PDA

View Full Version : Competitivemess of a 10-Man Guild



Barbatus
07-12-2008, 07:04 PM
With the introduction of 10-man versions for every raid in WotLK, it opens up an interesting possibility for those wishing to experience end game content. As Ciderhelm and several others have stated in threads such as Time Management for Raiding Guilds (http://www.tankspot.com/forums/guild-general/32593-time-management-raiding-guilds.html), guilds that are on the cutting edge of content raid less over the course of an MMO than so-called "hard-core" guilds that raid 5-6 days a week, every week. Blizzard has stated that they intend for 10-man content to mirror 25-man content as closely as possible, although being scaled down for fewer players and having a lower quality of gear drops.

The 10-man model would be in my opinion, a smaller, more close-knit group of people, while being more stringent on everyone doing their part to succeed. I intend in WotLK to attempt creating a hard-core guild to raid 10-mans, with no intention whatsoever of growing to raid 25's as well.

All of this leads up to my question. Would a 10-man guild following the same raid schedule as Nihilum, SK-Gaming, Exodus, or numerous others (namely raid until the content is cleared, then hibernate until the next big content release) be considered competitive for world firsts as long as the bosses die, or will that remain strictly the domain of the 25-man guilds?

EDIT: Dur, this should be in Guild General :/

Leytur
07-13-2008, 04:33 AM
I think you're going to have parallel progression benchmarks. You'll have a world first 10 and a world first 25. And I think both are worthy of accolades.

I am doing the same thing you are--building up my guild for 10 mans in the xpac.

phaze
07-13-2008, 06:50 AM
Would a 10-man guild following the same raid schedule as Nihilum, SK-Gaming, Exodus, or numerous others (namely raid until the content is cleared, then hibernate until the next big content release) be considered competitive for world firsts as long as the bosses die, or will that remain strictly the domain of the 25-man guilds?

Unlikely, considering how outgeared they'll be by a similar 25-man raiding guild clearing the 10-man version. Also, in order for the 10-man version to be allowing enough progression with gear that is 1 tier behind the 25-man version, the smaller raid will have to be easier than the larger one; that's the nature of gear tuning.

It's certainly possible to tune 10-mans at the same difficulty of their 25-man counterpart, but that does not appear to be the design choice that Blizzard is making.

Honorshammer
07-14-2008, 10:08 AM
I am doing the same thing you are--building up my guild for 10 mans in the xpac.

I'm actually thinking of doing the same thing as well but I want to see how they handle it. I've heard you won't be able to kill Arthas in 10 man, only 25 and that the 10 mans won't open until the 25 man is defeated. Both of those idea are poor choices on Blizzards part.

Horacio
07-14-2008, 11:41 AM
I'm actually thinking of doing the same thing as well but I want to see how they handle it. I've heard you won't be able to kill Arthas in 10 man, only 25 and that the 10 mans won't open until the 25 man is defeated. Both of those idea are poor choices on Blizzards part.

I agree with all of this. I too am considering forming up a group with some close friends either as a subset of a larger guild or something else, possibly remaining unguilded and still doing just that.

One thing to consider is the ability to see the fights, the dungeon layouts and the boss abilities in a small group then translating that into a 25 man raid. If you have two seperate groups both progressing and earning gear then combining and filling out the remaining slots, you could do both and doing the 10 man gives you a leg up on the content.

When BC was released, alot fo guilds built around 40 man raids disintegrated and many more had to reinvent themselves, streamline and reconfigure. There are many more guilds (it seems) pressing content equivalent to pre BC. The removal of most attunments and lack of cockblocks like Vael mean many more people can get into raiding and get far.

Will the dynamic be changing enough to see the same sort of reconfiguation of raiding guilds as the release of BC caused? I don't think to that extent but I believe it will be more prevalent than people are currently discussing.

Its simply much easier to organize and direct 10 people than it is 25, especially in a more casual environment. The odds that you are going to find 10 good, committed, and class balanced raiders whose schedules mesh is greater thn 25.

So...I dunno. I do hope there are as many venues as there is in BC (7) with each having 10 and 25 man versions. I hope its not a case of having just 4 or 5 and going from there. I personally like having the instances be unique and even though I haven't and won't see it all, Kara and ZA have a certain charm that would be lost in 25 man levels, I think.

