PDA

View Full Version : The Weekly Marmot -- Cataclysm Raid French Fries



Ciderhelm
05-03-2010, 03:21 AM
TzV1wazNOg4

http://www.tankspot.com/snowfall/donorbanner.jpg (http://www.tankspot.com/premium.php)

Fetzie
05-03-2010, 04:29 AM
nice analogy with burger king. Personally having led 25 mans (and 40 mans) getting pretty burned out in the process, I am glad that 10 man is becoming a "viable" option to raid, and will not miss the stress of having to cancel a raid at the last minute with 23 in the raid because 2 healers didn't turn up.


oh, and I like the shirt.

Ajire
05-03-2010, 05:02 AM
I'm a raidleader in a small Danish-only guild. Some would call us causal as we only raid twice a week (but we make liberal use of the extend raid-lock option for our progression runs)
I love what's in store here: Being a danish-only guild on a low-pop server does pose quite a challenge in getting 10 danish players together that are able and willing to raid - and getting 25 players is downright impossible.

I welcome the change that we now will be able to raid 10 man without feeling - as Lore put it - "second-best" or feeling penalized on the loot side.

And if we need to gear people fast, we can just use our 10-12 raiders to seed a 25 pug. All in all, this is what I call win-win :)

Baldun-Shu'Halo
05-03-2010, 05:09 AM
I have trouble seeing how Blizz is going to balance the 10's and 25's being " Very similar to one another in difficulty". The way I see it is that 25's simply add health and adds, ice tombs, etc and occasionally a new ability that is more of a nuisance simply because you have more people in raid.

So the way I see it either 10's become harder and people get put off by the lack of progress, or they dumb down 25's and it becomes a loot pinata.

I am not discounting the fact that some, maybe many, people will say to hell with 25's because "I hate that frikin hunter who wipes the raid every night and this way I will never have to deal with him again."

Orsus
05-03-2010, 05:21 AM
Something else to consider that is an extension of the extra loot dropping in 25s is that even if exactly the same amount of loot dropped per player in 10s and 25s there would still be an advantage to being in 25s due to the reduced variance in the drops. I should probably explain that with an example.

10 man raid downs a boss and 2 items drop. There is no rogue playing in this raid so that fast offhand dagger is useful to no one at all. 50% of the loot gets sharded.

25 man raid downs a boss and 5 items drop. There is no rogue playing in this raid (already less likely due to increased numbers but still possible). 20% of loot is sharded.

25 man raid downs a boss and 5 items drop. There is a rogue playing so no loot is lost.

Now admittedly you can end up with more competition for an item but compared to how often it will drop this is actually more likely to balance out in 25s than in 10s. In essence, upping the numbers on both sides of the equation makes it less likely that you'll end up losing out to unlucky streaks of drops.

So in that sense, the loot is already favouring 25s. Upping the drops from 5 to 6 (or however high they go) would only further re-inforce that. Bearing that in mind though I wouldn't be surprised to see the number that Blizzard chooses be lower than some people seem to want.

Another angle they could explore would be adding in addition quality of life items such as slightly larger bags or prestige mounts and the like to 25s as a further incentive without disrupting their progression balance at all.

sacredgoat
05-03-2010, 06:12 AM
Whao, wait a sec ... i got a huge problem with this vid. Everyone knows McDonalds French Fries are WAY better then Burger King!!! LF4M to go and get free French Fries.

As for the Cataclysm Raiding stuff, i personally think its wonderful. Another importing thing to add is that they are thinking/adding the option that you can run either or. So, if you like my guild where maybe Tuesday we have enought for the 25 man but say Wed,Thurs,Friday we only have enough for the 10 man you can actually run both on the same lockout. I think this is great because if you got the ppl then great lets go ... if you don't have the ppl great lets still go.

As for the casuals not being "up" for the higher difficulty of the new 10 mans. I personally think that is fine. When a new teir comes out, they will just grab all the teir 11 stuff with badges/points they will earn and be able to do it. Personally if it turns out this way ... i'd be ok being 1 teir behind the better skill/hardcore players.

idk .. just my thoughts

Garridon
05-03-2010, 06:17 AM
If Blizz have some brains, which I think they do, this is how I see this playing out:

10man difficulty is currently tuned to the 10man gear level, ie 10man ICC is tuned for people with 10man ToC gear. So as soon as a new tier dungeon was released, some people already outgeared it (ToC25 raiders), and therefore, it was easier than the 25man version.

New 10man difficulties will be tuned up about the same amount as the gear will go up. So for 25man raiders to do a 10man run, yes it will be more difficult, but for a 10man guild, in 10man gear the difficulty probably won't (and shouldn't) change too much, because the gear from the previous tier will be that little bit better to counter the increased difficulty.

For the 25man raids, they will still be popular because they will be dropping 6-7 items per boss or maybe even more. Why 6-7? 10man currently drops items at a rate of 2:10 25s will be at a higher loot:raider ratio, a 2:10 ratio for 25 people is 5 items, Blizzard said it will be more loot per person than 10mans, but I doubt it will be by a huge margin.

Overall I think this is a good change, will mean people don't have to farm both levels of the instances, and to be honest, 4 versions of every encounter to run each week is just stupid.

miv
05-03-2010, 06:41 AM
I'd hate to burst Lore's or anyone else's bubble, but I'm tired of seeing the common misconception about 10 man raids repeated over and over again.

While elaborating how easy 10 man encounters are, you seem to forget about the fact you simply run through an instance almost a whole tier behind (13 ilvls while 19 can be considered tier). You overgear the encounters balanced around having much lower quality of gear and then think "you're so much better at the game" than people raiding 10 mans. While it is correct to assume most people focused only on 10 mans are casual guilds raiding 1-2 times a week or spontaneously, there are plenty of serious strict 10 man guilds hurt by those neglectful, arrogant statements. Guilds that, like mine, are on par with or ahead of many 25 man guilds in 10 man hard mode progress. It annoys me that just because I prefer 10 man raids and don't give a crap about loot, I'm being looked down upon as a worse player and not taken seriously.

I'd like to know your opinion about how difficult the 10 man hard modes are (or normal LK) if I took away the 25 man weapons, trinkets, procs, legendaries and generally lowered the quality of rest of your gear by 13 ivls. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to just take 9 other people and "plow" through 10 man mode whenever you like. Try doing Herald of the Titans to properly assess the difficulty of 10 man Algalon (yes, I know a large amount of people don't have that because they cba to gather the appropriate gear, but for my point's sake it's ok).

It's funny how many 25 man raiders don't see that silliness - overgearing the content and then frowning that it's easy.

The way I see it, encounter difficulty consists of 2 things:
1. Mechanics - abilities the raid has to counter, situations to handle, etc.
2. Numbers - how much dps is needed, how hard stuff hits, etc.

If you're running a 10 man instance in 25 man gear you completely ignore part 2 as numbers are balanced around people in 10 man gear (well, sometimes encounters in 10 man mode are overtuned and balanced around 25 man gear but that's another story). Mechanics are usually very similar (at least in hard modes, like mind control of Lady Deathwhisper) and depending on design and number of people, can be more difficult to handle in either mode.

The point I'm trying to make is that with proper balance between the two modes and without the gear advantage allowing one of the groups to trivialize 50% of the content, it should be ok. The general "10 man raid difficulty" (at least in hard modes) doesn't have to be brought up, the removal of 25 man gear advantage will probably be enough to make the experience similar in both modes and bring 25 man raiders down to earth in their perception of how oh-so-skillful they are. WotLK showed that 10 man raiding CAN be difficult - encounters like the LK, some Ulduar hard modes, Sarth 3D (which was much harder in 10 man mode), etc. were pretty hard even in 25 man gear.

25 man raiding won't die - most likely apart from being able to gear up faster and minimizing loot RNG, there will still be additional awards like titles or mounts in 25 man modes.

The Cataclysm changes sound very good and hopefully they will finally allow for fair competition between 25 man and 10 man guilds. Also, as soon as people abandon their "WotLK mindset", they will no longer feel forced to raid in ways they didn't find fun and become truly free in their choice to enjoy what they like best - either 10 or 25 mans.


-------
Please don't take anything I said offensively (although it may sound harsh). It's all coming from a person that raided 40 mans in vanilla, 25 mans in TBC and switched to 10 mans in WotLK thinking it would be a viable alternative to 25 mans. That wasn't the case and as naive as I am, I have high hopes for Cataclysm in that regard, that's all!

TobiasX
05-03-2010, 06:42 AM
While your analogy makes a lot of sense I think the root of the problem lies in one of the very likely reasons for the changes to raiding to occur at all, and that is:
"10-man raiders feel like they've being treated like second class players compared to 25-man raiders"
If (and only If) this is the primary reason behind these changes then I'm not sure Blizzard can actually fix the problem. Either:
1. 25-man raids have some extra benefit (whether that's better loot, more loot, or "A Pony") and 10-man raiders still feel like they're being treated like second class players.
Or
2. 25-man do not have some extra benefit (whatever it could've been) in which case everyone will do 10-mans because they're exactly the same as 25-mans with less hassle (mainly in organization).

To use your analogy this would be:
1. The 5 guys can go in together and all get large fries at the price of a medium fries, but then the 1 guy by himself complains that this is unfair on him just because he's "1 guy" and "his friends are out of town at the moment".
2. Medium fries now have as many in them as Large fries. Nobody buys Large fries anymore.

As much as Blizzard's heart may be in the right place I'm not sure the "sweet spot" actually exists.

Bakayaru
05-03-2010, 07:06 AM
I think these changes will work out for the better as long three things happen to keep people happy. Number one, they give us more raids to do. Having just ICC 10 and 25 at this point is a main contributor to people getting burned out on the game. Having more sanctums, new Ony's and EoE would make it so people dont mind locking themselves to a 10 rather then a 25 and would provide a much needed change of pace.
Second if they are going to do this single lock out and not give us a wider variety of raids then are they going to reduce the cost of emblem gear, keep it the same or get rid of it completely? Lastly I feel that there should be some reward that you get for bringing 25 people together to clear a raid other then more loot. Keeping it so that you can only get the highest Tier gear would be one such reward, or extra titles, mounts, emblems even something to keep the 25 raiders wanting to do 25's. As lore said its going to be interesting to see but im not so sure that "ill get gear faster" will be enough to keep people wanting to do 25's because lets face it its much easier to coordinate 10 people then 25, just as 25 is easier than 40 was so if we get the same gear just not as fast and the same number of emblems then why try to coordinate 25 people when you can take 10?

Ajire
05-03-2010, 07:27 AM
To use your analogy this would be:
1. The 5 guys can go in together and all get large fries at the price of a medium fries, but then the 1 guy by himself complains that this is unfair on him just because he's "1 guy" and "his friends are out of town at the moment".
2. Medium fries now have as many in them as Large fries. Nobody buys Large fries anymore.

Not quite.

The way it is now with 10 mans vs 25 mans in terms of loot is more like: "Special offer for French Fries: Gather 5 friends and instead of a medium portion of cold, squishy fries, get a small portion of hot extra crispy fries with an extra delicious french fries sauce" (To boot: Better fries). And here is the real cause for complaint: when you are more people, you get fries of better quality, even if there are fewer of them. Hell, when you have the people gathered you can always just buy another portion.

So that's what it's coming down to: the difference in quality is being removed so all get hot and crispy fries with delicious sauce and the quantity is being shifted so those that do gather the extra people get a little bit more. Such "Quantity discount" special offers are being done already in the real world and noone is complaining about it, so I hardly see why that should be the case in WOW - or then again, maybe I do, but that's another story ;)

Kenneh
05-03-2010, 08:00 AM
The sweet spot won't exist because fine tuning 10mans is virtually impossible without class homogenisation. Everybody has raided 10mans and everybody knows the difference that class balance and optimisation plays. Assuming a 5dps setup the difference between a raid stacked with casters and spell dps buffs and a raid with a 2-3 split is really quite large. By optimising the classes and buffs you squeeze into the 10man you can have people running at almost their full potential, whereas a physical / caster split is certain to be missing some key buffs and a lot of potential. If you balance the dps requirements for a mixed setup then a hand-picked setup will find it much easier and if it's balanced for an ideal raid setup then a mixed setup will have a struggle. The only way they can alleviate this is by giving more classes more raid buffs and making the classes even more similar. I would expect them to balance it for the casuals to pickup 10 random people and have a chance so any buff optimising raid will 'probably' still find 10s an easier environment.

25mans on the other hand usually have all the buffs covered, or pretty much all of them, so tuning requirements and dps races is a much easier job. For this reason they can make the 25s harder overall as they aren't going to balance it for sub-optimal setups. 25 mans are also notoriously harder to organise and will nearly always be harder than 10s due to spacing issues. I think 25mans will still maintain a level of prestige over the 10s because I think the 25s (especially HMs) should still be more challenging. I'm wondering what they are going to do with legendaries come Cataclysm now though as the idea of legendaries for 10mans does seem a little un-legendary.

Abernatheeee
05-03-2010, 08:07 AM
Your shirts are fabulous. Don't listen to the block heads. :D

Manninen
05-03-2010, 08:58 AM
Hi there, Will 25m raids be still, like now those who show which is the best raiding guild. Or 10m raids will show that also.
Ok it's a bit fuzzy so to make it clear

-Will 10m raiding guild with really tight roaster born in Cataclysm and take more importance in the PvE than now with all these changes?

Ps ; Sorry for my bad english (french) :p

Jaedan
05-03-2010, 09:22 AM
Blizz is also going to have to be careful in their attempt to keep people in 25-man raids they don't make it so easy to get gear everyone gears up and is bored even further out from new raids opening up. Regardless of how difficult the encounters are if it only takes a month for nearly every person in your 25-man to have their full set of gear folks will lose interest really quickly.

