PDA

View Full Version : The Weekly Marmot - Cataclysm Tier 1 vs ICC



Kazeyonoma
02-15-2011, 10:34 AM
QMF8E0FTbUg

Follow Lore on Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/devolore) or Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/devolore)!

cjbuddy09
02-15-2011, 10:55 AM
I wouldn't mind a gating system say where, the raid is split up into wings, and instead of killing the end boss of the dungeon and getting acess to the hardmodes, say if you kill the last boss in a given wing, then you can do the hardmodes for sed wing.

Kazeyonoma
02-15-2011, 10:57 AM
I wouldn't mind a gating system say where, the raid is split up into wings, and instead of killing the end boss of the dungeon and getting acess to the hardmodes, say if you kill the last boss in a given wing, then you can do the hardmodes for sed wing.

That'd be a welcome way of doing things in my opinion as well, but that doesn't seem to help with what his complaint was: the sheer quantity of raid content required more time than he liked.

feralminded
02-15-2011, 11:51 AM
Yeah as a fairly serious/progression player who fancies himself able enough for any top 100-500 guild I LOVE this tier of content more than any I've played yet (which is all except for the last half of BC). That said I can definitely see how the 1-50s and the sub 10,000 guilds must hate it.

Sfr528
02-15-2011, 12:59 PM
I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for players who are whining that they lost their lives because the game had TOO much content. That's what the purpose of the game is; it is not blizzards responsibility to make sure players step away from the game to get some fresh air and exercise every once and a while.

Kanzer
02-15-2011, 01:01 PM
I still fail to see where this "whining" and asking for sympathy stuff is coming from.

Loganisis
02-15-2011, 01:24 PM
That'd be a welcome way of doing things in my opinion as well, but that doesn't seem to help with what his complaint was: the sheer quantity of raid content required more time than he liked.

How much of that though would be sped up by having earlier access to heroic loot? With a kill endboss to open a wing of hardmodes, heroic loot would be obtained quicker and for the best players in the world, that would be a huge help. They're not going to be decked out in full heroic loot, but a few pieces here and there, for the margins they're playing at... that would be huge.

Papapaint
02-15-2011, 01:57 PM
I still fail to see where this "whining" and asking for sympathy stuff is coming from.

This.

Many top guilds have made similar comments. I think the core of the issue is actually relatively simple: so long as there is ONE guild willing to devote massive amounts of time to progression, the only way there can be any semblance of competition is for some restriction of content or for other guilds to also devote similar amounts of time.

Ultimately, WoW is a competitive game. In fact, you'd have to work pretty hard to find any multiplayer game without competition, and even single player games offer forms of competition with speed runs, or points, or secret coins, or what-have-you. The only reason WoW goes beyond beating your friends at Smash, or Halo, and the reason there are websites that track which guilds are the best guilds in the world is because people want to know this information... so in a way, it's a problem that extends far beyond the top 10 guilds or so. Wowprogress doesn't exist because of the top 5 guilds. MMO-Champion doesn't report world firsts so that the 15 or 20 guilds going for those firsts can see who got it. We, as a community, are interested, and this has encouraged an even stronger spirit of competition amongst these guilds.

That doesn't necessarily mean all these top guilds are gunning for notoriety, as some people seem to think. Honestly, I doubt Method cares one bit whether or not people read their website. However, notoriety is not the same as accomplishment; the satisfaction in gaining a world first isn't a sense of superiority, but a sense of accomplishment. It's really satisfying to put a large amount of work, creative thinking, and practice into something and succeed at a competition. This applies to both WoW and the real world. To suddenly be presented with a staggering increase in the effort required to be one of those world-first guilds, combined with increased pressure by larger numbers of competitive guilds, no doubt frustrates and exhausts those players that want to remain competitive.