EDIT: Also in response to Honor, I see both sides of the 10 v 25 and the ability to kill Arthas. Who's to say they cannot have different scenarios, animations, outcomes, etc. If you "kill" him in 10 man, make it like 25 man Kael in BC. He gets pissed, talks some smack, drops a chest of goods and then drags ass, leaving you to try to defeat him in 25 man. I realize it would be cheap if all bosses did this but this is the big, bad end villian we're talking about. You get to fight and defeat him other way but killing him should be reserved for the highest level of progression content. Playing devil's advocate to an extent....not sure how I really feel about it beyond assessing the situation and seeing how to have the most fun out if it.

Honorshammer
07-14-2008, 01:41 PM
I guess that's why I'm in a wait and see mode. Will 10 mans be treated as a lesser tier of raiding by Blizzard or will they try to make each rewarding.

Whether it's 10 men or 25, Arthas still represents the highest level of progression content. I guess it's just because I want to do a 10 man guild but I don't want to miss out on killing him. The idea of him running away and saying "Ha, that was pretty good, now go get 15 more people and really face me!" just seems to kind of cheapen 10 man raiding.

I can't see any reason behind locking 10 man progression until the 25 man is defeated.

Edit: I realize they drop a less tier of loot. I have no problem with that. Drop loot appropiate to the number of people in the instance.

Barbatus
07-14-2008, 07:09 PM
Its simply much easier to organize and direct 10 people than it is 25, especially in a more casual environment. The odds that you are going to find 10 good, committed, and class balanced raiders whose schedules mesh is greater thn 25.

This is exactly the reason I want to attempt putting together a 10-man guild. I'm seriously doubting my abilities to successfully lead a small raiding guild, much less one that raids 25s. If it all turns out horribly, I'll just give in and re-app to a 25-man raiding guild where I just follow orders instead of giving them.

Krashtork
07-15-2008, 01:27 PM
To be blunt I think Blizzard is making a foolish choice by having 10 man mirror versions of 25 man raids. I think it takes away from the awesomeness of completing a raid at the 25 man level. This game is getting more and more carebear. Removing all the attunements and giving everyone a chance to raid the same thing feels like socialism to me. I don't care about the masses of players. I'm an elist at heart, and the changes they are making with the upcoming expansion are tilting the game heavily towards the casuals. Remember when in pre-BC having full epics actually meant something? When it didn't just mean you pvp'd or did 5 mans for a couple days? I'm sorry but this game is getting WAY too easy.

While I don't dislike 10 mans, I believe they should be a completely seperate instance / zone than the 25 mans. If they had 5 25 man zones, and 5 seperate 10 man zones I think they would be better off.

I for one will continue to play with 25 people as long as I can.

Long live the satisfaction of working hard for your success!

orcstar
07-15-2008, 04:56 PM
...I'm an elist at heart, and the changes they are making with the upcoming expansion are tilting the game heavily towards the casuals. Remember when in pre-BC having full epics actually meant something?...
What did having full epics mean? That you were there from the start? I started tanking late. I was a healer. I can't compare my skill yet to top tanks but I've reached a level of play where I out-tank a lot of the T5 geared tanks. It isn't my gear I'm just a better player. This was (among other things) possible because of the "freebee" badge awards.

At this moment players who stepped in later can with some reasonable effort be in Black Temple raiding in a month or two after getting to 70. This changes allowed our guild actually to get some more good and skilled players to replace people who left and get rid of some bad ones who happened to be playing longer.

I think such changes are good.

Tatt
07-15-2008, 05:23 PM
Ugh Elitists!!! It is a bloody video game!!! It is supposed to be casual, hence the word GAME! And why doesn't having epics mean anything anymore? I do not mean afk'ing in BG's, or the guys (like me) who suck so bad at arena's that all we ever have is last season's gear or the unrated stuff, I mean the trinekts that you had to do heroic magister's 25 times for, or sun eater after the 50th mech run. That means something. Reaching the highest level of your crafting profession to make your goggles, or your dragonstrike? Why doesn't that mean anything? When so called elitists use the words casual the contempt is dripping. Being in 25 mans and 40 mans has absolutely NOTHING to do with ability, just with can 25 people or 40 people coordinate their schedule to play at the same time every week. Anything that allows more people to see and do things DESPITE scheduling and RL issues is a very good thing.

kawika
07-15-2008, 07:36 PM
I'm actually thinking of doing the same thing as well but I want to see how they handle it. I've heard you won't be able to kill Arthas in 10 man, only 25 and that the 10 mans won't open until the 25 man is defeated. Both of those idea are poor choices on Blizzards part.

i could have sworn that it was the opposite. 10 man completion for attunement for the 25 man.


