Poll: Raid Size!

[Naurki]

I will have to say I like the groups smaller on the order of 20 and below. Too much strain and too much lagg for me when you get groups of 40+ on the screen at the same time.

Plus I like things to be more personal than 40+ groups tend to be anyway.

[Ra Hag Ghen]

I voted for 18-24 because it`s easier to set up this type of group.I had the bad experience of 40 man raid where you had to wait for almost and hour and sometimes we simply cancelled it...and definitely too laggy.

But it would have been nice to have a 40+ during an event like a siege where all players don`t have to be at the same place but work in a several groups to acheive the main goal like the one which took place in EVE Online about a year ago...RvR in DAoC was a blast.

[Alenon]

i tend to disagree with the "smaller raids require more skill" aspect, at least with how it was in further eq1 expansions and such. Sure if the mob had no special abilities there wasnt much skill required in throwing 72 people at a mob and collecting the loot (AoW encounter ect) but think about the more complex encounters like emp ssra, rathe encounter, xegony, RZ. these encounters required basically the full raid (at least when they first came to being) and if one person screwed up, you were probably done. so you need 72 people that are focused, experienced, and paying attention or you're in alot of trouble. In this type of situation more only hurts you as that's more opportunities for something to go wrong. with 24 man, you need a less number of skilled people to complete the objective, making it easier. Perhaps 72 was a bit much, but 24 is a bit low IMO. Maybe 54 or 48 would be best.

Maybe im just different, but I prided my guild in being one of the few on the server in eq1 able to accomplish the best of the best. The lower the number of people needed, the higher the number of guilds able to accomplish the same thing, and considering vanguard is going to be non-instanced, that means alot of guilds racing for the same thing. meanin much more griefing. larger numbers means less guilds can accomplish the encounter meaning less competition and better PR (hopefully)

[vedavyasa]

you have to take several things into moderation. first of all, I believe that in this forum, socialising, roleplay and groupwork of all kinds is appreciated and generally prefered to solo playing. why? because this helps in creating a feeling of actually being part of something, having an experience, and not just playing a game on some computer. personally, I understand this, although I am one of those egoists who prefer sneaking around on their own, at least for part of the time.
anyway, this creating a feeling that I'm talking about - does this also apply to groups of, say, 40 persons? in my experience, it certainly doesn't. from seeing my brother in high-level dungeons in world of warcraft, mc, zg, bwl, aq, etc., I got the impression that this was not so much a fun fulfilment of people's expectations for high-level content as a dull reiteration for hours on end. the main difference between grinding your way up and doing mc or zg is the fatality of potential mistakes in the latter. oh yeah, and the "ePixX," of course.
really, though, grouping up with other dedicated players makes the game a lot better, but making groups too big and dungeons too repetitious drains the fun out of playing.
and that is strictly in pve situations. pvp is a completely different matter, obviously.

[Cyrus]

I think the smaller raid groups are more fun, against strong monsters. Isn't half the fun of a raid, sitting there stratagizing on how you will take down the mob. plus I think charecters learn more and more of there roles in a smaller raid, because every person is important. With more limited rescources, (say 5 clerics, instead of 20) every persons role and skill is pivital. It might more frustrating if you get a bad cleric, but every person learns how to play there class better, when the challenge is greater. plus no lag.

[DivineCT]

I voted 18 to 24, but wouldn't mind it a little bigger either. Although the Rathe Council was fun, just managing all the people, the LD's, etc were just a pain in the arse. Another problem with a huge force was outfitting it. Although that was depending no how many times you raided. (It still took sometime to get gear for folks) EQ2 brought more strats to raiding, picking the appropriate classes etc. I'd like to see it on a little bigger scale since people who do want to raid might have not been the class we needed and had to sit out.

[FEDS-91]

Smaller I guess is better to me. Always hard to get a group of people to get on the same page, much less a huge group of them.

[Slash]

Could go either way for me...

Smaller - Seems like every person is more important and every class HAS to perform to the best of its abilities and you MUST have very skilled players.

Larger - You can show up with 50+ people and take out mobs not currently thought touchable. Raid guilds will have more people.

I would definitely like to have the option whether to bring a 2 group raid vs a mob... or vs an insane mob be able to hav a guild send 50+ people depending on the lvl and strength of the mob... Strategy will be in effect either way... I actually think maybe more strategy needed for the larger group.

To hard to choose.

[SpudWebb]

I'd say 25. In a raid with less people you 1, have more responsibility on each individual and you get to see who isn't doing their part. 2, get more loot. 3, small guilds have the ability to do them.

[Pirotess]

We shall soon see what works best. The Burning Crusade expansion for WoW is going to cap raids at 25 and offer a number of 10 man raids. Combine that with its existing 40 man raids and we should see what people prefer after a few months.