another player can join and continue the battle. I'm sure there would have to be some sort of mechanism to get their resources into play (perhaps 2-3 turns of respawn type immunity or the initial hand gets put directly into play (resources, troops, and constants).

It's thoughts like this that have me super interested in the game. Is it likely? probably not, but this format really gives endless possibilities that have me super anxious for the games release.

Talreth
06-06-2013, 04:15 PM
Did IQs suddenly drop while I was away?

Brumby66
06-06-2013, 04:16 PM
They won't make you wait for other people to finish. They have stated that is the reason they have not done large scale pve. They do not like the downtime. I also really like the idea of groups fighting different parts of the boss. My only concern would be if one group finishes quickly then there would be downtime for that group. Any thoughts on how to fix this?

Trothael
06-06-2013, 04:17 PM
They won't make you wait for other people to finish. They have stated that is the reason they have not done large scale pve. They do not like the downtime. I also really like the idea of groups fighting different parts of the boss. My only concern would be if one group finishes quickly then there would be downtime for that group. Any thoughts on how to fix this?

I made an attempt at fixing this above.

zaku
06-06-2013, 04:20 PM
I have a idea for a "40 Men Dailies". A "world boss" that can players can only beat 40 times a day. If the boss lost 40 times that way, all play that beat him that day will get loot, any less wins no one gets loot. Players can only defeat that "boss" once but is allowed unlimited tries to take him down.

EDIT - The boss is removed from the game after 40 defeats for 24 hours.

Mr.Funsocks
06-06-2013, 04:20 PM
Make it so there are more areas of the boss to take out than there are groups of players.
Each team fights the boss at their own teams pace.
Whenever a team clears an area, they move onto the next free area.

Then, have one area on the boss that has ridiculously high health. That area only opens up once the other areas have been cleared or have someone trying to clear them (So that there's no downtime). Players fight that at their own pace as well, but all of them play against one single health total. Once that's done, the raid is over.

But that still lets you just wait to game the system. If, say, there's some effect that you can have on other groups, ie you destroy the boss's tentacle and it removes an effect from another group that increases all troops' attack by 1. You're in that group, and you are looking at an attack impending from 8 1/1s that will get debuffed down to 0/1s. You just wait until the other group kills the tentacle until you do your next turn.

The problem with things that are real-time in a turn-based game is you can wait in a turn-based game to deal with the real time consequences.

Grimthorn
06-06-2013, 04:22 PM
I get that they don't want the down time, but I wouldn't mind down time if I could spectate on the other groups and bite mynails to see if they can pull it off. 40 might be too big to think about now, but evolving to 10-man, then 20-man raids seems like something to at least think about.

Most MMO's I've been involved in, hanging out on TS and bs'ing with guildmates is part of the fun. So being able to spectate other people in my raid's games and rooting for them sounds like fun to me.

MatWith1T
06-06-2013, 04:25 PM
I sometimes get nostalgic about 40 man raids too... Then i remember what a gigantic aggravating soul numbing experience they were trying to get 40 people organized, on time, assigned to teams, endless afks between attempts and all the other reasons they were scrapped in WoW.

40 man raids felt epic from the sheer scale, but it leaves you with an encounter where either no one can screw up or its a wipe leaving 39 people pissed off, or people are expendable so why deal with the hassle of herding cats?

I like large scale events. 40 is too many. 10-15 where everyone has to bring their A-game is my preference.

Mr.Funsocks
06-06-2013, 04:25 PM
I get that they don't want the down time, but I wouldn't mind down time if I could spectate on the other groups and bite mynails to see if they can pull it off. 40 might be too big to think about now, but evolving to 10-man, then 20-man raids seems like something to at least think about.

Most MMO's I've been involved in, hanging out on TS and bs'ing with guildmates is part of the fun. So being able to spectate other people in my raid's games and rooting for them sounds like fun to me.

Yeah, that's part of why I think it could work. Downtime is mostly during your teammate's turns, when you can be discussing strategy and watching what they're doing, whereas in PvP, you'd have that downtime mostly during opponents' turns, when you are in the dark.