This is a playstyle choice that actually is outside that of the individual players and guilds. We all play this game for our own reasons. Some of us play because we enjoy playing with friends. Some people play for gear. Some people like the story, some people enjoy the challenge, and some players enjoy the accomplishment. We're dealing here with players who enjoy the accomplishment of high-end raiding and world firsts. The choice here isn't between "being in a top guild" or "being in a lower ranked guild," rather it's "being in a top guild" or "not playing at all." When the time investment becomes severe enough that the effort outweighs the achievement, I agree with Method in thinking that there may be a problem somewhere along the line. There's a question as to whether or not this problem is a result of our community or if instead the blame lies with blizzard, but it's still a problem and worthy of consideration.

It's true that players could simply opt out of this competitive environment, but if that's an enjoyable part of the game, they may instead opt to voice their opinions on how to improve the game. In the end, that's all this is. These players will still be going for world firsts whether or not changes are made, so I honestly don't see a problem with trying to devise a system that is slightly less time-intensive.

I do still think that world firsts should require large time investments, but surely there can be a middle ground between the awful gating systems of Coliseum and ICC and the extreme breadth of content available in Cataclysm. It is worth noting in this discussion that Cataclysm has presented the largest amount of endgame content ever available at a single release.

In the end, we can choose to create divisions in the World of Warcraft community by drawing these arbitrary lines of casual, hardcore, world first, etc, or we can all work together and respond to one another as players and communicate openly and effectively to improve gameplay for ALL members of the community. Maybe this is a little too kumbaya, but imagine the power we could have if we worked together, rather than chastised players for having different priorities. Imagine if we came to this issue NOT from the perspective of wanting to "pick sides" based on this guild's ranking and status, but instead coming together and wondering if they might have a point.

To which I ask you: At any level of play, should a video game require a larger time investment than real life to remain competitive? I think the answer is no. If this is the case, then we either need to reestablish what it is that defines a competitive guild and a world first, or hope that blizzard does this for us. In the end though, I'm convinced that this is a problem inherent in our community, not only at the top.

feralminded
02-15-2011, 02:20 PM
clipped

While I believe your entire post is very well thought out and written I think you need to be careful in suggesting anything that would negatively impact the other 75,000 raiding guilds in any way. If a gating system can be put in place that would *only* affect the top 25 guilds and make it a bit easier for them to have some breathing room while progressing, fine. However making changes that negatively affect, in any way, the rest of the community to suit those top 25 guilds is a step backwards. I know this is not what you were directly suggesting but it is a potential result of anything they do to assist the plight of the top 25 guilds.

I personally LOVE the current tier of content and strongly hope that they continue to be this challenging. The only point I will concede is that perhaps the barrier to entry is a bit high. Perhaps one of the three dungeons should have been specifically tuned to be moderately easier so that the truly casual could have a chance to get down 2-4 bosses in a reasonable amount of time. I sincerely hope hardmodes remain this hard and I sincerely hope end-bosses remain this technical. I say that with only experience on 3/13 HMs so perhaps I'm overstepping a bit but I'm extremely satisfied with the challenges so far as they make the sense of accomplishment that much more significant.

So again if a gating system *must* be erected to prevent the top 25 or even top 50 guilds from breaking themselves on the content then all I ask is that whatever system is devised be set at a high enough level so as to have a net zero effect on the rest of the guilds who are not in the world first hunt. Why negatively affect them at all since the system isn't really being implemented to benefit them.

Papapaint
02-15-2011, 02:22 PM
So again if a gating system *must* be erected to prevent the top 25 or even top 50 guilds from breaking themselves on the content then all I ask is that whatever system is devised be set at a high enough level so as to have a net zero effect on the rest of the guilds who are not in the world first hunt. Why negatively affect them at all since the system isn't really being implemented to benefit them.

I would agree wholeheartedly. I think ICC's gating system was awful for this reason.

Bovinity
02-15-2011, 02:24 PM
When the time investment becomes severe enough that the effort outweighs the achievement, I agree with Method in thinking that there may be a problem somewhere along the line. There's a question as to whether or not this problem is a result of our community or if instead the blame lies with blizzard, but it's still a problem and worthy of consideration.