Scyla
05-03-2010, 09:50 AM
Did Blizzard really said that the difficulty of the 10 Man Raid will go up?

Because all I'm aware off is that they said that they try to bring the difficulty of the two raiding formats closer together. Which means for me that the difficulty of the 25 player raids will be closer to the 10 player and not the other way round.

In my opinion the diversity between the two raiding formats is the amount of people you have to manage, the smaller space per player and that allmost every buff, debuff and every class/specc is available in the raid in the 25 player version resulting in a much tighter and intensive bossbattle and by no means this can be accomlished in the 10 player version.

For the general difficulty level of 10 player raids I have to say that is really quite a bit less difficult.
I have a allmost 10 man raid only char with a allmost 10 man raidgroup (I did ICC 25 2 times and got one item out of it and in this raidgroup we have perhapes 2-3 player who do 25 man raids).
There are few Bosses in the 10 player version that are more difficult that their 25 player counterparts (namely Sartharion with 3 drakes and Dreamwalker) but most of the Bosses are not.

Whould you like a few examples.

Saurfang heroic: in the 10 man version you have 2 to 3 marks do deal with for 2-3 healer in the 25 man version we've got 7 for 6 healer
Lichking: in the 10 man version you have a lot more space for the defile hence more room for failing. And you got only one Valkyrie which can go in only one possible direction in the 25 man version you got 3 of them an every one of them can go in a different direction but shouldn't.
Deathwisper: 3 player who got mindcontrolled can do a ton more trouble when they are allowed to act freely instead of one.

And so on and so on.

Hm well my major question is kind of overshadowed by my explanations so......

....did Blizzard really said that the difficulty of the 10 Man Raid will go up?

Because.... :cool:

Amaranthine
05-03-2010, 09:52 AM
I love how cider says "I got ppl coming up to me and saying..." I get this hilarious image of him walking out of the grocery and getting mobbed by tankspotters going "Cider! Cider! what do you think of the new warrior changes?!" "Cider! Cider! What french fries do you prefer when raiding?!" etc etc.

Anyways another great episode, thanks for you thoughts! i personally didn't even notice the "more loot per player" and just saw "more loot" so thanks for pointing that out

Martie
05-03-2010, 09:53 AM
Happy half-year anniversary, Lore.

Ollin
05-03-2010, 10:15 AM
I have to bring up a point about your last bit in the weekly about tuning difficulties.

Naxx 10, as easy as it was across the board if you recall, was harder on 10-man in straight heroic gear than 25-man was with similar gearing. The tuning can be done. They just have to take the specific nature of 10's into account, and how they differ from 25's, when they do.

Personally, I think it's going to be interesting to watch the reactions of people who are used to overgearing 10's from an entire expansion with a 13 ilvl advantage on average in the first tier of cataclysm if Blizzard can get the tuning right.

Scyla
05-03-2010, 10:29 AM
I have to bring up a point about your last bit in the weekly about tuning difficulties.

Naxx 10, as easy as it was across the board if you recall, was harder on 10-man in straight heroic gear than 25-man was with similar gearing. The tuning can be done. They just have to take the specific nature of 10's into account, and how they differ from 25's, when they do.

Personally, I think it's going to be interesting to watch the reactions of people who are used to overgearing 10's from an entire expansion with a 13 ilvl advantage on average in the first tier of cataclysm if Blizzard can get the tuning right.

Well in my opinion Naxx10 was, with the exclusion of Sapphiron, less difficult then Naxx25 even with a group which had only itemlevel 200 gear (again, done that with a twink on a random run).
Especially Thaddius and Kel'thuzad.

Spiritus
05-03-2010, 10:45 AM
To answer Scyla above, no Blizzard has only stated that they wished to bring the difficulty level of 10s & 25s in-line with each-other. While most people are seeing this as 10s becoming more difficult (because it would validate the larger 10m raiding population), it is possible that 25mans could be tuned down. This is purely a wait and see deal.

Is Blizzard trying to kill 25man raiding? No, that would be extreme. However, it isn't like they haven't removed incentive from popular things in the past (see 2v2 Arenas) or outright removed raiding formats (40mans). Regardless, I believe you sugar coated your presentation by not bringing up the most problematic issues this change will bring:

(1) Reduction of both quantity and quality of PuGing. With only one lockout, you will not have 10man raiders PuGing into 25man raids or 25man raiders PuGing into 10man raids. Without this, the only people who will be availible to PuG in any given week are the unguilded & those who missed their guild's raid. This will be a very small percent of a server population every week. Furthermore, it will exacerbate the "Reserve" role problem even more because it will be infinitely harder to PuG in a few people when Joe Shaman & John Priest are on vacation [which affects both 10s & 25s].

(2) The "Reserve" role problem. As of now, most guilds have a few folks that are reserve players that either get rotated into the raid or are "casual" members that can fill a vacancy when it happens. These guild members are extremely important persons that allow for a much smoother raiding experience. In Cata, these people will be hit the hardest. Lets say my guild runs 3 nights a week. Days 1 & 2 I have perfect attendance from my "core" group, but on day 3 someone must be absent. One of my reservists who normally would've been rotated in next week can fill the spot for day3 [which only had 2 bosses left in the lockout]. In WotLK, my reservist has no problem coming in for 2 bosses because it only locks him to one raid size. At anytime during the week he can go run w/e size we do not and still get a full raid experience that week, if he chooses. In the new system, he will have seen 2 bosses that week for that raid. Period. No mas. This is not an attractive place to be and I feel many "reservists" will have to choose between friends and content, something that is never fun.

(3) The "average" 25man guild problem. There are a whole bunch of 25man guilds out there that are full of people that enjoy the 25man experience. However, that does not necessarily mean that everyone in that guild believes the same way. A recent unscientific poll of 1,000 MMO Champion respondents suggests that upwards of 50% of those who currently run 25mans now will not do so in Cataclysm. What does this mean to the top 500 guilds? Absolutely nothing. They will continue to go about business as usual. For the top "3,000" or "5,000" it could mean a significant upheaval. What do you do as a guild leader when half of your 25man team wants to continue doing 25mans, while the other half would prefer to do 10s? This is a huge dilemma. Since 10man guilds are much easier to organize, those that will now prefer to do 10s will find a guild rather easily. However, for those that would prefer to do 25s, you are now left with half a raid... something that is very difficult to recruit for even in today's "25man dominant" environment. Your only hope is to find another guild on your server that had a similar issue and hope your personalities and raid times match, something that will become more difficult the smaller your realm.

(4) Does faster loot really equate to a big enough incentive? What I believe you have describe above is why people will engage in the "recruit-a-friend" program, not 25man raiding in Cataclysm. I'll take from your french fry analogy to explain it as I believe it will play out.

(a) You have purchased a punch card for french fries at your burger joint of choice. Each time a number is punched, you get a medium order of french fries. It has a total of 30 punches before you run out, you may only buy one punch card a month, and, by yourself, you can only use one punch everyday. In essence, you can get one medium order of french fries everyday for an entire month, at which time you can order another punch card.

(b) Now, said burger joint of choice offers a special. If you bring yourself and four other friends, you can pool your collective punch cards and receive six medium orders of french fries a day. That means each day, you and your friends can enjoy 1/5 more french fries than the guy who came in solo. This sounds great until you hit day 25 and you run out of punches. You are now left waiting eagerly for 5days until next month comes around so you can purchase your next punchcard.

(c) To wrap the analogy, 10man raiding in cataclysm provides the same loot at a lower pace, which allows for content to be relevant longer, whereas 25man raiding will grant you faster loot, but leave you without relevant content in-between raid releases. Some would argue that this is not enough of an incentive for many "average" 25man guilds, though certainty an incentive for hardcore 25man progression.

Volador
05-03-2010, 10:45 AM
I love how cider says "I got ppl coming up to me and saying..." I get this hilarious image of him walking out of the grocery and getting mobbed by tankspotters going "Cider! Cider! what do you think of the new warrior changes?!" "Cider! Cider! What french fries do you prefer when raiding?!" etc etc.

Anyways another great episode, thanks for you thoughts! i personally didn't even notice the "more loot per player" and just saw "more loot" so thanks for pointing that out

Lore is not Cider ...

For the topic at hand; Thanks for the objective view Lore. The "sky is falling" posts are getting tiresome.

Volador
05-03-2010, 10:50 AM
(4) Does faster loot really equate to a big enough incentive? What I believe you have describe above is why people will engage in the "recruit-a-friend" program, not 25man raiding in Cataclysm.

If faster loot wasn't a large enough incentive, why would folks be raiding both 10s and 25s in the first place? Most people don't raid both currently for the chance to do the same thing twice, they raid both for the extra emblems and loot it provides.

Ashlan
05-03-2010, 10:52 AM
Hey Lore,

you forgot one thing in your french fries analogy: Yes, you get the X-large fries if you come with your 4 friends. BUT you have to stand in the much longer crowd to get them! Because (except perhaps in the very top guilds) you will never have 25 folks on the same level of playing as the 10 best out of them.
So the 25 men will get more loot, yes, but they will get it much slower ...
Also: If dropping the same level of gear in 10s and 25s, and IF this shall remain nearly fair, Blizz will have to tune down 25s and not tune up 10s, otherwise lots of their customers will not see more than the first boss of an instance for a long time.

Kazeyonoma
05-03-2010, 10:52 AM
Thanks for pointing out (2) here spiritus, i didn't wanna retype up all of my comments again, you did it masterfully here.

Spiritus
05-03-2010, 11:07 AM
If faster loot wasn't a large enough incentive, why would folks be raiding both 10s and 25s in the first place? Most people don't raid both currently for the chance to do the same thing twice, they raid both for the extra emblems and loot it provides.

As I said, for your hardcore progression guilds, nothing will change. I'm talking mostly about the average 25man guild. The one that may see a decent, if not large, percentage of their membership switch to 10s leaving half of their membership holding the candle. Guilds like these ran 10s because they were only progressed 4-8/12 normal in 25man ICC, so running 10s provided far more opportunities to upgrade gear than exclusively running 25s in a Cata type system. The incentive is lost when you can only down less than 50% of the bosses in your first month of raiding, while a smaller, more intimate 10man group could have, say, 75% completion within the first month (no, not that 10mans will be easier by design, just easier to get 10people to do all the right things at the same time).


Thanks for pointing out (2) here spiritus, i didn't wanna retype up all of my comments again, you did it masterfully here.

I'm kinda pooped out after the near 40 page marathon, I think I'll chill out a bit on this thread.

Volador
05-03-2010, 11:17 AM
As I said, for your hardcore progression guilds, nothing will change. I'm talking mostly about the average 25man guild. The one that may see a decent, if not large, percentage of their membership switch to 10s leaving half of their membership holding the candle. Guilds like these ran 10s because they were only progressed 4-8/12 normal in 25man ICC, so running 10s provided far more opportunities to upgrade gear than exclusively running 25s in a Cata type system. The incentive is lost when you can only down less than 50% of the bosses in your first month of raiding, while a smaller, more intimate 10man group could have, say, 75% completion within the first month (no, not that 10mans will be easier by design, just easier to get 10people to do all the right things at the same time).

Ok, but you're making the assumptions that Blizzard will NOT keep to their post of equalizing the difficulty of their raids. If you're doing average in 25s and you break down (unevenly, blech) into 10s, you should do average across those 10s as well. Or are you somehow going to leave your failures behind when moving to 10 man content? I don't think that someone who fails at 25s is going to do any better at 10s. If you have 20% of a raid that can't move out of the fire in 25s, odds say those same 20% won't be able to move out of the fire in 10s either.

Kazeyonoma
05-03-2010, 11:30 AM
(no, not that 10mans will be easier by design, just easier to get 10people to do all the right things at the same time).

That is what he's referring to.

Mwawka
05-03-2010, 11:38 AM
(1) Reduction of both quantity and quality of PuGing. With only one lockout, you will not have 10man raiders PuGing into 25man raids or 25man raiders PuGing into 10man raids. Without this, the only people who will be availible to PuG in any given week are the unguilded & those who missed their guild's raid. This will be a very small percent of a server population every week. Furthermore, it will exacerbate the "Reserve" role problem even more because it will be infinitely harder to PuG in a few people when Joe Shaman & John Priest are on vacation [which affects both 10s & 25s].

I would argue that the quantity may go down but the quality may go up. Right now players from good guilds don't pug 10 man, they run it with other guildies. If a guild has 5 reserves who want to pug 10 man at the end of the lockout because they didn't get called on for 25 man, now they have to go outside the guild and truly pug it, infusing those pugs with better quality players.

(2) The "Reserve" role problem. As of now, most guilds have a few folks that are reserve players that either get rotated into the raid or are "casual" members that can fill a vacancy when it happens. These guild members are extremely important persons that allow for a much smoother raiding experience. In Cata, these people will be hit the hardest. Lets say my guild runs 3 nights a week. Days 1 & 2 I have perfect attendance from my "core" group, but on day 3 someone must be absent. One of my reservists who normally would've been rotated in next week can fill the spot for day3 [which only had 2 bosses left in the lockout]. In WotLK, my reservist has no problem coming in for 2 bosses because it only locks him to one raid size. At anytime during the week he can go run w/e size we do not and still get a full raid experience that week, if he chooses. In the new system, he will have seen 2 bosses that week for that raid. Period. No mas. This is not an attractive place to be and I feel many "reservists" will have to choose between friends and content, something that is never fun.