As far as the difficulty of a 10 man versus a 25 man, i think there are inherant mechanics that would make such things impossible. You have a larger "buffer" with 25 people than 10...so loosing one or 2 people in a 25 man would tend to have less of an impact than loosing one or 2 peopls in a 10 man. Encounters can be designed to take that into account in a 25 man situation, but would cause an increased strain in a 10 man situation.

In that respect, a 10 man guild theoretically could be competitive. Both a 10 man and a 25 man oriented guild would have similar obstacles (roster issues and what not). Gear wise a 10 man guild stands a higher chance of loosing ground because of the accessibility of gear (if they did 10 mans exclusively....interguild co-ops not withstanding). 25 man version of the same zones are supposed to be something like 0.5 to 1 teir above the 10 man version. Given that....a 25 man guild would be better geared than their 10 man counterparts and thus have that edge in pushing them through newer zones.


To be blunt I think Blizzard is making a foolish choice by having 10 man mirror versions of 25 man raids. I think it takes away from the awesomeness of completing a raid at the 25 man level. This game is getting more and more carebear. Removing all the attunements and giving everyone a chance to raid the same thing feels like socialism to me. I don't care about the masses of players. I'm an elist at heart, and the changes they are making with the upcoming expansion are tilting the game heavily towards the casuals. Remember when in pre-BC having full epics actually meant something? When it didn't just mean you pvp'd or did 5 mans for a couple days? I'm sorry but this game is getting WAY too easy.

While I don't dislike 10 mans, I believe they should be a completely seperate instance / zone than the 25 mans. If they had 5 25 man zones, and 5 seperate 10 man zones I think they would be better off.

I for one will continue to play with 25 people as long as I can.

Long live the satisfaction of working hard for your success!

Programming wise, it's easier for them to make 10 and 25 man versions of the same zones rather than making 2 completely different zones. Essentially think of 25 mans as the "heroic" version of the 10 man =p.

In the end it's all the same (hopefully): that sense of accomplishment of beating content with buddies/friends/etc.

One thing i've always wondered: How many "raid guilds" tried to reroll on new servers only to fail? Some made it...i've heard of many that didn't. My guess is that raid guilds needs a general populous as a foundation. (Think of the real world social and economic structure). The stronger your base is...the better things can be overall. This base provides a market for raid guilds as well as provide raid guilds with a "workforce" of sorts for farming for consummables.

The masses is how a raid guild replenishes and recruits. Even then it isnt always enough. The diminshed quality of newer players being added into the guild was one of the many reasons both Death and Taxes and Forte called it quits. On my own sever (doomhammer), Juggernaut decided to reroll on a PvP server because of the server transfer restrictions cutting out potential server transfer applicants.



Providing opportunities for some to shine where they otherwise couldn't is never a bad thing. Badge gear is how i was able to progress and furthur my game play because 25 mans just arent accessible to me. I do acknowledge that "welfare" epics and badge gear can create a strain on recruiting by raid guilds in weeding out the good players from the bad ones. But armory checks are just one facet of recruiting and raid guilds that recruit smartly understand that gear doesnt make the player. I mean..they'll take a geared warm body if it'll help them...but they wont turn away talent just because they're a teir or 2 lower in gear than the content they're pushing.

Honorshammer
07-16-2008, 07:09 AM
But to be honest, I really embrace the fact that its less about whose right or wrong about how many people they have and more about getting people to experience the content, and then rewarding them for whatever difficulty level they beat it on and however many people they have with them. - Jeff Kaplan

Krashtork
07-16-2008, 10:06 AM
Having full epics used to mean you played frequently, were a good player, and could put those epics to good use. At least that's how it was on my server. I'd say the average person had full blues and maybe 1 epic.

Nowadays if you don't have full epics you're doing it wrong. It is much harder to discerne a good player from a bad one, and experienced one from a noob.

People don't look for recruits with full epics anymore, they look at how good the epics they have are.

Basically it just seems like epic is the new blue, and i don't like that.

Also, you're right, good players aren't determined by the gear they have. But, generally speaking, if they are a good player they will play the game enough to stumble into a handful of epics that Blizz so generously shoves down our throats.

And elitism exists everywhere. Games, work, life, it's all around us. Even games where people are on a totally level playing field like FPS's.

Some people are just better than others, and recognizing that is not a bad thing.

orcstar
07-17-2008, 09:32 PM
Having full epics used to mean you played frequently, were a good player
It meant you played frequently and could make the times of a raiding guild, nothing more nothing less.


