Tree of Savior Forum

5-man Party Size Limited Class Variaties

Gameplay Feedback General Feedback
#1

The 5-man party size greatly limited the freedom of class combinations and forced people to choose specific meta builds to get invited into a party for grinding/world boss fight/earth tower etc late game contents.

Here I’m going to suggest increasing the maximum party size to 7-8 and at the same time modify the buff mechanism.

Why 5-man party limited the class choices?

With only 5 available slots, there are nearly no free slots:
1 - Healer, preferably with one who has chosen all full support classes in the cleric tree
2 - Tank, at least pelt1
3 - DPS wizard, actually elementalist 3
4 - DPS archer
5 - Crowd control/support wizard or cleric mostly

The harder the mob, the less freedom in the above class choices. Also because of the exp buff for party with all 4 classes, players are forced to be specific to their role instead of being hybrid to get into the party:

Cleric - Must fit in the healer role - forced to take cleric2 otherwise is less favored because you can’t do good as a healer
Swordsman - Must fit in the tank role - forced to go pelt and tank, since this is the only slot for swordsman unless the party is willing to sacrifice a support
Archer - Are there even support archers?

So I suggest to open up 2 or more party slots, allowing flexibility in builds and classes.

Buff mechanism should be modified accordingly.

Buff limit can be increased based on additional people in the party, say, increase by 2 for each additional member over 5.

My personal opinion is to completely remove the buff limit to allow all classes showing their full potential when partied up.

In additional to that, low level buffs shouldn’t overwrite high level buffs to make the game play more organized and easier to handle with that amount of players.

Here’s my two cents. My goal is to encourage creative builds and class varieties instead of meta builds only.

11 Likes
#2

Agree
/20charrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

#3

Looking at the class design, you can see IMC was trying to make party plays work with any party combination. However, so far, they haven’t been able to achieve their design purpose.

With that being said, still, I do not see the necessity of the traditional 1.1.3 combination being mandatory. You would be surprised on how fast and smooth a party with 4 control wizards and many other weird combination can clear a dungeon. So…no, I don’t see the necessity of increasing party size.

Don’t let that WoW play style bury into your mind. There was a time I thought a party with at least 1 control or 1 heal is good enough for dungeon-ing, until I met a team with 4 quarrel shooters.

1 Like
#4

May i ask whats your highest level character achieved?

#5

lv 209 i stopped there

#6

I will propose an alternative that would somewhat change the dynamics of the game towards differing varieties of play.

Why not take the example of the Corsair class and make it matter more with retards to party dynamics by adding more classes that affect both the size, composition and bonuses given by said parties.

Corsair has the Pirate Gang party mode, so why not do the same for, say, a Centurion class. Then a Wizard class could have another party doctrine, and so on and so on for each of the 4 meta classes.

This way, parties can be more dynamic and maps and game mechanics could be designed around the idea that those party types would work best on said type of content.

#7

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

#8

and only one of them bought the attribute to turn off knockdown effects of their skills.

woooooooo

#9

+1

I support this fully, and I hope everyone who also likes this please put a like and a post with a +1, bump this! Make it more awesome! <3

I am tiredo f hearing about all poor swordsmen having to go pelt because thats the ONLY way they can get in parties late game. :confused:
I mean yes other builds also work but its ridiculous how they really fall behind compared to others, granted that a class is not rangfed they should be able to fully do hella loads of damage once they reach the enemy. I mean, come on. A sword VS a bow, a sword will always do the most damage.

#10

I think party size will get increased later down the line. at least if centurion comes back. Im sure the reason that was moved more down the line of ranks because of the party limit

#11

Why not, 7-10m party maybe will be fun.

but just saying, i already see comps with druid doing some support and damage, monks helping to lure mobs and healing people. Sword just taunting and doing a little of damage to help.

1 Like
#12

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

#13

removing buff limit means you just completely trashed krivis and would necessitate a complete overhaul to Daino

Aside from that, I do agree with increasing party size, AFTER they work out the horrible optimization that you screen lag even in just a 5 man party.

#14

bump for the expansion on the limit of party!!! :heart_eyes:

#15

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

#16

Dungeons and missions wizards have 2 slots per group where the rest of the chumps have 1 or none.

ET… healer, maybe 2nd healer? 1 elememe and 2 support wizards. The ■■■■ is wrong with balance here IMC.

#17

Oh no, please don’t do that.

Having to rely on others stupidity is enough already with 5 slots.

#18

First of all I agree that the problem need to be addressed, I myself is playing a non-meta wiz3thaum3warlock as well as many of my friend like alchemist. We all feel punished for not being a meta and there is no freedom to absorb a non-meta character in current grinding party system.

This is why, many of my friend quitted because they cannot progress 230+ since EVAC>Storage>Maven require specific builds to grind, then they forever stuck in queue for mission which is dry and dread after a week. (And the population is decreasing too which is more difficult.) Somemore, Saalus Convent should have exp gain to replace Mercenary Mission for more fun and reduce the necessity to grind.

Yes, the current party basically setup:

  1. Cleric who can heal whatever build
  2. Chronomancer C3 (best for linker, others are okay)
  3. Elementalist C3 (nobody can AoE better)
  4. Swordsman with Peltasta
    Left with last slot for any Archer to get the bonus exp.

Let’s see here, swordsman w/o peltasta is still acceptable or if there is chronolinker. Archer could be anything, Cleric C1 also okay if the tanker is good enough. But, other Wizard have no place at all, because the 2 specific meta occupied the slot.

You can say it is unnecessary, but it is more like players attitude as well because without a good party nobody willing to join or create it. There are few, but very rare who willing to do it.

Anyway, I don’t agree increase until 7-8, it is too much while I think +1 would be enough to absorb a non-meta. I actually think Templar who should be able create a 6-man party.

  1. It add more value to this class as what leadership definitive.
  2. Encourage more players to play Templar as there are very lack of it because nobody want play templar.

@hkkim I hope developer aware it and would consider :slight_smile: thank you

#20

The pt size limit suggestion might be the best one i ever read, though i still doubt that imc will implement it or similar change.

I can only speak for myself, the only feature exclusive to other mmo games is the class variaties. If only some builds are viable at end game content like earth tower or world boss, etc., then the class system is quite a failure cuz it isn’t practically diverse as it intends, and the game shall not fascinate me with anything special.

#21

This change would not stop metas and would only make finding competent parties harder. Plus with current optimization it would increase frame rate drops for players already experiencing them.

I think it would be really cool for them to come out with “Raid Groups” and dungeons/missions in the future for better experience, gear, etc.

However increasing the base party size would break more than it would fix.