Maybe the fallacy here is that people are making the assumption that Blizzard has any intention whatsoever of catering to guilds that are bound and determined to play tremendous amounts of time to consume the content as quickly as possible. I think MMO history has shown us that no matter what the designers do, there will be players willing to sacrifice anything to "win".

I can't speak for them, naturally, but there seems to be this underlying assumption that Blizzard has some intent and/or responsibility to do something to particularly cater to this very, very exclusive style of play and for all we know they simply have no intention of doing so, they just want to get the content out there and let people enjoy it at whatever pace they wish.

Papapaint
02-15-2011, 02:30 PM
Maybe the fallacy here is that people are making the assumption that Blizzard has any intention whatsoever of catering to guilds that are bound and determined to play tremendous amounts of time to consume the content as quickly as possible. I think MMO history has shown us that no matter what the designers do, there will be players willing to sacrifice anything to "win".

I can't speak for them, naturally, but there seems to be this underlying assumption that Blizzard has some intent and/or responsibility to do something to particularly cater to this very, very exclusive style of play and for all we know they simply have no intention of doing so, they just want to get the content out there and let people enjoy it at whatever pace they wish.

Except Blizzard caters to ALL of its players. I don't see why we should exclude any sect of players from this. That's the whole purpose behind a company that owns the largest MMO franchise in the world--to cater to multiple styles of players.

Bovinity
02-15-2011, 02:32 PM
Except Blizzard caters to ALL of its players. I don't see why we should exclude any sect of players from this. That's the whole purpose behind a company that owns the largest MMO franchise in the world--to cater to multiple styles of players.

But not at the expense of other players, and releasing less content or gating it or other artifical little blocks for the sake of a miniscule little handful of players that otherwise cannot control themselves seems extremely counterproductive. The general consensus from the community seems to be that the amount of content and the ability to enjoy it at your own pace has been a great success overall.

feralminded
02-15-2011, 02:33 PM
I can't speak for them, naturally, but there seems to be this underlying assumption that Blizzard has some intent and/or responsibility to do something to particularly cater to this very, very exclusive style of play and for all we know they simply have no intention of doing so, they just want to get the content out there and let people enjoy it at whatever pace they wish.

I can't speak for blizzard either but one point that Papa Paint made very well was why the top guilds are in fact important to the community ... as clearly they are. At least amongst say the top 5000 world guilds (which to be honest is approximately the top ~5% of guilds, so certainly not everyone by any stretch), these top 25 or 50 guilds are VERY important. What they do dictates what/how we'll do things when our turn comes in the following weeks.

Now there's plenty of evidence to suggest that at the very least blizzard appreciates the top guilds for their play-testing skills. Blizzard retuned Nefarian after Paragon had their way with him and they apparently had developers present actively changing the Sinestra encounter between pulls for Paragon. So whether Blizzard cares about their larger impact on the community or not (and I'd have to assume they do), they certainly appreciate and respect what they do to their bosses. :)

Kanzer
02-15-2011, 02:47 PM
With each tier of content blizzard has tried more and more to find a way to cater to all of its players, Cataclysm is no different. Some ideas weren't received so well, some of them were liked in principle but were missing alittle something. In my eyes they are getting closer and closer to coming up with something optimal, but the only real way is through trial and error and see what the player base says.

Lore did a fantastic job of going over different ideas and possiblities of what can come next.

He also brought up an amazing point in that the only way these types of guilds can exist is because of the long breaks they get inbetween tiers of content.

All in all theres a difference between whining/blaming and voicing/sharing your opinion or point of view on something. Speech, tone of voice, word usage...its also the difference between constructive criticism and berating. It does matter, and makes a difference.

Papapaint
02-15-2011, 02:47 PM
But not at the expense of other players, and releasing less content or gating it or other artifical little blocks for the sake of a miniscule little handful of players that otherwise cannot control themselves seems extremely counterproductive. The general consensus from the community seems to be that the amount of content and the ability to enjoy it at your own pace has been a great success overall.