Some people are just better than others, and recognizing that is not a bad thing.And looking at someone's epics is a very bad way to judge that.

Krashtork
07-22-2008, 09:56 AM
orcstar on my server, you didn't get epics unless you were good. There really wasn't much of a way around it. The only guilds that bothered to raid anything wouldn't take nooby players, and the guilds that did didn't get anywhere.

I can honestly say that between amount of epics and / or guild tags you could screen the good from the bad. Now it is much harder to do so because damn near everyone has full epics. And honestly all that tells me is that if someone has mostly / any blues i shouldn't take a 2nd glance at em.

orcstar
07-22-2008, 10:20 AM
orcstar on my server, you didn't get epics unless you were good. There really wasn't much of a way around it. The only guilds that bothered to raid anything wouldn't take nooby players, and the guilds that did didn't get anywhere.

I can honestly say that between amount of epics and / or guild tags you could screen the good from the bad. Now it is much harder to do so because damn near everyone has full epics. And honestly all that tells me is that if someone has mostly / any blues i shouldn't take a 2nd glance at em.
Sorry but I have a strong opinion about this and that is, a lot of the raiding is not hard, progress is time consuming and people that want to put in that time get to be top raiders.
For tanks this is less true but for dps: go to a site and find out which gear to get and what enchants. What craftables, consumables and what spec. Go grind, buy and craft everything and go back to the site.
Find out your ideal rotation, don't stand in the green shit and you get to be a perfect raider. If you can follow orders, no brains are required. And you get to be a top raider.

I have progressed but I've seen too many examples of "average" players being in progressed high level raiding guilds. And I've seen examples of "the new guy" blowing everyone away and giving others a wake up call.

I'm a reroller, I'm now playing a warriortank and loving it, but my former main was a shaman, a restoshaman and elemental. And when we were in SSC/TK there was a need for new recruits, being on a low population server without many guilds in Karazhan at the time options for "epic-ed" players were limited. Well, it resulted in me recruiting two new resto shamans, 1 full blue, 1 green blue which I had run heroics with (me as elemental) where they impressed me. These guys immediately picked up the level of raiding we were on and after getting some more gear they blew away the experienced hardcore raiders.

Also my own experience as former healer, crafted some LW gear got some more, and I was competing as top dps-er without any experience as dps in raids whatsoever.

If you're not completely backwards, making the schedules of your guild, being in time and grinding the things you can't get in raids is 80% of your ability of being a hardcore raider, skills is only 20%.

Krashtork
07-22-2008, 10:28 AM
While I don't disagree with you, I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Back in the day, having full epics showed at least a basic level of competence. Nothing more nothing less. It was VERY rare that I would find a player in full epics that was below an acceptable level of skill.

Basically, full epic'd people weren't generally poor players. Average maybe, poor no.

Now, I too have seen my share of players in blues / greens who have done amazingly. I too am a reroll tank from a mage. I've recruited mages who were in blues who outdid our average mages.

By and large though, people stayed away from players in full greens.

My complaint is now those players who would normally be in full greens, are now in full epics, and are harder to identify as noobs.

kawika
07-22-2008, 06:50 PM
i think you both generally are talking about the same thing.

As to the complaint of gear "color" with regards to the level of player....this is true in that's it's more trying to identify a good player from a bad one if you were to solely base it on gear. I'm pretty sure no one disputes that. The latest "purple is the new blue" is just one of the many things blizzard has done to "dumb" down the game a bit.

It does have pros and cons. I do have a slight bias in that i do still like it because i have to make my progression this way. Badge gear....now lately looking at arena gear for offset gear / fun. Yes i could make the choice of server transferring to somewhere that's more ideal for me....but realistically i'd end up quiting before making that choice.

And to add to that, i do believe that there are many out there who are good players but just do not have favorable circumstances to get gear via raiding. Thus i feel strongly that they do need to have alternatives.

And at this point...i feel this topic sorta derailed the thread a bit ...lol.



Back to being close to the original topic...

When people talk about raiding....most use the terms "hardcore" or "casual". But these terms, probably as has been pointed out numerous times in various discussions elsewhere, is a bit decieving.

At the core...progression raiding boils down to:
1) raid often (4+ days a week)
2) raid 2 or 3 days

Both methods do work. Method 1 is what i call raiding harder...method 2 is what i call raiding smarter. You can have a guild that only raids 2 days a week downing Illidan where another guild that raids 5 is barely able to clear ssc/tk. Of course there's the raiding hard AND smart...which is where the top world wide guilds are =p.


