Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 18 man parties

  1. #1
    Player Blah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    427

    18 man parties

    Probably going to get a NO on this one but is there a way to just have an 18 man party not 3 six man parties? Or at the very least up it to...hmmm 9 man parties so that way we only need 2 alliances?
    (0)
    Please do not post if you are drunk, high or madly delirious from lack of sleep...HEY WHERE'S EVERYONE???

  2. #2
    Player Zarchery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,412
    Character
    Zarchery
    World
    Carbuncle
    Main Class
    MNK Lv 99
    Why would you want to do that? You want 18 people just not in that configuration?
    (0)

  3. #3
    Player
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,098
    I'd assume for the sake of party wide buffs. Right now if I do delve I want 1 bard for each party, with that setup I'd likely want 1 bard for each party. The difference is that right now, that means 3 bards, with such an update it'd be only 2. This also goes for CORs. Additionally it would make the buffs from jobs like GEO more useful since they're party only and due to that fact, and our smaller party size, they're just not used right now. I mean there are a few advantages to it in the end when you think about it from a buffer perspective seeing as we're still hit by stupid restrictions that should be removed or reworked when it comes to what buffs can or can't transcend party barriers.
    (0)

  4. #4
    Player Blah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    427
    Yeah, it's always confounded me how they define "party" members and "alliance" members especially now when it's clearly the reason aoe enhancements don't work on alliance members. Was it just so they could have a way to stifle the enhancements to begin with or did they just do it because that's how it's always been done? (Almost every other rpg game I can think of has had up to 6 but never more). If they reworked it to be larger parties it could easily solve the enhancement issue and maybe even the erm issue going on now with only 6 jobs being in high demand...maybe.
    (0)
    Last edited by Blah; 05-20-2014 at 04:16 PM. Reason: clarification
    Please do not post if you are drunk, high or madly delirious from lack of sleep...HEY WHERE'S EVERYONE???

  5. #5
    Player Olor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Demonjustin View Post
    I'd assume for the sake of party wide buffs. Right now if I do delve I want 1 bard for each party, with that setup I'd likely want 1 bard for each party. The difference is that right now, that means 3 bards, with such an update it'd be only 2. This also goes for CORs. Additionally it would make the buffs from jobs like GEO more useful since they're party only and due to that fact, and our smaller party size, they're just not used right now. I mean there are a few advantages to it in the end when you think about it from a buffer perspective seeing as we're still hit by stupid restrictions that should be removed or reworked when it comes to what buffs can or can't transcend party barriers.

    I honestly think the biggest thing they could do to make GEOs more desirable is make their buffs alliance wide. I am not sure the spagetti code could handle it, but it would make taking a GEO a lot more worthwhile in large group events. Otherwise it is almost never going to be chosen. I mean, I'm not even a particularly fantastic bard and I can easily give mages 12 tics of refresh, while giving melee super haste and upping their attack. Heck last time I was on bard I was separately buffing rangers, healers, and melee. Buffs might have dropped here and there but having that flexibility to individually buff is a HUGE boon for bard.

    GEO doesn't get that kind of potency nor the ability to separately buff different group members unless they give up their mob enfeeble. I don't see how they can compete.
    (1)
    http://photobucket.com/gallery/http://s19.photobucket.com/user/soulchld4/media/Olorinus-Signature.jpg.html