After doing a lot of thinking about this argument and agreeing with it at first, I have changed my mind. As the system stand right now, 10 man strict guilds already have all those restrictions forced upon them. Their reserves can't run 25 man as an alternative or the guild loses the 'strict' designation, so they are forced to deal with the EXACT scenario you are describing. However, 10 man strict guilds do exist and make it work. Shared lockouts put all guilds be they 10 or 25 man in the same situation and all reserves in the same situation. To me that is not a bad thing. The rest of the changes can't work without a shared lockout, so this is a sacrifice all players have to make that will just hit those who play more harder.


(3) The "average" 25man guild problem. There are a whole bunch of 25man guilds out there that are full of people that enjoy the 25man experience. However, that does not necessarily mean that everyone in that guild believes the same way. A recent unscientific poll of 1,000 MMO Champion respondents suggests that upwards of 50% of those who currently run 25mans now will not do so in Cataclysm. What does this mean to the top 500 guilds? Absolutely nothing. They will continue to go about business as usual. For the top "3,000" or "5,000" it could mean a significant upheaval. What do you do as a guild leader when half of your 25man team wants to continue doing 25mans, while the other half would prefer to do 10s? This is a huge dilemma. Since 10man guilds are much easier to organize, those that will now prefer to do 10s will find a guild rather easily. However, for those that would prefer to do 25s, you are now left with half a raid... something that is very difficult to recruit for even in today's "25man dominant" environment. Your only hope is to find another guild on your server that had a similar issue and hope your personalities and raid times match, something that will become more difficult the smaller your realm.

To me this is an argument for the change not against. If 1/2 the people raiding 25 man would rather be raiding 10 man given equality of loot, then how is a change allowing them to do so a bad thing. Lore touched on this in the video.


(4) Does faster loot really equate to a big enough incentive? What I believe you have describe above is why people will engage in the "recruit-a-friend" program, not 25man raiding in Cataclysm. I'll take from your french fry analogy to explain it as I believe it will play out.

Again, if people need more incentive to run 25 man than this and the enjoyment of a larger raid group, why should Blizzard have unbalanced loot which makes people feel like they need to be doing something they would rather not be doing?

Ollin
05-03-2010, 11:38 AM
Well in my opinion Naxx10 was, with the exclusion of Sapphiron, less difficult then Naxx25 even with a group which had only itemlevel 200 gear (again, done that with a twink on a random run).
Especially Thaddius and Kel'thuzad.

I have to disagree. Did you ever try Heiggan with a healer who couldn't dance on 10? Solo healing that fight wasn't the most fun thing in the world, and god help you if the one that COULD dance didn't have a way to cure diseases.

Grand Widow Faerlina was interesting at first too. Kept running into the same retarded issues of people who would immediately run to slaughter the adds, and coordinating the kills so that the adds popped at just the right time wasn't always easy. Remember...at the time she could 3 hit a tank when she frenzied, and pre-nax tanks were lucky to have 24k health starting out.

Maexxna was also a lot of fun on 10 compared to 25. One bad dpser and you were looking at 2 wraps after the 30%. 25's didn't usually have that problem IIRC.

The Four Horsemen was fun when you didn't have naxx gear. One screwup in the back and you wiped. And it's not like you could err on the side of caution until you had the hang of it either because all three healers were spoken for. God help you if you were used to 2 healing everything and forgot the 3rd healer entirely. Pray that you had a druid for the front (I healed the front in a 2-heal "blow up thane" setup as a disc priest more than once. It was an "interesting" tactic without 213 gear).

Volador
05-03-2010, 11:39 AM
That is what he's referring to.

If Blizzard succeeds in making the encounters equal for 10s/25s (I'm not sure they can), then it's player failure for standing in fires. If a 25 man raid has five people that stand in fires, then breaking them down will put two in each 10 man. If that causes a failure in the 25s, it will cause the same failure in 10s.

I can break any 25 man down into an elite 10 and a failure 10, but if you break them down evenly they shouldn't succeed any more than the 25.

Spiritus
05-03-2010, 11:41 AM
Ok, but you're making the assumptions that Blizzard will NOT keep to their post of equalizing the difficulty of their raids. If you're doing average in 25s and you break down (unevenly, blech) into 10s, you should do average across those 10s as well. Or are you somehow going to leave your failures behind when moving to 10 man content? I don't think that someone who fails at 25s is going to do any better at 10s. If you have 20% of a raid that can't move out of the fire in 25s, odds say those same 20% won't be able to move out of the fire in 10s either.

Looking at parses from many, many different types of guilds, what I usually find as the problem for some guilds isn't necessarily "standing in the fire" but having the ability to focus more directly at the task you are given when there is a lot going on around you. It will just be a cold hard fact that there will always be less happening on your screen in a 10man than a 25man. Does that make the actual task itself any harder mathematically? No, but if you are not able to filter out what 24 other people are doing as easy as you can 9, it becomes a more difficult task. On the parse, this will usually be shown by raider X actually having less DPS in 25s than in 10s, something which really shouldn't happen normally [For healers you can look at activity & for tanks you really have to dig deep to see the metrics].

So, in essence, I think Blizzard will have an extremely difficult time equalizing the difficulty of 10s & 25s for more than just the above factor. CAN they pull it off? Possibly. They do have the best designers in the business. Its just that every time I try to think of a way to balance the two equally, one comes out ahead as noticeably more difficult. The only way I can see it working is if they lower the difficulty of 25s and stick to very, very simple encounter mechanics, which would not exactly be exciting news (nor do I think that is what they will do).

Bung
05-03-2010, 11:47 AM
I really don't see why most hard core raiders would even consider 25 mans unless they came with titles or a few rare items than 10 man. A 10 man group that is successful will net more gear over time than a 25 man group that struggles week to week. I would take a medium fry every week for 6 months instead of a large fry every three weeks.

Volador
05-03-2010, 11:48 AM
Looking at parses from many, many different types of guilds, what I usually find as the problem for some guilds isn't necessarily "standing in the fire" but having the ability to focus more directly at the task you are given when there is a lot going on around you. It will just be a cold hard fact that there will always be less happening on your screen in a 10man than a 25man. Does that make the actual task itself any harder mathematically? No, but if you are not able to filter out what 24 other people are doing as easy as you can 9, it becomes a more difficult task. On the parse, this will usually be shown by raider X actually having less DPS in 25s than in 10s, something which really shouldn't happen normally [For healers you can look at activity & for tanks you really have to dig deep to see the metrics].

So, in essence, I think Blizzard will have an extremely difficult time equalizing the difficulty of 10s & 25s for more than just the above factor. CAN they pull it off? Possibly. They do have the best designers in the business. Its just that every time I try to think of a way to balance the two equally, one comes out ahead as noticeably more difficult. The only way I can see it working is if they lower the difficulty of 25s and stick to very, very simple encounter mechanics, which would not exactly be exciting news (nor do I think that is what they will do).

I think we can agree that Blizzard can not pull it off, or will have a very difficult time doing it. My point is, if you take them at their word the encounter mechanics should be identical in difficulty. IF they succeed, then a 25 man raid breaking down into 10 man raids should exceed in one any more than the other.

I will be doing 10s not because of the changes it will make to encounter mechanics, but rather because I only have to deal with 9 other people's possible mistakes vs 24.

Spiritus
05-03-2010, 12:06 PM
Again, Mwawka, the points you bring up are only from a 10man perspective arguing against a 25man perspective.


I would argue that the quantity may go down but the quality may go up. Right now players from good guilds don't pug 10 man, they run it with other guildies. If a guild has 5 reserves who want to pug 10 man at the end of the lockout because they didn't get called on for 25 man, now they have to go outside the guild and truly pug it, infusing those pugs with better quality players.

There are many well progressed 25man guilds that do not run 10s as a guild. You completely ignored all the 10man raiders who PuG 25s.



After doing a lot of thinking about this argument and agreeing with it at first, I have changed my mind. As the system stand right now, 10 man strict guilds already have all those restrictions forced upon them. Their reserves can't run 25 man as an alternative or the guild loses the 'strict' designation, so they are forced to deal with the EXACT scenario you are describing. However, 10 man strict guilds do exist and make it work. Shared lockouts put all guilds be they 10 or 25 man in the same situation and all reserves in the same situation. To me that is not a bad thing. The rest of the changes can't work without a shared lockout, so this is a sacrifice all players have to make that will just hit those who play more harder.
I never mentioned anywhere that this is just a problem for 25man guilds. Its a problem for everyone. Again, look at the entire picture instead of just your own perspective. I see that the equal sharing of misery is OK with you. 25s vs. 10s =/= bourgeoisie vs. proletariat.




To me this is an argument for the change not against. If 1/2 the people raiding 25 man would rather be raiding 10 man given equality of loot, then how is a change allowing them to do so a bad thing. Lore touched on this in the video.
This is a great argument for the individual who chooses to raid 10mans. It is a horrible argument for an organization that he or she left that wishes to run 25s. On many servers, there are only a few guilds that have the organizational structure and leadership to successfully run a 25man raid. If half of those individuals leave these guilds, what happens to the other 50% when they have conlficts with the rest of the 25man raiders on the server over personality and schedule? Again, there are people who enjoy running 25mans for the experience who will be indirectly affected by the individual choices of some people choosing 10s or 25s. But hey, they don't really come across your path so they do not matter, right?



Again, if people need more incentive to run 25 man than this and the enjoyment of a larger raid group, why should Blizzard have unbalanced loot which makes people feel like they need to be doing something they would rather not be doing?
I'm merely presenting a possible outcome of these changes. Again, there will be folks who enjoy 25man raiding that will have large portions of their guild leave for the 10man experience, who will no longer have 25people to raid with, and left with a monster of a recruiting headache.

Kahmal
05-03-2010, 12:22 PM
If this change goes though it would be far less of a strain to just run 10 mans. I mean my 10 man group was stacked taking down server first hard modes and all that, simply because we had most of the best raiders our guild had to offer, none of the downies. And while I do enjoy 10 mans.....thats not what real raiding is to me.....

Raiding is coordinatiing a larger group of people around a giant boss until he finally drops, finding a strategy that yours for your guild. Moar lewt is a lousy incentive for dealing with the realities of 25 mans, your dealing with morons, attendance issues, etc, but in the end its all worth it since it's harder to coordinate and the loot is better.

I dont get it really. You check the Raid Forums and everyone will say that Ulduar was a nearly perfect formula, yet Blizzard keeps throwing these stupid experiments at us ruining everything.

Ollin
05-03-2010, 12:45 PM
I think we can agree that Blizzard can not pull it off, or will have a very difficult time doing it. My point is, if you take them at their word the encounter mechanics should be identical in difficulty. IF they succeed, then a 25 man raid breaking down into 10 man raids should exceed in one any more than the other.

I will be doing 10s not because of the changes it will make to encounter mechanics, but rather because I only have to deal with 9 other people's possible mistakes vs 24.

No. We absolutely cannot agree that it's not possible to pull off because you're looking at it strictly from a 25-man perspective where the only experience you've had for the last year in 10's was with a gear advantage.

10-man raids have an innate advantage coordinating. All that means is that to pump up the difficulty they have to tune in different places. 10's are a different beast than 25's. You can't think about them the same way from a design perspective and expect them to act the same way.

In 25's the crux of the issue is properly coordinating with the other people in your raid. Stand in the wrong spot and you kill your buddy, or you run the healer out of mana (unless they decide to just let you die for being an idiot). DPS the wrong thing and you're wasting time at best. At worst you blow up the raid somehow.

In 10's the crux is more personal performance and resource management. IMO you'll see healers going OOM to be a much larger problem in 10's if your healer isn't good at triage or overheals too much.

Additionally, the difference in 10's and 25's will be more along the lines of for, say something like smokebomb, the difference between using it properly (10's) and getting everyone else to use it properly (25's).

I can see things like tighter enrage timers in hard mode 10's than in 25's with similar gear because in 10's it's more about what you can do and less about what you can not do to your buddy by standing in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

They're going to need to spend more time working on the differences between 10's an 25's. IMO, the first two raiding tiers in Cata are going to be kinda rough.

Volador
05-03-2010, 12:55 PM
No. We absolutely cannot agree that it's not possible to pull off because you're looking at it strictly from a 25-man perspective where the only experience you've had for the last year in 10's was with a gear advantage.

I'm looking at it from a 25s perspective, and I've had a gear advantage there? Did you quote the wrong person, or are you just making a (false) assumption? I was also responding to a very specific post made by one person (whom I agreed with on the point of the challenge to balance).

Mwawka
05-03-2010, 12:56 PM
@ Spiritus

First of all, my points have very little to do with a 10 or 25 man perspective. You actually don't know what I do with my game time and what type of guild I am in, so you are assuming I am arguing from a first person point of view, but in reality many of my points are derived from a more open minded view of things. They are my perspective, but I am not looking at them with 10 man bias as you seem to think.

Point #1: No 10 or 25 man bias here. Just offering an alternate view of how things 'may' turn out. Notice the use of the word 'may'. I do not assume how pugging will take shape in Cataclysm, because I do not know and neither do you. I'm offering a plausible alternative, which is something you don't seem to want to acknowledge. In your description of raiding in Cataclysm you use the definitive 'will' often. You however do not actually have any proof that things 'will' occur that way. That is my point, you argue that, definitively, pugging is going to go to hell. I argue that it may be just fine.

Point #2: I didn't argue that you said it was just a problem for 25 man guilds. I argued that a system where it is a problem for one sector of the population due to game design is not a fair one. I am not in a strict 10 man guild, so this is not an issue for me, so don't make the assumption that I am arguing with personal bias because you don't know how I play the game. My point is that in order to remove the problem for one raiding path they needed to make the changes they did and that I don't believe finding reserves will be as big an issue as you do because EVERY guild in the game, 10 or 25 man will have the same issue to deal with. There will be no greener grass on the other side, because jumping to another guild won't mean you aren't facing the problem still. As for your Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariate comment, I made no such allusions anywhere in my argument, so please don't assign those types of comments to me.