From there it's a matter of implementation. Things like:
Core roster? Signup? Mandatory attendance? Mandatory standby (wait outside the zone till you are called up)? Loot system?



The 10 man alternative provides more opportunity for people, such as myself, to demonstrate their ability to succeed in the game.

Where the niche exists:
- Less players with overlapping playtimes.
- Smaller leadership corp. / time put in.
- Less desire to recruit



Notice i didnt mention time played. Reason is to me, this has no bearing on a player's ability to succeed. Less play tiem just means one would have to play smarter/efficient...to a point. Eventually what catches up with people is what time they play. Someone that plays 8 hours but from say 2 am to 10am server will have a harder time accomplishing stuff after a point than say someone who plays from 6pm to 10 pm server.

There is a caviat to my opinons in that i havent raided much or seen endgame content much. I have a lot of friends that i heard stories about "hardcore" raiding from (7 days a week....oncall 24 hours a day). I'm 4 hours behind server time. I lead a smallish guild with a small active officer corp. (2-3 active officers). Our guild for a time partnered with another guild for a second kara team and eventually a handful of 25 mans, but that eventually folded. We now currrently run 2 10 mans. Team 1 is saturdays only (for a while was sat sun). Team 2 is sunday monday. The schedules for players on both teams dont completely overlap. Team 1 progressed to as far as 4/6 ZA. Team 2 progressed to downing prince / nightbane (theyre a more recent addition...team 1 existed for probably 6 months longer than team 2).

minrog
07-23-2008, 04:17 AM
Both methods do work. Method 1 is what i call raiding harder...method 2 is what i call raiding smarter. You can have a guild that only raids 2 days a week downing Illidan where another guild that raids 5 is barely able to clear ssc/tk. Of course there's the raiding hard AND smart...which is where the top world wide guilds are =p.


I don't know that I can endorse this idea. Illidan is a year old boss at this point; I'm trying to think of guilds with a 2 day a week raiding schedule that are killing Kil'jaeden atm since that would be more relevant. Given enough time any casual guild can get through the content but without face time in the dungeons you are going to just barely squeek by before a new XPAC if you make it at all.

Can anyone think of a 2 day a week raiding guild that cleared Naxx before TBC came out?

Another interesting point is that a 5 day a week raiding guild that is successful (doing current tier content before it is obsoleted) is going to remove the noobs. You can't have "Mr. I fail out of my arena matches 10 times a week, but have Vengeful Glad gear" screwing your raids and it's a lot harder to hide massive incompetence on a 5 day schedule.

kawika
07-23-2008, 08:15 PM
I guess the timeline would be relevant when talking about competitiveness. I don't think they had it cleared, but i think there was one guild on my server that had made a decent amout of headway in naxx pre-bc. Fairly sure they were at 2 or 3 nights a week raid schedule. That was some time ago so memory is a bit fuzzy...hehe. I'm not aware of any guild downing Kiljaeden that's raiding less than 3 days a week...but then again i don't really pay attention to that stuff.



You do present a good point. i guess part of the issue is how would one define "competitiveness"?

Is competitiveness based solely on, say, being one of the first 10 guilds world wide to down a boss?

Or is competitiveness based on being able to keep up with the latest tier of content before it's deemed "old". (And how is "old" being defined).


Based on wowjustu, there's 84 guilds marked as having downed kiljaeden. Out of 83,000 guilds. Thats 0.1% or 1 out of 1000. Is that a fair mark for competiveness or too strict? There's 2400 guilds marked as having downed at least Kalecgos. That's ~3%. Is that more fair or too lax? ~4000 guilds marked as having downed illidan. That's ~5%.




There's a lot of facets to figure out to the whole "competitive" 10 man guild issue.

A strictly 10 man guild in the expac may loose ground because of the accessibility of gear. Those doing 25 mans will have an edge because they have access to more gear than the 10 man guild does. A 10 man guild may not get world firsts, but i think it should still be considered reasonable that they'd be able to keep up with content as it comes out.

Krashtork
07-24-2008, 12:54 PM
10 mans have a couple things going for them as far as competition goes.

1) Easier to manage raid times
2) Easier to manage raid composition
3) Easier to co-ordinate fights
4) Loot goes to fewer people so instead of say twelve drops going to twenty five people, you get twelve drops going to 10 people.
5) Close knit so you learn to work together
6) Fewer people to cause drama in and out of raids.
7) Smaller recruitment needs.