But the general consensus isn't always correct, and the entire point of my post was that we need to open a route of discussion to try to determine a way to accomplish an improved situation WITHOUT it being at the expense of other players.

Say, for example, BWD was the only raid to be released at launch, with BoT and TotfW available at two later points. Even right now, there would be only a handful of guilds that had run out of progression content in BWD. Had BoT been opened, say January 14th, tip top guilds could have had some lovely time off, most of the high-end guilds would still be progressing on 3-5 day/week schedule, and the average playerbase still would only be a few bosses into hardmodes.

I'm not suggesting that this is anything close to an ideal situation, but it does illustrate that it's possible to gate the high end without stifling the progression of the lower-ranked guilds.

Bovinity
02-15-2011, 02:56 PM
Say, for example, BWD was the only raid to be released at launch, with BoT and TotfW available at two later points. Even right now, there would be only a handful of guilds that had run out of progression content in BWD.

But this defeats the idea of having all the content available for everyone to consume at their own pace, and having a great variety of content for people to enjoy.


Had BoT been opened, say January 14th, tip top guilds could have had some lovely time off

This is actually one of the big points of contention...they can have all the time off they want. There seems to be this feeling that they're somehow forced into spending the maximum amount of time playing the game, and that's just not the case. If they want to be an extreme gaming guild that puts an incredible amount of time into the game, that's great. But lets not suggest that it is anything but their choice.

Fetzie
02-15-2011, 03:11 PM
Perhaps a different way of solving "too much content, too little time", would be to limit boss access by time, but allow access to all bosses (except endbosses or those with pre-requisites). Over time you could unlock the possibility to kill an extra boss or two. So the first ID in you can kill four bosses. Which four you kill is completely up to you (except bosses that have pre-requisites you cannot unlock. When you have filled your "quota" for the ID you can up your cap by two, opening up two of chimaeron, maloriak, atramedes, V&T, Ascendent council, council of wind or Al'akir. When you have killed these 5 bosses, whichever you choose inside of an ID, you get two more. Each time you complete your quota you can increase your allotted boss kills. So for 12 bosses of content you would need 5 weeks to unlock it all. Heroic mode would be engage-able from day 1 like in ulduar, but the chances of success would be rather slim without the gear from normal modes.

HOWEVER, using an extended raid lock you could go for nef in the second ID (you kill at least magmaw, omnotron in the first ID), as they would still be dead in an extended raid lock. This would lead to an interesting race for world firsts - do you go for broke and keep the reset with a dead worm + golem council or do you reckon that in the long run it is better to farm gear for heroic mode. The guilds who win the normal mode race would not necessarily be the ones getting the heroic mode world/region first kills.

Papapaint
02-15-2011, 03:17 PM
But this defeats the idea of having all the content available for everyone to consume at their own pace, and having a great variety of content for people to enjoy.

Which is why I used it as an example for gating that doesn't impede the PROGRESSION of lower guilds at the cost of higher guilds, and even CONCEDED that "I'm not suggesting that this is anything close to an ideal situation". You completely ignored my final sentence. What if instead I'd said that end bosses weren't available until January? I don't think a single guild under the top 300 or so guilds even got to see those bosses, let alone kill them.

My point is it's POSSIBLE to come to a solution that can appeal to all players. That's all WoW has been doing since release, is transforming into a game that IS appealing to all players. That's why there's 12 million people playing. Some of those people are competitive. You clearly aren't, and you're downright dismissing the opinions of those players who are.


This is actually one of the big points of contention...they can have all the time off they want. There seems to be this feeling that they're somehow forced into spending the maximum amount of time playing the game, and that's just not the case. If they want to be an extreme gaming guild that puts an incredible amount of time into the game, that's great. But lets not suggest that it is anything but their choice.

They can not have all the time off they want and still enjoy the aspect of the game they most enjoy. Again, if you read my first post, you'd see that I agree with everything you say right here, but also think there is room for discussion on how to improve this model. If you're not interested in helping the discussion beyond "I don't like it when top guilds bring up issues with the game", then I have no option but to dismiss you as closed-minded and unwilling to foster discussion.