Mr.Funsocks
06-06-2013, 04:27 PM
I sometimes get nostalgic about 40 man raids too... Then i remember what a gigantic aggravating soul numbing experience they were trying to get 40 people organized, on time, assigned to teams, endless afks between attempts and all the other reasons they were scrapped in WoW.

40 man raids felt epic from the sheer scale, but it leaves you with an encounter where either no one can screw up or its a wipe leaving 39 people pissed off, or people are expendable so why deal with the hassle of herding cats?

I like large scale events. 40 is too many. 10-15 where everyone has to bring their A-game is my preference.

Yeah, I think 40 is too many, but it was a large number to consider ;)

I think 10 would feel just as good, if not better though.

Brumby66
06-06-2013, 04:29 PM
I think 10-15 would be a good number. I agree about the downtime not being a big deal. The only thing that might be troublesome is PUG's.

Grimthorn
06-06-2013, 04:36 PM
Here's a thought combining kinda combining the '40 man dailies' comment and the 'large raid' concepts...

People can start a raid instance with as little as 3 people. There are multiple paths that lead to the boss and all have to be completed. And you can take your party as far as you can if you fail another group can start from there and keep pressing forward. You can only participate in one channel per day/week however they set it up. If by the end of the day/week all channels have been completed, all that participate get loot with some sort of weighting based on contribution/rolls...

This would play really well with the Guilds. If a guild leader started a guild official run, they could really work on team work and strategizing throwing the weaker players at the first couple waves as fodder and save their better players for the more difficult fights. Or have some build specialized decks to take on later challenges.

Like I said in my other post, I don't see any of this really happening, but the possibilities this game offers really gets my imagination going.

Mr.Funsocks
06-06-2013, 04:42 PM
Here's a thought combining kinda combining the '40 man dailies' comment and the 'large raid' concepts...

People can start a raid instance with as little as 3 people. There are multiple paths that lead to the boss and all have to be completed. And you can take your party as far as you can if you fail another group can start from there and keep pressing forward. You can only participate in one channel per day/week however they set it up. If by the end of the day/week all channels have been completed, all that participate get loot with some sort of weighting based on contribution/rolls...

This would play really well with the Guilds. If a guild leader started a guild official run, they could really work on team work and strategizing throwing the weaker players at the first couple waves as fodder and save their better players for the more difficult fights. Or have some build specialized decks to take on later challenges.

Yeah, though that's not really a "raid". It's definitely a neat new mode though, could have people chipping away at an encounter. Could have designated "point-men" that have decks designed to deal with the first step, and another group that do the 2nd phase, and so on.


Like I said in my other post, I don't see any of this really happening, but the possibilities this game offers really gets my imagination going.

That's the point ;) Though SOME people don't seem to get that.

Brumby66
06-06-2013, 04:50 PM
Just because it is unlikely doesn't mean we can't think of ideas and iron out the flaws. A well thought out and critiqued idea has a much better chance of becoming reality then a concept that is just thrown out. How is guild vs guild going to work? Maybe a large scale pve encounter could work in a similar fashion.

Grimthorn
06-06-2013, 04:56 PM
Yeah, though that's not really a "raid". It's definitely a neat new mode though, could have people chipping away at an encounter. Could have designated "point-men" that have decks designed to deal with the first step, and another group that do the 2nd phase, and so on.

To me, it is still a raid of sorts. You need a large number of people to complete it, people are going to have their roles to play and it could be made to be as complicated to coordinate as a 40man run. And hey, since a TCG is turn based, we've just made the events turn based. haha. But yea, not the 40 person raid, all on at once experience you were going for, but I think the spirit of it is there.


That's the point ;) Though SOME people don't seem to get that.
Yea, It's funny how far everyone has gone from initial excitement to jaded/anger over stretch goals, mana screw, or tier limits. I'm just excited that alpha access was a stretch goal.

Joolz
06-06-2013, 05:10 PM
Whatever system you came up with there'd have to be something in place that ensured that no one had to wait more than say 3 minutes in between the end of their turn and the beginning of their next one. This includes having a "raid leader" setup where he/she gets all the priority windows. People on the internet have the worst possible attention spans. Given more than a minute of downtime a large percentage of them are going to be tabbed out fapping, youtubing, facebooking, writing on these forums, etc.