So if there was a very serious 10 man guild, I think it would be competetive for world firsts. Say if Nihilium and Death and Taxes had a passionate love afair and spawned a 10 man guild love child.

mero12513
07-25-2008, 08:07 AM
So if there was a very serious 10 man guild, I think it would be competetive for world firsts. Say if Nihilium and Death and Taxes had a passionate love afair and spawned a 10 man guild love child.

The passionate love-child of Nihilum and Death and Taxes will have downed Arthas by the end of the beta. You are temporarily my hero today.

Nyd
07-25-2008, 10:49 AM
I agree with Krashtork's general sentiment that I am not a big fan of this 10/25 man mirror instancing.

I believe that the zones are going to loose something in the translation. Kara, ZA, those zones were designed to be 10 man instances. The physical layout of the dungeons, mob positioning, enviornmental variables. How they are going to tune a single physical environment to support both raid sizes is a daunting task I imagine - and why they would choose this route, rather than simply creating a set of separate mid tier 10 man zones to compliment each level of 25 man tiers is beyond me. I really don't think it's saving them any time to release.

I would have much preferred Tier 6.5 (10) man, Tier 7 (25) man, Maybe 2 different Tier 7.5 (10) mans to compliment the two Tier 8 (25) mans but specifically different zones. And so on.

Tattman2an you are wrong. Elitist or not - being in a 25 man and being successful not only has everything to do with personal ability it has a lot to do with Guild/Raid management leadership and ability.

I look at it like this. Yes, it is a game, but so is bowling.. or golf.. or softball. But when you sign up to play on a team like that you are making the commitment that you will be there for the 2 games a week and the practice on Sunday. Video games like this, specifically content raiding focused MMO's, are team efforts and *should* require those same level of commitments to your team.

That's the speech we give when we recruit people and wouldn't you know, we have a small raiding roster of 35-40 people ALL with very high attendance rates. Of the three days a week we raid (12-15 days a month we raid) on average people miss only one day a month. That is the level of commitment people should have to see and do the very highest levels of content in the game in my opinion.. elitist as it may be I guess.

I'm not saying casual players shouldn't have access to content, they absolutely should, but I think there should be a line in the sand where the game says "casual ends here" - something akin I guess to a 2200 team and personal rating for pve.

I think Blizzard sees this, and I think that is where the 10/25's of each zone is going. For their sake and the sake of not alienating the playerbase that sits opposite of the Tattman2an's out there I hope they make the rewards for killing 25 man Arthas well worth the effort of coordinating at the 25 man level.

kawika
07-25-2008, 02:20 PM
I agree with Krashtork's general sentiment that I am not a big fan of this 10/25 man mirror instancing.

I believe that the zones are going to loose something in the translation. Kara, ZA, those zones were designed to be 10 man instances. The physical layout of the dungeons, mob positioning, enviornmental variables. How they are going to tune a single physical environment to support both raid sizes is a daunting task I imagine - and why they would choose this route, rather than simply creating a set of separate mid tier 10 man zones to compliment each level of 25 man tiers is beyond me. I really don't think it's saving them any time to release.

Tattman2an you are wrong. Elitist or not - being in a 25 man and being successful not only has everything to do with personal ability it has a lot to do with Guild/Raid management leadership and ability.

I look at it like this. Yes, it is a game, but so is bowling.. or golf.. or softball. But when you sign up to play on a team like that you are making the commitment that you will be there for the 2 games a week and the practice on Sunday. Video games like this, specifically content raiding focused MMO's, are team efforts and *should* require those same level of commitments to your team.

That's the speech we give when we recruit people and wouldn't you know, we have a small raiding roster of 35-40 people ALL with very high attendance rates. Of the three days a week we raid (12-15 days a month we raid) on average people miss only one day a month. That is the level of commitment people should have to see and do the very highest levels of content in the game in my opinion.. elitist as it may be I guess.

I'm not saying casual players shouldn't have access to content, they absolutely should, but I think there should be a line in the sand where the game says "casual ends here" - something akin I guess to a 2200 team and personal rating for pve.

I think Blizzard sees this, and I think that is where the 10/25's of each zone is going. For their sake and the sake of not alienating the playerbase that sits opposite of the Tattman2an's out there I hope they make the rewards for killing 25 man Arthas well worth the effort of coordinating at the 25 man level.


I think we're on the same page here.