EDIT: As I think about this argument, I realize that it will actually be more detrimental to a 10 man guild than a 25 man guild. A 10 man guild requires more reserves per raid slot than a 25 man. Essentially with 10 raid spots available, a 10 man guild needs 4-5 reserves to make sure every spot is covered where a 25 man group can get by with less as a % of raid size. Due to this and the increased chance of someone missing in a larger group, a 25 man reserve is more likely to get called on in a given lockout. The argument that this change will mean the end of 25 man raiding just doesn't hold water. The change will affect everyone good or bad and if anything is worse for those who choose a 10 man path.

Points #3 & 4: Basically these are similar points. Again, explain to me why Blizzard should create an environment where people feel coerced to stay in a 25 man situation when they'd rather be in a 10 man one. How can the need of the guild leader to have their life easier be more important than the enjoyment of the individual player? I'm not arguing that there won't be lots of guild jumping and restructuring in Cataclysm, I'm arguing that in the big picture the benefits of the changes outweigh this.

sacredgoat
05-03-2010, 01:02 PM
Honestly, i don't unstand what all the huff and puff is about?!?!

As it stands now, people run the same stupid content twice everyweek because ... hell you want more gear via badges/drops. That to me doesn't sound fun at all. Spending hours and hours running the "hardcore" crap only to come back tomorrow and spend hours on that same "easy" crap only for some extra badges?

What are people so upset about?? Now you only have to do your run once a week and you get more for nothing almost!! No more spending those extra hours on that "lesser" content everyweek. Exactly how much more or less stuff compaired to now?? ... no one really knows as numbers havn't been released. I mean come on ... i highly doubt at the end of the fight your going to be thrown 1 extra piece of loot and a copper for the "trouble" of 15 extra ppl.

As for nobody running 25 mans anymore. well ... do you want extra loot?? Do you want extra gold?? Do you want extra "stuff"?? Then don't run 10 mans.

Personally, nothing is changing in my mind. Come next expansion people will get more bang for there buck*buck as in time*. 25 mans give you more without the extra run of the same content. 10 mans give you more and now your not the "second" rate group because the difficulty are exactly the same *give or take*.

People should be happy, Blizz is giving more for less. Which frees up time to do other things ... i just don't get why ppl are upset??

Kazeyonoma
05-03-2010, 01:10 PM
I think I'm done discussing the problem I have with this and the solution I have. People are choosing to be ignorant to the problems present by Spiritus. Fine, we'll wait and see what happens, and I'll be the first one to say I told you so.

Edit: While I agree that the "sky is falling" crap is old, I do think that some of the points we've discussed in the other thread in the General forums does have some merit, and while we hope that as cata approaches they'll address some of these, there's no harm in discussing the pitfalls and possible solutions in the meantime. I don't think myself or Spiritus have every outright said "ZOMG 25s are dead, GG", but we say things will get harder for 25 mans, and we foresee the non-hardest core 25 man guilds breaking up into 10 man groups since it'll largely be an easier task to manage 10 players than 25.

swelt
05-03-2010, 01:14 PM
Thanks for the objective view Lore. The "sky is falling" posts are getting tiresome.
^ What he said.

Mwawka
05-03-2010, 01:23 PM
I think I'm done discussing the problem I have with this and the solution I have. People are choosing to be ignorant to the problems present by Spiritus. Fine, we'll wait and see what happens, and I'll be the first one to say I told you so.

Suggesting that those with a differing opinion are being ignorant is very inflammatory and honestly I would expect more from a moderator no matter how passionate you are about your point of view. I am going into Cataclysm with an open mind and actually think the changes could work out well, but somehow because I don't agree with you, you assume I am being ignorant. Thanks.

EDIT: I retract the word moderator, I would actually expect more of anyone in a discussion such as this.

Spiritus
05-03-2010, 01:27 PM
There may be some people that are truly upset about these changes. I think most people who are critical of the raiding changes on TankSpot merely foresee potential issues that could arise out of the system as explained currently. Some of which, like increased PuGing difficulties & guild breakups, may just be resolved as acceptable losses.

It is certainly true that we do not have any hard numbers, nor do we have any period of time to look back on to see how these changes will have affected the game. It is, however, reasonable to provide criticism on something that changes the structural gameplay on such a basic level. Though the beta will go a long way to help tune the content, it will do little to show how these changes will affect guild dynamics, which is where most of the criticism lies.

I'm fairly confident that the final product will be ultimately successful economically. I am just hesitant to suggest that the proposed changes as presented are the best options to solve the problems of gear inflation and player burnout, as they seem to present as many problems as they aim to resolve.

Ollin
05-03-2010, 01:39 PM
I'm looking at it from a 25s perspective, and I've had a gear advantage there? Did you quote the wrong person, or are you just making a (false) assumption? I was also responding to a very specific post made by one person (whom I agreed with on the point of the challenge to balance).

No...that's me responding to "I think we can agree that Blizzard can not pull it off" before my brain's had a chance to kick in on the rest of the conversation (read it as "Balance cannot be pulled off between 10's and 25's due to <insert 25-man specific issues here>"). It came off quite a bit more harsh than I had intended.

Kazeyonoma
05-03-2010, 02:13 PM
Suggesting that those with a differing opinion are being ignorant is very inflammatory and honestly I would expect more from a moderator no matter how passionate you are about your point of view. I am going into Cataclysm with an open mind and actually think the changes could work out well, but somehow because I don't agree with you, you assume I am being ignorant. Thanks.

EDIT: I retract the word moderator, I would actually expect more of anyone in a discussion such as this.

Ignorant: uninformed; unaware.

How am I wrong here? People are choosing to remained uninformed or happen to be unaware of the fact that 25 man guilds will suffer heavy losses in their rotation/reserve/backups because of these changes, and yet people continue to ignore those, and continue to talk about how "well I'm gonna enjoy being in a 10 man" is going to somehow fix this. Notice that Spiritus posted up 4 points, and only some of them have been addressed, the one that I brought up is the one most passionate to me, and yet people continue to ignore it. Am I being inflammatory? No, because it's the truth, people continue to talk about this discussion while completely ignoring the fact, and thus are Ignorant, uninformed, unaware despite it being right there in front of them.

Lore
05-03-2010, 02:38 PM
To elaborate on a couple of the points I tried to make in the video:

I don't think PUG's will suffer too much. Look at 25 Normal ICC right now. A handful of alts and nonraiders in my guild easily manages to PUG the majority of the instance every Saturday evening by grabbing the 10-15 or so regulars and pugging the rest. As the buff continues to grow, those runs clear more and more in less time.

Remember that there's two separate distinctions that are made regarding what content you're clearing: 10 vs 25, and normal vs heroic. As I mentioned in the video, GC said relatively recently that they weren't real happy with making the hardcore guilds wait to get into the heroic modes. So I imagine we'll see this sort of setup:

10 Normal: Very PUG/alt/casual guild friendly. Very easy to organize and clear.
10 Heroic: More serious players who don't have the time or would just rather play with 9 other people instead of 24. The "casual hardcore" crowd will probably see the most appeal here. Some potential for serious hardcore 10man raiding as well.
25 Normal: Still very pug/alt/casual friendly, just takes a bit more organization. I think we'll see a lot of "Come to Xrichardx's 25man on Tuesday!" going on. Small groups of people who organize the 25man runs because there's better loot returns. Casual 25man guilds will be happy here as well.
25 Heroic: The real meat of progression. Better returns on loot make running 25man better for progression (your average raider will be better geared than if you were running 10s), and the organization of 25 people will artificially inflate the difficulty so that you feel like it's "harder". I don't see 25H losing the "real progression raiding" title.

As far as 25man guilds losing people to 10mans, yeah, that's pretty likely. I imagine most 25man guilds will have to do a lot of recruiting once they start getting to 85 and wanting to get into the raids. Thing is, that always happens with expansions regardless of game changes. When MB started running 25mans in Wrath, we were bringing maybe 6 people from our TBC 25man roster. Today, there are 3 people in our main roster that even set foot with us into Sunwell. Same exact thing happened in TBC, when the 40->25 switch was supposed to "kill" endgame raiding. As long as people still exist who want to be at the top of progression, serious 25man guilds will still have raiders.

Mwawka
05-03-2010, 02:41 PM
Ignorant: uninformed; unaware.

How am I wrong here? People are choosing to remained uninformed or happen to be unaware of the fact that 25 man guilds will suffer heavy losses in their rotation/reserve/backups because of these changes, and yet people continue to ignore those, and continue to talk about how "well I'm gonna enjoy being in a 10 man" is going to somehow fix this. Notice that Spiritus posted up 4 points, and only some of them have been addressed, the one that I brought up is the one most passionate to me, and yet people continue to ignore it. Am I being inflammatory? No, because it's the truth, people continue to talk about this discussion while completely ignoring the fact, and thus are Ignorant, uninformed, unaware despite it being right there in front of them.

I have no problem addressing your point and I already have. You say that the reserves are gonna jump ship. Where do they go? They can transfer to a 10 man guild, but the reality is going to be that 10 man guilds need reserves too and based on group size and composition will need a higher percentage with a lower chance of being needed on a week to week basis. So being in a 10 man guild will possibly result in a lower chance of raiding each week. All raiding guilds will need reserves, so why would jumping ship on your present guild increase your chance to raid. I am not arguing that the game experience of the reserve will not change, as it will change drastically, but the being a reserve in a 25 man guild will give you better odds at raiding each week than being one in a 10 man guild.

I don't feel uninformed on your concerns, but I don't share them. I understand your passion and commend you for it. If you think I haven't put thought into your concerns, I actually have put a lot into them, because when you first brought them up, I shared them to some extent, but after putting thought into it, I don't share them anymore. That's not ignorance, I have made a decision based on thought and knowledge. If you feel I am missing any knowledge based on my comments and not some perceived 10 man bias, then please share them with me.

mavfin
05-03-2010, 02:42 PM
Ignorant: uninformed; unaware.

How am I wrong here? People are choosing to remained uninformed or happen to be unaware of the fact that 25 man guilds will suffer heavy losses in their rotation/reserve/backups because of these changes, and yet people continue to ignore those, and continue to talk about how "well I'm gonna enjoy being in a 10 man" is going to somehow fix this. Notice that Spiritus posted up 4 points, and only some of them have been addressed, the one that I brought up is the one most passionate to me, and yet people continue to ignore it. Am I being inflammatory? No, because it's the truth, people continue to talk about this discussion while completely ignoring the fact, and thus are Ignorant, uninformed, unaware despite it being right there in front of them.

I'm not ignoring it at all. I proposed a solution, and you know what it was. I just don't see very many solutions to your quandary other than the boss-lockout one and its derivatives that don't break Blizzard's control of gear-up speed, which is what I think the reason for the shared lockout is in the first place.

Maybe Blizzard has a solution they haven't shared with us. I don't know. Other than your issue, this thread is mostly a rehash of the other one at this point.

I do think that any proposed solution that ignores Blizzard's wish to control speed of gear acquisition is just wishful thinking, though.

Kazeyonoma
05-03-2010, 02:55 PM
I have no problem addressing your point and I already have. You say that the reserves are gonna jump ship. Where do they go? They can transfer to a 10 man guild, but the reality is going to be that 10 man guilds need reserves too and based on group size and composition will need a higher percentage with a lower chance of being needed on a week to week basis. So being in a 10 man guild will possibly result in a lower chance of raiding each week. All raiding guilds will need reserves, so why would jumping ship on your present guild increase your chance to raid. I am not arguing that the game experience of the reserve will not change, as it will change drastically, but the being a reserve in a 25 man guild will give you better odds at raiding each week than being one in a 10 man guild.

I don't feel uninformed on your concerns, but I don't share them. I understand your passion and commend you for it. If you think I haven't put thought into your concerns, I actually have put a lot into them, because when you first brought them up, I shared them to some extent, but after putting thought into it, I don't share them anymore. That's not ignorance, I have made a decision based on thought and knowledge. If you feel I am missing any knowledge based on my comments and not some perceived 10 man bias, then please share them with me.

I'm beyond the jumping ship problem at this point, the problem then is for these reservists, in both 10 man and 25 man, what happens, how does ANY guild, maintain their reservists, which every guild has to maintain a steady raiding environment. Of course the obvious solution is to "rotate" players, which all reservists already do, but that means, you have at any given time, 75% of the raid, that is on par, and 25% that is falling behind, that or you have 100% of the raid that isn't on par because they've had to sit for extended periods due to rotations. Sure I guess this accomplishes blizzards goal of slowing down gear progression, but at the expense of players enjoyment? I don't care about people jumping ship, I can recruit more players, I care that everytime I recruit someone new, whether I'm in a 10 man or a 25 man guild, I have to realize that this poor kid is not gonna get to raid much if anything at all, and if when he does get in, he's going to be undergeared, and probably angry that he only gets to raid part time regardless of his skill. That's what I'm trying to address. So instead of just sitting around and saying "well, that's how it's gonna be, sucks to be you", why isn't anyone aside from mavfin offering alternate solutions.

@mavfin, so why aren't we campaigning the boss lockout with single lockouts to 10/25 per week (as current), explain to them the benefits, display the only con (confusing i guess?) and then offer ways to show how the con can be overcome with simple UI modifications to the "raid info" tab that we all are aquainted with. Stating that "it'll be confusing to new raiders" is BS to me, so is getting locked out of 25 mans once you kill a boss in 10 mans they'll just be as quick to say "wait what?" and be confused until they are explained to.