Brumby66
06-06-2013, 05:13 PM
Whatever system you came up with there'd have to be something in place that ensured that no one had to wait more than say 3 minutes in between the end of their turn and the beginning of their next one. This includes having a "raid leader" setup where he/she gets all the priority windows. People on the internet have the worst possible attention spans. Given more than a minute of downtime a large percentage of them are going to be tabbed out fapping, youtubing, facebooking, writing on these forums, etc.

Lol. Reminds me of enrage timers. Taking too long? One-shot.

Matenshi
06-06-2013, 05:20 PM
Have multiple groups of 3-4 players each fighting individual bosses.
Each of the bosses is a smaller part of one large raid boss.
Depending on how you kill each body part, or the order you kill them in affects how the raid boss reacts.
The boss occasionally throws out global damage, but people in certain areas can choose to defend other areas and take more damage in the process. Maybe some other mechanics where one group affects another like that.

This is the only way I can see it working.

Think of the endgame boss in Final Fantasy VII where you could have all of your characters across 3 parties, each attacking from a different side. That was pretty neat, and I wish more RPGs in general would do stuff like that.

Mr.Funsocks
06-06-2013, 05:25 PM
See, to me, the key is getting something that captures the part about raids that's fun and satisfying: Everyone working together, at once, until it all comes together at once, and you rely on each person to do their role flawlessly. That's also raiding's biggest annoyance though, of course.

Mr.Funsocks
06-06-2013, 05:26 PM
Whatever system you came up with there'd have to be something in place that ensured that no one had to wait more than say 3 minutes in between the end of their turn and the beginning of their next one. This includes having a "raid leader" setup where he/she gets all the priority windows. People on the internet have the worst possible attention spans. Given more than a minute of downtime a large percentage of them are going to be tabbed out fapping, youtubing, facebooking, writing on these forums, etc.

Yeah, the more I think about that, the more I like the idea of Raid Leaders having priority.

Gorgol
06-06-2013, 05:51 PM
I like where you're going with that. Say there are 4x "parties of 3ppl" that are able to join the same raid. If one of the parties die, your screen will flash that someone has died and that part of the boss he was fighting doubles up on another party which can quickly become a snowball effect to wipe the raid. That lends itself to many interesting ideas

This is brilliant!

Mr.Funsocks
06-06-2013, 08:21 PM
This is the only way I can see it working.

Think of the endgame boss in Final Fantasy VII where you could have all of your characters across 3 parties, each attacking from a different side. That was pretty neat, and I wish more RPGs in general would do stuff like that.

See, the problem with that is that in that battle, you were controlling all of 'em, and it was going sequentially. One group went for a few rounds, then the other, etc. That wouldn't work as well in a TCG setting with many players.

Matenshi
06-07-2013, 12:25 PM
See, the problem with that is that in that battle, you were controlling all of 'em, and it was going sequentially. One group went for a few rounds, then the other, etc. That wouldn't work as well in a TCG setting with many players.

In this case each party would be playing at the same time, though. I just brought up FF7 because the idea reminded me of that and how cool it was.

jetah
06-07-2013, 12:50 PM
Maybe 40 is too many but it'd be nice to see 1 boss this way.

Omniloathe
06-07-2013, 02:42 PM
TCG Flash games like Clash of the Dragons and Legacy of Heroes have world raids where each player joins a raid group and they keep hitting this ridiculous boss until they die. The amount of "damage" they do is totaled (or certain damage tiers equate to a certain number of points), and at the end of the event (event has a timer only), each player gets loot based on how much damage they dealt. They're pretty ridiculous and fun.


Fun how?

How is this in any way different from you playing by yourself?

either you have interaction and coordination between the players, in which case 40 man raids are infeasible, or you have no interaction/coordination between the players, in which case you arent playing in a raid at all.

I can simulate what you proposed by just adding total damage to a boss done by everyone in a guild when they go into that dungeon alone.

Mr.Funsocks
06-08-2013, 08:05 AM
I think that's the problem with most ideas for this - They tend to focus around not actually playing together, because the wait time when you get many people is too long in a TCG.