I do hope the 25 man version of the 10 man zone will offer a challenge for the larger guilds. I understand why they're doing it. The development / programming aspect of it would probably take too long. I dont think a 10 man content has ever been released with 25 man content in the same patch (outside of the inital release of BC). People already have an issue with the lul between content as is. My guess is that the idea partially came from 5 man heroic modes and how some bosses in those zones became harder on heroic (albeit only a handful...off hand, murmur is the only real one i thought of as having a significant change).


Raiding in general (whether its 10 man or 25 man) has a lot to do with guild and raid leadership and ability. You could have 10 of the "best" players together...but if they cant act and work like a team...it's for naught. Personal ability is definitely key. Someone can start off rough but with good leadership, that person can be turned into a quality member of a raid.

Whether it's 25 or 10 man...whether it's 7 days a week or 2....if you want to be successful you need to put the effort in if you want to progress. It isnt fair to waste the time of 9 other people if you cant put in equal effort in prep, etc. It's less an elitist attitude and more a being considerate of others kind of time IMO.

I believe the line already exists to a degree between being casual and end-game focused. As you mention, the Arena rating is one such thing. The difficulty in content is what will limit the casuals. They may get thru the first or second 10 man zones...but they wont get farther than that. Akin to a guild doing say ssc/tk versus a guild doing sunwell.

I'm hoping 10 mans arent designed for the "casual". To me, there's a difference between "casual" and "hardcore" who is only able to raid 2 or 3 nights a week. I fall into the second category....and i am not in the first. I probably average 5-6 hours of wow a night. Raid 1 maybe 2 nights currently (reworking my primary 10 man team atm...assist in running our second team at least on another night). Off time i spend either farming for raid supplies or stockpiling for things; doing the "supply bag" dailies for chance of badges; pvp; figuring out ways to improve my other characters (warrior pretty much hit the wall as far as what i can do with him outside of raids). Always socket / enchant gear as i get them. And a lot of times, i farm not for myself but for others...gear / enchant upgrades and what not.

phaze
07-27-2008, 06:40 AM
why they would choose this route, rather than simply creating a set of separate mid tier 10 man zones to compliment each level of 25 man tiers is beyond me. I really don't think it's saving them any time to release.

NPC placement is a quick process. Designing the NPC models and the instance layout is not. If you've never tried your hand at 3D map design, I suggest giving it a shot; you'll quickly see how much extra work needs to go into it. You need good artists who can work well with the software tools available, and they need the time to build an instance that is up to the standards for WoW.

By combining the modelling overhead for each pair of raid instances, you drastically reduce the workload on new content. Both 10-man and 25-man raiding will have more instances available in LK than were available in BC, thanks to this.

Just ask yourself which is better:
* 4 instances for 25-man and 2 instances for 10-man, with unique maps

* 6 instances for each raid size, that happen to have mirrored maps



Yes, it is a game, but so is bowling.. when you sign up to play on a team like that you are making the commitment that you will be there for the 2 games a week and the practice on Sunday. Video games like this, specifically content raiding focused MMO's, are team efforts and *should* require those same level of commitments to your team.

I think there should be a line in the sand where the game says "casual ends here"

To re-use your analogy: if someone shows up to bowl without being part of the local league, they only get to bowl 8 frames? If a golf course limited the back 9 to only those who are Par or better, I doubt they'd stay in business. ;)

Blizzard is intentionally designing LK raiding to allow full content progression for both 10-player and 25-player raid sizes. Your 'line in the sand' still exists via the gear gap, rather than content limitations.

Nyd
07-28-2008, 06:49 AM
NPC placement is a quick process. Designing the NPC models and the instance layout is not. If you've never tried your hand at 3D map design, I suggest giving it a shot;

Personally and proffesionally I'd be more interested in seeing the back end server and routing setups and configurations. ;)

I guess I'm not really opposed to the idea of 10/25 versions of each raid zone, I just hope that the content is tuned appropriately and the risk vs. reward is there (and appropriate).


To re-use your analogy: if someone shows up to bowl without being part of the local league, they only get to bowl 8 frames? If a golf course limited the back 9 to only those who are Par or better, I doubt they'd stay in business. ;)

Blizzard is intentionally designing LK raiding to allow full content progression for both 10-player and 25-player raid sizes. Your 'line in the sand' still exists via the gear gap, rather than content limitations.

If they show up to bowl on League night, when the league is running, chances are they'll get put on that far end lane where no one is bowling as opposed to sharing lanes with the guys on the league.

Again my argument is not that casual players should not have access to content (they should) but the game should definitely at some point say "Hey if you really want to get competitive - join the league".