So long as we are disjointed in our agreement that there IS a problem, then we can't push to get it fixed and that is what is infuriating me the most.

Spiritus
05-03-2010, 02:58 PM
I don't think PUG's will suffer too much. Look at 25 Normal ICC right now. A handful of alts and nonraiders in my guild easily manages to PUG the majority of the instance every Saturday evening by grabbing the 10-15 or so regulars and pugging the rest. As the buff continues to grow, those runs clear more and more in less time.

Most of those 10-15 that you PuG now into your alt/nonraider 25man Normal ICC more likely than not are/will be locked to 10 during that same week, either because it is easier to PuG [less people needed] or they are in 10man guilds. In Cata, getting/planning on being locked to 10s will also lock you to 25s. Thus you have 10-15 or so nonraiders/alts that will struggle to run their 25man raid. In established, well progressed guilds this will not matter much, because your main raid will stay strong regardless. However, for those 25man guilds that PuG 1 or 2 people into their main raid every week [a fairly normal occurrence], they will be looking at a very reduced pool to choose from. This is only one aspect that, if the current design stays, will result in a reduction of both the quantity and quality of PuGs [used both as a term for a raid and a player].

Mwawka
05-03-2010, 03:02 PM
Once again, just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me wrong or uninformed. I may be wrong, but the fact of the matter is neither one of us knows right now. So I ask you this question (or anyone with BC raiding experience). What did guilds do in BC to maintain a functional raiding roster when this problem must have existed? Quite frankly, I don't see how the situation will differ from it did then. So please inform me so I'm not ignorant anymore.

Kazeyonoma
05-03-2010, 03:18 PM
Mwawka: we ran Karazhan a lot because there wasn't a badge system implemented until Sunwell/late BT, so we had to run back content to get caught up in gear. And in BT we ran ZA.

I apologize for the ignorant comment, it wasn't directed necessarily at you, but more at people who choose to gloss over the issues that Spiritus presented. I'm aware that most people who post in this thread who were active in the other thread are probably well aware of the pitfalls of these changes.

Bodasafa
05-03-2010, 03:28 PM
To be honest the instance was called "Dramazhan". It actually tore a lot of guilds apart.

mavfin
05-03-2010, 03:29 PM
@mavfin, so why aren't we campaigning the boss lockout with single lockouts to 10/25 per week (as current), explain to them the benefits, display the only con (confusing i guess?) and then offer ways to show how the con can be overcome with simple UI modifications to the "raid info" tab that we all are aquainted with. Stating that "it'll be confusing to new raiders" is BS to me, so is getting locked out of 25 mans once you kill a boss in 10 mans they'll just be as quick to say "wait what?" and be confused until they are explained to.

So long as we are disjointed in our agreement that there IS a problem, then we can't push to get it fixed and that is what is infuriating me the most.

Fact is, I'm a troubleshooter, not a salesman. I can see the issue, along with you, and you're the one who fleshed out my 'any solution to raid 10 and 25 both would have to be no-loot to fit with what I think Blizzard wants' and adapted the boss lockout idea to it, and it makes good sense. Yeah, I don't buy the 'confusing to new players' any more than you. There's lots of things about raiding that are confusing to new players. The lockouts in and of themselves can be confusing, in fact. How many players, even now, raid all the time, and don't know what /raidinfo is?

I don't know that you and I are disjointed that there is a problem. I can see your problem plainly, as well as the reserve issue for 25s AND for 10s. Yes, 10-man guilds have reserves, too. We don't pick our 10s out of as many people as you pick your 25s out of, after all.

So, I'll lay out my opinion/thoughts here on the lockout issue, and add the rest of the issues in a 2nd section.

1) All my thoughts on this are based on the assumption that Blizzard is doing the shared lockout to control maximum gear-up speed, not to control anyone's playtime; i.e. playtime reductions on X toon are a consequence of the change, not the intention of it. I've stated before that Blizzard really didn't like seeing guilds run 10 and 25 to gear up as fast as possible, clear all the content, and then post everywhere they could read that 'Wrath is faceroll, we cleared it too fast!'. They're going to limit max progression speed to as fast or slow as they want it to be, and this is one of the mechanisms. They're capping max badges per week, and max raid loot opportunities per week. It's fine if you disagree with them wanting to do this, but that's outside the scope of this post.

2) So, we have people like Kaz who like to raid 10s and 25s, one for progression, one for social, and are perfectly willing to give up loot in one of them to be able to run them. IMO, any solution will have to do this. Any solution that gives loot in both sizes will break the loot-control in the first point, and won't fly with Blizzard.

3) So, a 'boss-lockout' system has been proposed here on Tankspot, and probably other places. How that would work would be that once you've seen a boss die in a raid week, then you can still kill him again, but you're not eligible for loot or badges from that boss after the first time. This would allow people like Kaz to do his 10-mans every week for progression, or 25-man when he gets in early, and still be available for the other to help if needed, but not eligible for loot, therefore not breaking Blizzard's control of gear-up speed.

4) As has been brought up here also, this could be abused by taking a 10-man raid to <end boss>, and then starting 10 new raids cleared to <end boss>. The way I proposed to fix that would be to tie a boss lockout to the raid ID or IDs. Maximum of one 10 and one 25-man raid ID per boss ID per week. There's been some discussion of how extending raid lockouts would work with this system, but that's not yet fleshed out that I know of. There may be other solutions to prevent abuse, feel free to toss them out here. Tying boss-IDs to raid-IDs is just one.

With that, I've covered my thoughts on the boss lockout issue.

On to thoughts on the loot:

1) Loot ilevels I: They should be equal at the normal difficulty level. 10-man normal and 25-man normal, in appropriate gear, are pretty much equal difficulty, averaged across fights. Fights with spread-out requirements push 25s more, fights with individual person requirements push 10s more; i.e. losing 1 person in 10s is worse than losing 1 person in 25s in normal-mode fights. The two ways balance out. I basically call bullshit on anyone who says Blizzard "can't" balance 10 and 25 at the normal level. Also, yes, 25-man has more organizational overhead. Blizzard's signalling that they're not going to give the whole raid better loot for the work of a few people organizing it. Fact is, I've seen a lot of 25-man puggies who got better loot than 10-man for doing almost nothing, so don't put the 'challenge' argument in my face at this level. I'll laugh at you.

2) Loot ilevels II: Heroic mode balancing is a different issue. At the 'any one person can cause a wipe at any time' level, 25-man has more points of failure. However, only heroic mode fights will be balanced to this level, and will run into this issue. What they do with loot ilvls here, I don't know, as there is some validity to the 10/25 balancing arguments here. My gut feeling is that they will leave the loot ilvls equal, because the numbers here relative to normal mode are quite a bit smaller, and they're going to put controlling ilvl inflation above tossing 25-man heroic raiders a bone. Again, that's only my opinion of what they'll do.

No one yet knows what else will come with this, or exactly how many raid instances, with how many bosses, will be available at Cataclysm launch, so, for the rest, I'll wait and see. Personally, I like the changes, with the exception of the part that's got Kaz stuck in a bad situation, which I outlined one possible solution to.

Kazeyonoma
05-03-2010, 03:36 PM
Thank for that mavfin, well done.

Mwawka
05-03-2010, 03:36 PM
Kaz,

Thanks for the apology, and I understand it's coming from a position of frustration. I do understand that there are concerns with guild organization, but I just hate to jump to conclusions on how it will play out once the content is actually released. I've thought through a lot of solutions guilds could use to keep a happy roster, but until we see the final product it is really all conjecture. I am sure that no matter what happens raiding both 10 and 25 will continue and solutions will be found and there will always be people who feel like they've been short changed. I've really made all my points and if I have something new to offer or get some information that makes me alter my view, I will certainly post something to that effect. Remember though, I very much respect your opinion as I do Spiritus'. I'm not trying to change your minds or convince you to think otherwise, because you might be right, I'm just trying to offer a counter argument to your concerns, based on a more moderate stance.

EDIT: I also would like to say that I think the idea if a 'boss' lockout system is worth listening to. It's different, but not bad and certainly would make guild management a lot easier. Guild management issues are something Blizzard would be wise to listen to.

Kazeyonoma
05-03-2010, 03:38 PM
Fair enough, a discussion wouldn't be a discussion if we all just chanted the same thing anyway.

Syltraul
05-03-2010, 03:56 PM
your shirts are always sweet Lore

Spiritus
05-03-2010, 03:56 PM
I'll readily admit that anything said before the final product is released is conjecture. We have no clue exactly what will be implemented based on feedback from the beta. I'd venture to say that the core of these changes will remain intact, just because Blizzard is not apt to release information like this and then execute a 180. I can only present what I see as issues that can, and in some instances I believe will, arise from the proposals.

I have a very Aristotelian view of argument; that is rhetoric uncovers the truth. The more people present their positions clearly, the better off the community will be as a whole. Conflict is a necessary byproduct to these ends.

Mwawka
05-03-2010, 04:06 PM
I have a very Aristotelian view of argument; that is rhetoric uncovers the truth. The more people present their positions clearly, the better off the community will be as a whole. Conflict is a necessary byproduct to these ends.

On that we agree. One of the issues with a discussion of views in an impersonal environment like this is that you do not know if people are listening and hearing your opinion. Most people have a intrinsic need to have their viewpoints be heard. Without eye contact, vocal inflection and all the other behavioural clues that come with direct personal contact it is easy to feel as though your opinions and arguments are not being heard. That can lead to frustration which can quickly derail a good discussion. I'm also a realist, so I believe that although there are obvious problems that will come with this new raiding system, I believe that it is a given it is coming and I believe that as a whole package it is an improvement on the current system. Therefore, having listened to people's concerns, I am more apt to think how are they addressed within the system we are getting than to spend my time trying to develop a different better system. That doesn't mean discussing alternatives is bad, it's just not where I focus my thoughts.

Scyla
05-03-2010, 04:22 PM
I do see a great chance in the Cataclysm raiding system, mainly because I'm not happy with the current state. I do suffer from burnout because I had to run ICC 10 man to be prepared the best way possible for progression in ICC 25. So I appreciate this new approach.

But Blizzard has to solve a lot (and by a lot I mean A LOT!) of problems and I do admit that we cannot look at Blizzard plans from our WotLK point of view. If you adapt the WotLK raiding system to the Cataclysm system it would result in a disaster. And just because I love WoW I hope that Blizzard can pull it off.

Guilds will suffer from the change as they did with the Vanilla -> BC switch. It will mostly not be the top 500 guild (well maybe more let's say all guilds who managed to get all the WotLK meta-achievements and/or the TotGC 50 tries left run), they will do their stuff just as they did in the last 5 years. It will be the guilds with less progress but those guilds are the majority of the raiding guilds and that will lead to a great shift in the way we play WoW.

In my very own guild (8/12 heroic) a lot of player say that they will switch to 10 man raiding as soon as Cataclysm gets shipped. I remember the problems my guild had when the majority of our members reached level 70 and it almost collapsed but we managed to start raiding successfully again because we had no alternative; doing 25 mans was the only way to go.

But with Cataclysm there is this alternative we hadn't at level 70 and I do believe that we are not getting out alive this time. Just to many player are not willing to bear those few bad players anymore that almost every guild has.

So yeah, we will see a lot of guilds disbanding.

Another problem (but one Blizzard can solve because they did in the past) will be the amount of content you need to provide to keep player with more playtime interested. They did so in BC but didn't in WotLK. So again it is dangerous to adept Blizzard plans for Cataclysm on the WotLK raids. So raiding only one format must provide content for 3-5 nights of raiding.

I guess we have to wait for more info on the topic from Blizzard and see the changes with our own eyes. Perhaps the beta will help us to make up our minds.

Only the future will tell :P .

Ollin
05-03-2010, 04:55 PM
Again, Mwawka, the points you bring up are only from a 10man perspective arguing against a 25man perspective.
There are many well progressed 25man guilds that do not run 10s as a guild. You completely ignored all the 10man raiders who PuG 25s. I never mentioned anywhere that this is just a problem for 25man guilds. Its a problem for everyone. Again, look at the entire picture instead of just your own perspective. I see that the equal sharing of misery is OK with you. 25s vs. 10s =/= bourgeoisie vs. proletariat.


Are these 25-man guilds ones that don't run 10's by choice? Or ones that don't need to run them any more because they have all the badges they need? One won't notice the difference and the other will hurt at the beginning of a content tier before moving into "don't care about the shared lockouts" territory.

As for 10-man raiders that pug 25's (like me), well, I won't be able to pug 25's any more. For the most part, I was only doing them because they drop better gear than what I've got access too and because I needed more emblems.

Where I think some weird things are going to happen is when the distribution of serious guilds shifts and 25's don't have a monopoly any more. I'm not saying that 25's will die, but there are 25-man guilds (perhaps many) that will either switch to serious 10-man raiding guilds when they choose to drop the 15 players they feel have been holding them back, or will simply cease to exist as 2-3 serious 10-man guilds take their places.

On another side note, I think there's going to be a strange shift in 10-man guilds too. Presently the distinction of serious vs. non-serious has been "first, do they run 25's?" followed by "okay they do. So, are they serious about them?" with the determination being yes if and only if "yes" was the answer to both questions. With the ability to be considered "serious" given equal treatment in 10's as well, you're going to see a shuffle of players in 10-man guilds as the good players in those guilds actively look to congregate together for progression in the smaller format.

The damage this is going to do to casual 10-man guilds has been completely ignored I think.

...good catch. Assuming that's what you were trying to point out Spiritus.

As for this issue, from my experience casual guilds roll with punches and adapt to change at the social level a lot better than serious guilds do. While some casual guilds will cease to exist, a lot of others will simply swap mains for alts as the need arises and rotate in some people who have maybe never raided before, or who quit earlier and haven't raided in a while.



This is a great argument for the individual who chooses to raid 10mans. It is a horrible argument for an organization that he or she left that wishes to run 25s. On many servers, there are only a few guilds that have the organizational structure and leadership to successfully run a 25man raid. If half of those individuals leave these guilds, what happens to the other 50% when they have conlficts with the rest of the 25man raiders on the server over personality and schedule? Again, there are people who enjoy running 25mans for the experience who will be indirectly affected by the individual choices of some people choosing 10s or 25s. But hey, they don't really come across your path so they do not matter, right?

I'm merely presenting a possible outcome of these changes. Again, there will be folks who enjoy 25man raiding that will have large portions of their guild leave for the 10man experience, who will no longer have 25people to raid with, and left with a monster of a recruiting headache.


They'll have to handle it just like casual guilds have to handle losing their best and brightest when they jump ship to a 25-man guild because they want to get into some "real" raiding. Except, those 25-man guilds, if they've been well run and create an environment that makes raiders want to stay, won't be losing their best. They'll be losing their worst. The lazy. The people who couldn't cut it in 25's in wrath who think that 10's will be "easier". The loot whores. And, of course, the people who didn't actually want to be there but felt forced to raid 25's for the better loot (which may well be some of their best in this case, but will be better for all involved in the long run IMO).

Make no mistake. Roster will suffer and guilds will cease to exist. But on the flip side, new guilds will rise to take their place. We're not talking about an endangered species here. We're talking about power groups in a social environment. The vacuum's will fill.

Jackripster
05-03-2010, 09:12 PM
Yes we dont know all the details yet, but we all know the Ďextra benefitsí to keep 25mans to be viable would need to be substantial. A little extra loot per person simply wont cut it imo. Serious raiders are competitive; i donít believe its gear that drives them. Theyíll want to be in the top progressed guilds, to keep 25s equally as progressed as 10 mans the differences would have to be huge.

For a start, it so much easier to find 10 great players than 25 great players. Its also much easier to find 10 players that will play 24/7 or at least much longer. A 25 man has a 2.5 times great chance for DCs, lag or other excuse to hold up the team, 2.5 times the people AFKing after a wipe ect ect. I donít know but ive always found 10 mans to be faster than 25s even if explanations/ strat chat isnít required.
Ok so more loot in 25s makes it all better? I donít think so, and heres why. I look back at to the start of this expansion, we hit Nax as soon as we could, a few crafted, a few blues and the odd green to hit up Nax. We were an established 25 man guild in BC but the first 10 to be ready hit Nax and cleared in on the 16/12/08. Now the 25 man clear didnít happen until 26/1/09. We probably cleared the 10 man with a player base of 12 or 13, the 25 man probably took 35 and mostly likely more as people in this game just disappear for whatever reason. Its like a speed boat Vs the titanic, unless the speed boat is towing one massive anchor (difficultly level would have to be insanely harder than 25s) i donít see how the titanic can win the race.

What may happen is 25 mans guilds break into 3 x 10 mans, smash out the progression and then switch to 25s to farm out the loot. Revert back to 10 mans for heroic progression and so on. One thing i know for sure is the competitive nature in gamers will be greater than any gear.

This is why (and i know it wont happen), id rather see both 10s and 25s scrapped and just have 15 mans, with extra content. Problems solved, both raid sizes give a bit and 15 is enough to get most class and buffs in. For mine 10 mans has always felt, restricted. But boy are they efficient! Anyway time will tell of course, but my money is firmly on 10 mans to dominate progression.

Lore
05-03-2010, 09:23 PM
If you can find 15 people who want to pug a 25man instead of a 10, you can find 25. There's certainly no shortage of players in WoW.

Hammerfists
05-03-2010, 09:55 PM
Its also much easier to find 10 players that will play 24/7 or at least much longer.

lol. Well if you can defy the time space continuum you truly are in a league of your own.


2.5 times the people AFKing after a wipe ect ect.

Its up to the guild officers/raid leaders to deal with chronic afks. In 10 man you stick out like a sore thumb. In 25 you can try to "blend in". But there will always be more people who want to raid than people offering slots to raid. If need be its time to bench or replace said person. No ones time is more valuable, its disrespectful to everyone and should be dealt with.


What may happen is 25 mans guilds break into 3 x 10 mans, smash out the progression and then switch to 25s to farm out the loot. Revert back to 10 mans for heroic progression and so on. One thing i know for sure is the competitive nature in gamers will be greater than any gear.

Two problems i see with this scenario"
1) You are stretching your groups thin by having no reserves, all it takes is for one person to be a no show for the other 9 to lose gear/experience for a day or for the week
2) Raiding a 25 once a month hurts your group synergy. Long stretches of time when you dont work with people makes the experience clunky. You're better off just sticking to a raid size and maxing your performance in it.

Bodasafa
05-03-2010, 10:26 PM
If you can find 15 people who want to pug a 25man instead of a 10, you can find 25. There's certainly no shortage of players in WoW.

Right but the issue now is you only get to have 1 size raid a week a 10 or a 25 (not both). Casual or not people still take their WoW pretty seriously. Who in their right mind is going to chance downing 1 boss and being saved to a fail 25 pug when they can do it in a 10 where the risk is smaller?

Loremaster Roht
05-03-2010, 10:43 PM
Just to throw out a very quick and simple observation, skipping over a lot of the details, semantics about how things will work, and any belly-aching nonsense....


It's of my opinion Blizz is trying to go for a very simple goal:

- If you prefer 10 man raiding, raid 10 mans.
- If you prefer 25 man raiding, raid 25 mans.

Just that, nothing more. Just pick the size of raid you prefer doing and do it.


A lot of the complaining I've seen, mostly around other areas, is due to prestige. More specifically, the loss of prestige. It is the nature of MMORPG communities to seek optimization and push things to the limit, and WoW is no exception. But sometimes it can feel like they push the idea of fun away, or at least anything outside their idea of fun. Blizz is trying to make the game accessible to all, and for some reason quite a few people find that a bad thing. Sometimes you just have to ask if they're really playing the game because they enjoy it.

Blizz' goals can definitely seem a bit crazy if you're locked into the idea that only the best and most dedicated players get the best stuff.... but they're just wanting everyone to have fun in their own way. At least that's my interpretation of the changes.


Pick the raid size you have the most fun in.
Find a group of people who share that opinion.
Have fun in the raid size you prefer.

That's it.

Jackripster
05-03-2010, 11:07 PM
lol. Well if you can defy the time space continuum you truly are in a league of your own. Oh man you mean to say there isnt more time than 24/7? Damn, let me worm out of this one and say i meant more time than a 25 man team can invest. Phew that was close, thanks buddy.


Its up to the guild officers/raid leaders to deal with chronic afks. In 10 man you stick out like a sore thumb. In 25 you can try to "blend in". But there will always be more people who want to raid than people offering slots to raid. If need be its time to bench or replace said person. No ones time is more valuable, its disrespectful to everyone and should be dealt with. After the first one i really dont know why im bothering, maybe because i have all this extra time :). Of course in this perfect world id gladly replace them in heartbeat. Fact is with 25 there is a 2.5 times higher chance for somebody to cause a delay. Be it a disconnection, someones at the door, their dog spewed up or whatever. Surely its easier to find 10 people that will do the right thing than 25?


Two problems i see with this scenario"
1) You are stretching your groups thin by having no reserves, all it takes is for one person to be a no show for the other 9 to lose gear/experience for a day or for the week
2) Raiding a 25 once a month hurts your group synergy. Long stretches of time when you dont work with people makes the experience clunky. You're better off just sticking to a raid size and maxing your performance in it.1) Id imagine any 10 man team would have a reserve or 2. No different in my scenario, only you need 36 players, which many 25 man raid guilds wouldnt have much trouble getting to.
2) Who said anything about once a month? If content is cleared in 10 man, then one cant progress any further. The next logical step in my mind would be to farm the place out in preparation for the next tier. If 25 mans are dropping more loot person, then guilds might want to pursue that option since they only get to kill the boss once per week anyway.

panzernacker
05-04-2010, 01:43 AM
good shirt!!!! lol nice message

Fitzlestick
05-04-2010, 03:52 AM
The biggest problem will be to make 10-mans rewarding enough for hardcore players. If not, they'll still be "forced" to do 25-mans, even if they would prefer 10-mans. A couple things come to mind regarding this: Shared Achievements, legendaries dropping only in 25-mans, big difference in loot amounts slowing down progression too much in 10-mans, special loot like mounts in 25-mans only, ...

It'll be very hard to balance and I doubt blizzard will manage. They'll have to add something significant to 25-mans to keep it attractive, which means the hardcore players will be forced to do 25-mans. If not, top guilds will just take the easy bosses in 25-man, drop out 15 lowest dps/healers and finish up in 10-man scoring the server first achievement (or continue with 10 in the middle of the night/early morning when they lack players for 25-mans)

Petninja
05-04-2010, 09:01 AM
There's something I'm trying to figure out. If Blizzard tries to balance 10's and 25's evenly and everyone does 10's how is that a bad thing? I can see it killing raiding the same way that 25s killed raiding for 40s. The only difference here is the illusion of choice. If everyone goes with one or the other the fact that there was a choice doesn't even matter. If the "votes" are distributed more evenly then pretty must this entire thread is invalidated. When 40s died in favor of 25s there were some gripes and then everyone adapted and a lot of people were happy in the end. Would they have raided 25s if 40s were available with the same reward at the same difficulty? I suspect 25s would still have been the dominant raiding format in TBC if the option existed.

Edit: When everyone says nice shirt they mean "you make that shirt look good" because everyone here is stalking you, Lore. Everyone.

Evulbunny
05-04-2010, 09:46 AM
Personally I am sure 25 man raiding will adapt and prevail. Mostly because you just cannot balance two formats to the same difficulty. Some fights will inevitably be a roadblock in one format and much less of an obstacle in the other one. There is a very misguided assumption that most fights will be easier in 10 man format. It may not be the case at all. I would be inclined to believe the split will be around 50:50.

So progression guilds will effectively operate switching formats (probably unfortunately with excessive use of alts testing etc.) to milk the faster progression format on boss by boss basis.

That brings all the drama and management difficulty of core raiders (25 man) and "core-core" raiders (10 man) but people who want progression glory will take it.

The only problem is that all the 10 and 25 balancing etc. is just a bit silly in my opinion. It is a heroic struggle in to pathc up a self-inflicted, easily removable problem! Just revert to a "normal" mode. One raid, one format! Some raids will be 10 mans, some 25 mans. Hell! Throw in some 15 or 20 if you feel like it! Guilds and raiders will manage. What it'll lead to is bigger guilds with "main team" going for whatever they're going for on a given reset while others will have enough numbers to organise something as well.

Lore
05-04-2010, 10:19 AM
Right but the issue now is you only get to have 1 size raid a week a 10 or a 25 (not both). Casual or not people still take their WoW pretty seriously. Who in their right mind is going to chance downing 1 boss and being saved to a fail 25 pug when they can do it in a 10 where the risk is smaller?

Who says the risk is going to be smaller?

Arianne
05-04-2010, 11:50 AM
My concerns with the changes to raid lockouts are the same concerns I have with removing 'important' buffs. WoW players have a highly variable degree of skill, computer equipment, and connection. Some people are east coast playing on servers in Seattle. Some are in Australia or other places in the world.

While some guilds can do 25s with people who are optimal for the server, with good computers, and with good latency, there are a relatively few number of those people. They fill the top X guilds. Then there are some people who have those qualities and not enough time that a top X guild requires. They fill some or all of a portion of the next Y guilds.

The remainder of people have some sort of issue that impacts their play. These people want to complete content as much as anyone else and many feel that they're just as good as those top X players. These people fill the remainder of the ranks of the 25s. Guilds in the 500-1000 spots in progression may have only 5 of these people (the moonkin, the elemental shaman, the destro warlock, generally). Guilds in the 1000-1500 spots may have 10 of them. Guilds in the 1500-2000 spots may have 15 and so on and so forth.

Generally though, those people join 25 mans because then they gain the benefits of playing with the 10-15 people that don't have those issues.

Two changes that Blizzard is implementing in Cata will cause major problems with those kinds of people.

1) Removing unique buffs.
2) Making 10s a viable alternative path.

With Blizzard removing unique buffs it means that the guilds in the 500-1000 spots are going to drop those people. There's no reason to keep them when you can have the frost DK that has 2 GTX480s or the mage that has 50 latency to the server. This means that there are more 'problem' people in the population.

With making 10s a viable alternative path, the 25s that are made up of 10-15 good players and 10-15 problem people will disband. The good players won't want to 'carry' the problem people.

This leaves a large population of problem people who will be attempting to raid. Blizzard will then see that the largest population isn't getting through the content and therefore the content will become easier until Blizzard reaches whatever percentage of people they want to be able to raid. So the only place I see these changes leading us to is easier and blander content. Maybe they'll add heroic modes that are targeted for a higher level of skill, but they seem loathe to change boss mechanics majorly so even those heroic modes are likely to end up bland.

reepicheep37
05-04-2010, 11:57 AM
I think that this tuning that Blizzard is talking about will be much easier than some people seem to think. This is because the difficulty in 25 mans is almost directly caused from having to organize so many people and get them to coordinate effectively. Once that is down, 25 man content is similar, in my opinion, to 10 man content.

In fact, I think that just the change of having both raids drop equivalent loot will solve a lot of the tuning problems. I read some of the earlier replies to this thread and they mention that 10 man is considered easier content because people are coming in from the previous 25 man tier gear and dominating something tuned for the previous 10 man tier gear. I agree wholeheartedly with this.