It all ties together of course. As long as the rewards for 25 man raiding are always significantly better than the 10 man rewards then you are right the line in the sand exists in the gear gap. The problem is that I don't honestly believe that will be the case. Who was that guild that killed Illidan in full Tier 3 again? Gear, especially in this game, and with the way Blizzard does things (Why hello thar Tier 5.5 badge loot), doesn't exist to provide a gear gap and certainly doesn't exist to create that virtual line in the sand.

Maybe wotlk will prove me wrong, dunno. :)

phaze
07-28-2008, 07:58 AM
If they show up to bowl on League night, when the league is running, chances are they'll get put on that far end lane where no one is bowling as opposed to sharing lanes with the guys on the league.

Thankfully, the EQ model of lane restrictions was abandoned for WoW. ;) Instanced raiding allows everyone a shot at the encounters, without locking out other groups.



the game should definitely at some point say "Hey if you really want to get competitive - join the league".

What does this have to with raid size?

orcstar
07-28-2008, 12:35 PM
...Again my argument is not that casual players should not have access to content (they should) but the game should definitely at some point say "Hey if you really want to get competitive - join the league"....
I think a better analogy would be with a marathon.
Some professional athletes finish it in 2 hours 5 minutes, non professional athletes will also do a respectable time and some people don't run, they walk and take 4 times as long to complete it.

In the end a lot of people are able to complete it. The fact that the couchpotatoe can walk 42 km doesn't make the achievement of the professional athlete any less.

Tatt
07-28-2008, 12:40 PM
Saw a good example of how 10 man's can be much more difficult than 25's...joined a new guild, their arms warrior is doing 400-450 dps at the moment, trying to gear up.....and he has killed Rage Winterchill. In a 10 man, that couldn't fly, ina 25 man, other people can make up for it.

Krashtork
07-28-2008, 01:04 PM
If they had an arms warrior doing 400-450 dps they simply suck at recruiting. Hell, I could prolly rock 450 dps as prot.

Yes, they can "make up for it" and yes in a 10 man that wouldn't fly and he shouldn't get a spot, but he shouldn't get a 25 man spot either. He should get traffic coned imo.

Nyd
07-28-2008, 01:22 PM
Thankfully, the EQ model of lane restrictions was abandoned for WoW. ;) Instanced raiding allows everyone a shot at the encounters, without locking out other groups.

Woah woah, I don't think I ever argued to go back to a "let's see who can cockblock who from content" style of raid game. I lived in that world and the answer is those pesky asians almost always got the mob resets first. =p


What does this have to with raid size?

It has to do with my personal feelings that if you want to see ALL of the content you should have to play in the 25 man arena. Like I said, I very well could be the minority in this line of thought but I am a bit of a traditionalist. I mean, I did race people in EQ to bosses and came from a background where guild coordination and mobilization actually meant something. Again, not that I want to go back to THAT extreme, I do think the deep end game should require a well structured 25 man guild.

I think you guys think I'm arguing against 10 man raids when I am not. I enjoy 10 man content on a different level from the 25 man stuff wee do. To me as a 25 man raider the 10 man content is a nice aside to the stuff we're doing in 25's. Something for the offnights yano. That siad however I don't think you should be able to walk into 10 man Arthas and get the same level of content that you do in the 25 man.

Wide open 25 man content at some point is a bad thing. I *personally* don't feel that just anyone should be able to walk into 25 man Arthas and beat him up and take his milk and cookies without putting in the level of effort to do so. If they want to keep 10 man content entirely open then so be it - but you shouldn't get the nifty cinematic "woohoo you killed arthas" that you get in the 25 man version.

I look at keying for zones as a part of test if you will for 25 man guilds. Do they have the mettle to do it and are they organized and efficient enough to do it? Do I think 25 man Naxx should be restricted no, do I think that line should exist *somewhere* in the 25 man progression - yes absolutely.

As a guild leader who takes great pride in his guilds accomplishments I feel as though the removal of any barrier to entry of high end 25 man content (minus the laughable gear arguments) diminishes to some extent what well structured and managed guilds and raids in the 25 man bracket do.

Ultimately I guess the argument is extremly pre-mature. None of us really has a full understanding of how the whole 10man/25man setup is going to play out, the iLevels or even if for once having a geared up force will make a difference - at which point the gear as a barrier to entry argument might really have some weight to it.

Again, I'm probably the vocal minority in this debate anyway.

Krashtork
07-28-2008, 02:39 PM
I agree with all you just said Nyd.

You're not alone:)