And, as for this killing 25 man content or making it a less attractive option to do, I think that's B.S. 25 man content is already not very attractive to many people, but these people feel the need to do it to get the best quality of gear available. For those that it is attractive to, they will still run the 25 man dungeons. This change really just gives people a couple of avenues to achieve the same goal.

Lyonhearrt
05-04-2010, 12:21 PM
My two coppers. I have raided in this game for a long while since the last 7 months of the original game. We started on ZG and ended on Naxx right before BC. While there were 40 man raids there were also 2 - 20 mans (ZG & AQ20) and 2 - 10 mans (UBRS & LBRS) or that's how I raided them. Though I hear Strat and Scholo started out as raids, by the time I there they got reduced to 5 mans. In BC, we had Kara & ZA. Everything changed in WotLK.

Now, instead of independent raid instances for smaller raids, we have parallel paths. This creates a few conflicts. People say this is just a game. Well, games at their highest levels are played by professionals for a lot of money. Games at very low levels are played by a bunch of friends who don't really care. The varying degree of competition depends upon the motivation. The harder something is to complete the greater the incentive usually has to be. Its not an absolute but is a true statement most of the time.

Though Arenas are highly competitive so is raiding. Guilds look to progression as a measure of how skilled one guild is compared to another. I'm sure there are other comparisons but this one jumps out. This is one of those conflicts that seems to be festering. Somehow, those in 10 mans feel they don't get their due in this chest thumping, as if the people who raid 25 mans don't actually think they're just as good. 25 man epeen vs 10 epeen. I say this as an observation of the many posts in the many forums on this announcement and not as some empirical measurement.

The 10 man raids as they are right now have everything they need to be successful. The argument about "strict" ten man guilds and how others(those with 25man gear) are overgeared to run them is actually specious at best. All instances are cleared quickly in the beginning by people who wear the prior tier. Those that first cleared Naxx in 25 man were in a lot of Sunwell & Tier 6. All content can be cleared if the skill & team work of those participating are at the highest level. So if 10 mans have everything they need to complete, why does the design need to change to let them have the same gear unless its about epeen? If 25 mans are supposedly going to stay together because they are having fun why doesn't the same apply for 10 mans, now? Why change the design?

On the other hand, the argument for 25's to have a higher gear level comes out of a sense of motivation and meritocracy. The ability to corral 25 people (not including the bench) is a roll coaster ride. New content brings in people while waiting for xpacs watches them wander away. There are many cycles to managing high volumes of people in a voluntary game. Many are mentioned here so I won't reiterate unless its necessary. People usually follow the path of least resistance. Except for those that already have the highest skill level in 25 mans, most will go 10 man for the same rewards. Example - the king's buff in ICC. How many turn it off. I know no one (there maybe but I don't know them) even those at the highest level that turn it off. Its the same instance for the same rewards, why? Path of least resistance.

It is argued that 10s and 25s will be the same skill level. First, I have only found one fight to be harder and that was Sarth 3d. No other fight in the game has been harder personally. Even the difficulty to Sarth 3d, was stated by Blizz not to be something they designed for but an after thought. But, the real challenge which I don't think they can duplicated between the 2 raid structures is what it takes to create the teamwork between 25 ppl and 10 ppl. The synergy and skill are what make a team successful. It just takes more time for 25 ppl than 10 with the same starting parameters. Teamwork isn't an instant for either. So, a 25 man could be faster than a specific 10 but 90%> it won't be.

Apologize for the wall of text but there are many strings of thought throughout these pages. I personally raid 10s and 25s because I like to raid, not for the gear. The parallel path I believe is the conflict. Never before did we get content limited as we do with this. The idea that the motivation is more gear doesn't do anything. My personal reason that I don't think this design should be implemented is the lore of the game. The world's greatest dragon, does it take cities or armies banding together to take it down, no, 10 ppl. Its weak. I think all end-instance raid bosses should take a large amount of people to defeat, maybe a few guilds. It's suppose to be epic when you take out Dragons and Gods. This design takes the epicness out of the game.

Hammerfists
05-04-2010, 01:53 PM
After the first one i really dont know why im bothering, maybe because i have all this extra time http://www.tankspot.com/../images/smilies/smile.gif. Of course in this perfect world id gladly replace them in heartbeat. Fact is with 25 there is a 2.5 times higher chance for somebody to cause a delay. Be it a disconnection, someones at the door, their dog spewed up or whatever. Surely its easier to find 10 people that will do the right thing than 25?

You have to differentiate between potential and fact. The potential for this to happen in a 25 is higher than 10. Doesnt mean that there arent 10 that have more people afk during trash pulls than 25. Its up to the leadership to establish checkpoints in a raid night to allow for people to take care of business whatever that may be. If you are constantly answering your phone or getting up to do something during a raid and i was a leader of this guild i would not look for that person to be in the core of my guild. This is bench material. But i digress: there is potential but is it a universal truth, no.


1) Id imagine any 10 man team would have a reserve or 2. No different in my scenario, only you need 36 players, which many 25 man raid guilds wouldnt have much trouble getting to.
2) Who said anything about once a month? If content is cleared in 10 man, then one cant progress any further. The next logical step in my mind would be to farm the place out in preparation for the next tier. If 25 mans are dropping more loot person, then guilds might want to pursue that option since they only get to kill the boss once per week anyway.


What may happen is 25 mans guilds break into 3 x 10 mans, smash out the progression and then switch to 25s to farm out the loot. Revert back to 10 mans for heroic progression and so on. One thing i know for sure is the competitive nature in gamers will be greater than any gear.


So than realistically you will be running 25s after you get 10m on farm. The reason i dont see this as a vialble solution now that its cleared up:
1) Synergy- Wont be there after your long hiatus in 10
2) Progression- Until you kill the last boss in hardmode you are still in progression, lots of good players look at your achievements to see where you are. If you are flopping around you will never reach your max potential
3)Complex Structure- If 10 will be on par to 25 unlike today that means you will need 3 raid leaders (not to mention 6 well geared tanks instead of 2/3 for 25) who will not only have to manage there 10 but have to devise a plan for 25, its much simpler to just go with a size and stick with it. Now im sure there might be guilds out there that opt for this i just dont see this idea hitting mainstream

Spiritus
05-04-2010, 04:20 PM
Who says the risk is going to be smaller?

Says the 15 extra people in the 25man who could possibly remember that it is their grandma's sister's birthday party so they type "OMG I'm so sorry, gtg. kthxtho, bai!" and /camp. Just because the difficulty as pertaining to iLVL may be the same, doesn't mean there is the same risk of a PuG raid hitting a brick wall in both raid sizes.

That is, of course, unless they make the first boss of every raid a hardcore coordination fight, which I seriously doubt will happen.

EDIT: Or, if you prefer a less colorful example, a simple D/C.

Arianne
05-05-2010, 03:54 PM
Who says the risk is going to be smaller?

I've been in several PUG ICC25s on my alt where we wiped twice on marrowgar and disbanded. I've never joined an ICC10 pug and not gotten to DBS (though it's about 60/40 pre-15% buff on whether you'd get DBS).

Hammerfists
05-05-2010, 04:18 PM
I've been in several PUG ICC25s on my alt where we wiped twice on marrowgar and disbanded. I've never joined an ICC10 pug and not gotten to DBS (though it's about 60/40 pre-15% buff on whether you'd get DBS).

One caveat though, today's 10 are tuned to be easier than 25. Cata will have 10/25 tuned to be the same difficulty.

Mangea
05-05-2010, 09:09 PM
I've been in several PUG ICC25s on my alt where we wiped twice on marrowgar and disbanded. I've never joined an ICC10 pug and not gotten to DBS (though it's about 60/40 pre-15% buff on whether you'd get DBS).
That's approaching the Cataclysm raid scenario with a WotLK mindset, where the 10 mans really are easier than the 25s. In Cata, it may be that the two raid sizes are of equal difficulty.

At that point, like Spiritus pointed out above, the risk has more to do with unreliable players. But an problem of unreliable players, or a D/C, could go both ways. A 25 man raid may have more people, and thus more opportunities for there to be an unreliable player, but the overall impact of one bad player will be less in a 25 than in a 10. So in that case, a 10 might be riskier.

Then again, this is really all just speculation.

Chamenas
05-05-2010, 09:39 PM
One caveat though, today's 10 are tuned to be easier than 25. Cata will have 10/25 tuned to be the same difficulty.

Only if you're doing 10 in gear from the previous tier's 25 mans. If you go strict 10 man, you'll find that the difficulty is quite equal.

Whatarush
05-05-2010, 10:25 PM
Blizz is a business, the overall objective is to maximise revenue. There are far more "casuals" than there are "hardcores", but members of both groups pay the same subscription fee. Ergo, it is obvious that their aim should be to please casuals rather than hardcores. It is extremely difficult/impossible to please one group without alienating the other, so, Cataclysm's design will continue to make WoW easier and easier, with every 1 hardcore player who quits the game replaced by 2 new casual players.

Terence
05-06-2010, 12:34 AM
yeah i like the little message at the end. nice shirt

doomdust
05-06-2010, 07:54 AM
well i like the new changes couse for people like me who is in a guild where we dont have people for 25 man but only 10 man so i cant get as good gear as people that raid 25 man. and i really hate 25 man. lets take an example: my main dont need loot from 10 man but could use some of that 25 man loot from icc but why bother when i know am gonna loose the loot to somone who does like 2k dps and stands in flame (lord marrowgar) and is thinking "why do i have to move? we have healers dont we ?" and still gets loot instead of people who imo should got it. people who take some time to gear them up for it and somone who is learning all the tacts 100%just to be sure and not fuck somthing up. so thats why i think that its a good idea that the same loot is gonna drop on 10 and 25 man modes so i can go 10 man and get the same gear while am raiding with people i like and enjoy plaing with rather than bring 15 people extra where 7-8 of them just runs around and dont know a shitt of what they are doing and what they are suposed to do most of the time.

Olat
05-06-2010, 10:49 AM
As the guild leader of a decent 25m Raiding guild, I was mixed with emotions when I read these changes.

Before I get started, I apologize, I know its long. there is no TL:DR version.

1. The aspect of killing off 25m raiding is still there.
2. Killing off 10m is apparent especially after the video which is a concept i didnt think about
3. More Loot = Bored Faster?
4. Same Lock Outs for Heroic and for 10m. but more Raids to do? Good or Bad?

Lemme go over my 4 topics here.
1. Killing off 25m's are still apparent:
Ponder on this, So day 1. 25 people show up (probably more since the first day of raiding is usually Farm Day IE First 8 Bosses in ICC) they clear up all the bosses not including any off the end bosses. YAY! Day 2. Its now progression day and we all know people stop showing up on progression days. Its a problem every guild has. so you have 19 people that want to raid. Well since you cant raid with 19 people the guild decides to switch it to 10m Mode. 9 people are left out. 9 people are sharing the EXACT Raid ID as the 10 people about to go off and continue raiding.

So that means if those 10 people kill ANY of the last 4 bosses in ICC those other 9 are excluded, saved, and screwed. This will happen and it will definitely cause for ALOT of in guild drama. Causing people to leave their current guild. Hell we have drama like this with the 30 or so people I have now. I pick my best 25 and or people who have better raid attendance and thus higher rank in my guild, and people complain. So imagine if not just 2-3 people get excluded but 9 or more?

2. Killing off 10m is apparent especially after the video which is a concept i didnt think about:
10m's hard or 25m Easier. Either way it seems to be a problem. Most serious, notice i didnt say hardcore, 25m Raiding guilds didnt have much trouble on bosses until the end bosses in each wing of ICC 25m. Ya Saurfang and lady deathwhisper gave some trouble but blizzard nerfed them or a work around was found out and they became boring and a joke way too fast. If you scale the diffculty down for 25m you can effectively kill off 25m Raiding or make it soo simple its boring. If you scale 10m Difficulty up with the limited number of players, the mechanics of the fight become way more drastic if a mistake occurs. Say a DPS dies or something in 25m No big deal you have alot more to cover it up. in 10m. You only have at most 6 dps (with 2 tanks 2 healers). Like was said in the video: this could lead to stagnant guild progression.

3. More Loot = Bored Faster?:
This is something that worries me greatly, that no one has even talked about yet, atleast that I have seen.

So you goto 25m you get 6 peices of loot now. YAY! Really? so you run 25m for about a month. Your now 100% geared out. You cant get a single upgrade any more. So you get bored. Why show up? No loot in it for you. Some people just enjoy raiding like my self, so we go because were a Raid Leader or Guild leader and just love the thrill of downing a boss. Can you say that for every guild member? of course not. Some people are in it for loot and if you say thats not true your kidding your self. Its a loot based game.

Now multiply this with the factor that the 25m difficulty might be scaled down to make it more like 10m? Imagine how fast some guilds will be sharding everything in Normal mode and only need like 1-2 upgrades from heroic. I say give it 1 month maybe 2 before you get bored with the level of challenge with no possible reward besides just downing a boss you think is trivial anyways.

4.Same Lock Outs for Heroic and for 10m. but more Raids to do? Good or Bad?
Already mentioned how the 9 people getting left out for the 25m guilds are gunna feel. Well now imagine the said raid lock outs for Heroic on top of that. Hell I hate that idea now. I enjoyed being able to go into ToC 25m knock it out , then go push on ToGC. Atleast if you couldnt down a boss in ToGC you accomplished something got maybe a possible upgrade for a few people and some badges. Now in ICC you just breeze threw ICC 25m and then spend hrs on a HM boss, just to turn it off and kill him if your guild couldn't do it. What about if your guild just downed LK 25m. and now you wanna work on HM's. Oh wait ... Nope cant do that. Raiding for the week is done.
--------------------------------------------

All in all I think Blizzard is forcing casual raiding on us. Its where the money is and so as a business it makes sense. As an avid gamer, I think its trash. I will give it a chance. Im not that biased, to just shrug it off. I have been playing MMO's since before the internet was invented on my local BBS MuD Door game for those old school games you know what I mean. These changes leave a stale and bitter taste in my mouth and TBH I dont know if I will be able to stomach this all when it finally comes out.

-Olat
<The Catalyst> (http://www.The-Catalyst.com)

Hammerfists
05-06-2010, 02:00 PM
Only if you're doing 10 in gear from the previous tier's 25 mans. If you go strict 10 man, you'll find that the difficulty is quite equal.

I totally agree. Thats why i find this as a poor example of what things are to come in Cataclysm. Similar "difficulty" is the x factor. All we can do is take them at their word right now and hope that this pans out alright.

Atromar
05-07-2010, 09:30 AM
I have a question that I'm unsure was addressed yet but with the new 10 and 25 man raid group sharing the same lockout can the raid size be changed during the lockout?

Our guild is a 10 man raiding guild but lets assume we could get 25 people. Generally our first raid night of the week tuesday all of our raiders show. It seems that in our second and third night we sometimes have trouble getting the rest of our raiders. Could we then go down to 10 man version for the remainder of that raid so that we don't get hurt by 10 people who couldn't make it?

Spiritus
05-07-2010, 09:39 AM
I have a question that I'm unsure was addressed yet but with the new 10 and 25 man raid group sharing the same lockout can the raid size be changed during the lockout?

Our guild is a 10 man raiding guild but lets assume we could get 25 people. Generally our first raid night of the week tuesday all of our raiders show. It seems that in our second and third night we sometimes have trouble getting the rest of our raiders. Could we then go down to 10 man version for the remainder of that raid so that we don't get hurt by 10 people who couldn't make it?

It is difficult to say. The folks who communicate for Blizzard [to the player base at least] are notoriously cryptic and their comment on this was none too enlightening. I wouldn't think much more of it until someone has had a chance to play with the system in beta.

Hammerfists
05-07-2010, 04:20 PM
Blizz is a business, the overall objective is to maximise revenue. There are far more "casuals" than there are "hardcores", but members of both groups pay the same subscription fee. Ergo, it is obvious that their aim should be to please casuals rather than hardcores. It is extremely difficult/impossible to please one group without alienating the other, so, Cataclysm's design will continue to make WoW easier and easier, with every 1 hardcore player who quits the game replaced by 2 new casual players.

This is a two dimensional argument. It holds that all a player can provide for Blizzard is his $15 a month. This is simply not true. "Hardcore" players usually go outside the box and provide theorycraft, add-ons, and sites just like this one which help promote the game. Without contributions from both parties a game can not be as hugely successful as WoW is today.

Furthermore the classic WoW forum catchphrase of "Hardcore vs Casual" doesn't apply here. Nor does this change somehow arise from a "majority". I've seen people throw this last one around a lot and I can't fathom how you can quantify that when taking all of WoW's raiders around the world (I doubt even Blizzard could either). The change comes from certain aspects of raiding that Blizzard feels need to change to make it more enjoyable.

1) Slower gearing and less experience per boss per week increases the lifespan of a tier
2) Allows for clear distinction of two raiding ladders (10 or 25) with the player's choice to choose which one to participate in
3) For areas like Europe 10 man format helps in creating guilds of the same language without feeling like raiding inferior content
4) 25 is still getting a bonus in more loot, this has yet to be seen by how much and if this will be the only reward. Point is it's something

To see the pitfalls that may arise just read Spiritus' post at the top of page 2

Bodasafa
05-07-2010, 06:56 PM
Says the 15 extra people in the 25man who could possibly remember that it is their grandma's sister's birthday party so they type "OMG I'm so sorry, gtg. kthxtho, bai!" and /camp. Just because the difficulty as pertaining to iLVL may be the same, doesn't mean there is the same risk of a PuG raid hitting a brick wall in both raid sizes.

That is, of course, unless they make the first boss of every raid a hardcore coordination fight, which I seriously doubt will happen.

EDIT: Or, if you prefer a less colorful example, a simple D/C.

Late to the party again, but Spiritus communicates what I was speaking to Lore. Put aside the difficulty between the 2 versions and just look at the simple logistics, 15 more people = a greater chance of failure in WoW, especially in a PuG environment.

mero12513
05-07-2010, 08:58 PM
My thoughts on the D/C and absent raider issue:

How is this any different from today? If we have people D/C during 25-man, or if people don't show up on night 2, then I'm stuck for that week. Sure, I can still raid 10. But I don't need gear from 10. I need gear from 25, because it's different gear. Gear-wise, the effect is the same. It doesn't solve a problem we have currently, but it doesn't create that problem.
I feel like people are pretending that being able to run both 10s and 25s makes missing one of them less of an issue. That's not the case. Current badge prices exist assuming that you run both 10 and 25-man. Missing one still hurts from that regard. And when gear is different in 10 and 25, missing one still leaves you out of all the gear you need in it.
To be fair, that is only the gear perspective. There's also the issue of just not having anything to do, which is certainly a legitimate concern.

On another point, having more, smaller raids is a huge reduction to the cost of losing a lockout do to player problems. Most likely, we'll see raids get less numerous and longer as new tiers open up, but in the beginning, we'll probably see instances similar to what we had in wrath: 3 instances, 2 of which were very short.

Because there will be shorter instances, one of the most apparent and important issues with the new system (the player substitution and reliability problem) is largely alleviated. This allows them to test out how well the new design feels out in the wild, which is almost always different than how we predict it will feel.

Mwawka
05-08-2010, 10:19 AM
25 people show up (probably more since the first day of raiding is usually Farm Day IE First 8 Bosses in ICC) they clear up all the bosses not including any off the end bosses. YAY! Day 2. Its now progression day and we all know people stop showing up on progression days. Its a problem every guild has.

This could actually work out better for 25 progression guilds with the new system. There are many people who would prefer to bang away at a new boss for a whole night than farm the bosses up to content that hasn't been cleared. I'm in a guild that often chooses the path of least resistance and at times it frustrates me. If it is truly impossible to make 10 man as challenging as 25 man, I would expect the players who are just in it for easier loot to take that route. Guilds that choose a 25 man progression path could see an infusion of players who have a like minded approach to the game and you may end up with a more reliable group of players who chose their game path for the same reasons rather than people who are just there because they want the best loot possible, but only when it's easy to get.

Spiritus
05-08-2010, 01:59 PM
If it is truly impossible to make 10 man as challenging as 25 man...

I haven't read every single post on this subject, but speaking for myself, I believe its is truly daunting to make 10mans and 25mans equally challenging without abandoning, or at the least simplifying, interesting encounter mechanics. It isn't a matter of 10s should be easy and 25s should be hard, its just that adding or loosing 15 bodies drastically changes how an encounter must be designed. When you must have two different design paths, the stasis of "equal" becomes subjective. However, since this is the interwebs generation, one will ultimately be perceived as more difficult than the other. When this eventually occurs, Blizzard will have a choice to make. Do they allow one progression path to be the perceived "least resistance" or do they continue to tinker? Remember 2v2s? Blizzard was having such a nightmare trying to balance 2v2s they eventually just said: "We cannot properly balance all class comps in 2v2s without fundamentally changing how we do class design. If you want the best gear, do 3v3s or 5v5s where we can promote more synergy and individual advantage is weaker. We know 2v2s are popular, but we want you to play 3v3 or 5v5 instead because it prevents us from having to overhaul the entire balance of the game."

Not particularly an elegant solution to a challenging problem. In this situation, 2v2s were the most popular option because it required less coordination and you relied on less people to play AND it offered the same rewards as 3v3 & 5v5. How did Blizzard solve this dilemma? They removed rewards from 2v2. Now 3v3 is the preferred team size for Arenas. I do not want to see this happen to PvE, where the community agrees on something that flies in the face of Blizzard's design goals, which in turn prompts a "godmode" fix to satiate the situation.

Mwawka
05-08-2010, 02:14 PM
I don't for a minute think that it will be easy for Blizzard to tune 10 and 25 man equally and I do believe that the basic logistics of 25 man will make it feel more challenging. There are certain mechanics that are just harder with 25 people. However, I also don't think 10 mans are tuned as easily as people think they are. Most of the people saying 10 mans are a joke haven't run a 10 man in the intended gear levels since Naxx, so it's not fair to just dismiss them so easily. I think 10 mans can be tuned to be closer to 25 man in difficulty, but the smaller number of people to manage makes assembling a group without weak links easier and will certainly minimalize the difficulty of certain mechanics. Here's hoping Blizzard can actually find some new boss fight mechanics that can equally challenge both group sizes.

veeman88
05-11-2010, 08:36 PM
Very good analysis in the upcoming changes and I enjoy how you touched on every available bit of information to raid changes. As far as the issue of not killing 10 and 25 man players goes I believe the issue will work itself out well. Without any interference from blizzard there will already be those that will stick with 25 man raiding and those that choose otherwise in their guilds. I have participated in leading a couple guilds and personally I would rather have a small group of 10-20 reliable players than trying to manage a group of 25. Now their are some Guild Leaders that feel differently and enjoy the challenge of managing that many. I think that the extra loot in 25 is just their to keep the large group raiding aspect alive for those who wish to do it, though there are already those who prefer the small, core raider based guilds that just haven't been able to stay afloat due to the significant difference in gear stats from 10 to 25.
Kudos Blizz for providing an alternative to those of us who do not enjoy the headaches of 25 man.

Stillkillin
06-13-2010, 06:41 AM
Interesting changes. What it will do (imo) is push the hardcore 25 man players more towards 25 man only raiding, possibly causing the 10 man raiders to be at a disadvantage in progression overall (but still get the nice gear ocasionally).

I'm not sure what they mean by making 10 man harder than 25 man? Currently 25 mans offer more room for carry and better overall raid dps (per person) than a 10 man group. Meaning, 10 mans have two tanks and two healers (3rd healer on some fights). This takes up 40%-50% of the raid group leaving the other 50%-60% for dps on any given fight. Most 25 man raids use two tanks and five healers, one dps has a tanking offspec, leaving 68% of your raid members as dps at all times and 72% of your raid as dps on the fights that only require two tanks. Consider the extra buffs from a 25 man group and 25 mans quickly come out ahead of 10 mans, only having to contend with a few extra mechanics and extended boss stats. In 10 mans each player also accounts for more of the group, deaths cause major problems in 10 mans and only minor setbacks in a 25 man. Taking these things into account and personal experience I would have to say that 10 man is currently more demanding than 25 man raiding (beyond the basic problem of getting everyone on the same page which only covers a few very technical demanding fights) if the player has followed a strict 10man only progression route.

To put this into perspective, the last raiding guild I was in went farther in 25 man than in two out of three of their ten man groups. Their best ten man group went 8/12 in 10 man and went 7/12 in 25 man with the lesser geared players tagging along. If the 10 mans were currently that much easier I would assume to see a larger margin of progress in the 10 man groups than the 25 man group(especially considering the best 10man group had 25 man gear on each person).

salscorpi
06-15-2010, 11:09 AM
To answer Scyla above, no Blizzard has only stated that they wished to bring the difficulty level of 10s & 25s in-line with each-other. While most people are seeing this as 10s becoming more difficult (because it would validate the larger 10m raiding population), it is possible that 25mans could be tuned down. This is purely a wait and see deal.

Is Blizzard trying to kill 25man raiding? No, that would be extreme. However, it isn't like they haven't removed incentive from popular things in the past (see 2v2 Arenas) or outright removed raiding formats (40mans). Regardless, I believe you sugar coated your presentation by not bringing up the most problematic issues this change will bring:

(1) Reduction of both quantity and quality of PuGing. With only one lockout, you will not have 10man raiders PuGing into 25man raids or 25man raiders PuGing into 10man raids. Without this, the only people who will be availible to PuG in any given week are the unguilded & those who missed their guild's raid. This will be a very small percent of a server population every week. Furthermore, it will exacerbate the "Reserve" role problem even more because it will be infinitely harder to PuG in a few people when Joe Shaman & John Priest are on vacation [which affects both 10s & 25s].
[B][U]


Spiritus' post reveals a few more issues regarding shared raid ID, however this one hits myself and my guild mates the hardest by in essence eliminating a fun and valued raid opportunity. Our guild currently runs only ten man content, however for the past 11 weeks we have been hosting a 25 man ICC run on Saturdays where others from 10 man only guilds, people who missed their guild run, or alts of folks from 25 man guilds get together, have a blast and get another raid night.

This event has had many positive side effects and many have expressed that it is a highlight in their raid week. Obviously with single raid ID for 10/25 man content it will not continue. Thus for the "casuals" or people who really enjoy their smaller, tight knit 10 man guilds, options are limited or nil if you wish to see and participate in 25 man content.

You could:

a) leave the guild you enjoy and people that you raid with regularly for a 25 man guild
b) attempt to "merge" with another guild (try not to laugh)
c) accept the fact that your experience will now be limited not by your desire to participate but by a shared raid ID

Boo. Just Boo. Perhaps I am missing something obvious here, but other than higher ilevel items dropping in ten man encounters I do not see the upside.

Spiritus
06-15-2010, 01:10 PM
...options are limited or nil if you wish to see and participate in 25 man content.

Be careful with the word "content," as it is a disputed term that could be used to invalidate your argument [if it is not defined first by you]. For the future, I would use the word "experience" as I have yet to have that term disputed when talking about the differences between 10s & 25s.