I'll ask you directly: what is so offensive about a top guild having an opinion on the amount of time they had to spend to remain a top guild AS OPPOSED to the amount of time they had to spend on previous tiers of content? If your answer is "because they're a top guild and choose that," please remember that no other expansion or patch release has had even a remotely similar amount of available endgame progression content at a single time. If you can not answer this question without an ad-hominem about the players themselves or their choices, then your problem is bigotry, and you need to reconsider whether or not you are actually okay with anyone enjoying the game the way they enjoy playing this game.

Ion
02-15-2011, 03:19 PM
u mad bro?

Bovinity
02-15-2011, 03:27 PM
'll ask you directly: what is so offensive about a top guild having an opinion on the amount of time they had to spend to remain a top guild AS OPPOSED to the amount of time they had to spend on previous tiers of content?

They can have all the opinions they want. Who said they couldn't have an opinion?


If your answer is "because they're a top guild and choose that," please remember that no other expansion or patch release has had even a remotely similar amount of available endgame progression content at a single time.

Exactly. This content push has been absolutely stellar. Just amazing. Never before have we seen such a huge variety of good content with difficulty levels spanning the entire spectrum of players and the ability to consume it at whatever rate every player sees fit for themselves. It's amazing, really top-notch.


If you can not answer this question without an ad-hominem about the players themselves or their choices, then your problem is bigotry, and you need to reconsider whether or not you are actually okay with anyone enjoying the game the way they enjoy playing this game.

You've really got to tone down the sensitivity here. There's no attacking here, no ad-hominems, no bigotry and it really seems to me that the only people who aren't ok with people enjoying the game the way they want are the ones who want to restrict what other players can do for the sake of an extremely exclusive group of players.

Kanzer
02-15-2011, 03:33 PM
They can have all the opinions they want. Who said they couldn't have an opinion?

He didn't ask if they could have opinions, he asked what is so offensive about their having an opinion. And I point this out because I've been asking it from the start. The amount of negativity people have pulled from simple well worded opinions is astonishing to say the least.


You've really got to tone down the sensitivity here. There's no attacking here, no ad-hominems, no bigotry and it really seems to me that the only people who aren't ok with people enjoying the game the way they want are the ones who want to restrict what other players can do for the sake of an extremely exclusive group of players.

Again, noone is advocating such a thing. I can't even tell you how many times its been said that the point is finding a system that works for everybody. And this even ties back to the original question of what is so bloody offensive about "Personally I would welcome a reasonable gate system."?

Again and again you are deflecting questions and suggesting people are saying things that they are not.

Bovinity
02-15-2011, 03:34 PM
He didn't ask if they could have opinions, he asked what is so offensive about their opinion

That's not what he said. Read it again. He asked what was so offensive about them HAVING an opinon.


Again and again you are deflecting questions and suggesting people are saying things that they are not.

In light of the first point, you may want to rethink that one.

Kanzer
02-15-2011, 03:36 PM
More deflections. Again the question is what is so offensive about it? You can nit pick all you want but until you answer the question its going to remain the same.

Papapaint
02-15-2011, 03:38 PM
u mad bro?

Not particularly, I just enjoy discussion. Good contribution.


no bigotry and it really seems to me that the only people who aren't ok with people enjoying the game the way they want are the ones who want to restrict what other players can do for the sake of an extremely exclusive group of players.

Ah. Here I think we've nailed the crux of the argument between you and I.

Do you really think there's no way to implement a gating system that affects the top end of players and not the bottom end, or those in between? Let's say, for example, the top 450 guilds in the world make up the top end, and we want to come up with a gating system for those players.

By the time Paragon was pushing heroic Nef, fewer than 350 guilds had seen the encounter on normal mode. At the time of the first Sinestra kill, there were 356 kills on Cho'gall. By the time Paragon had cleared all of the content, roughly 300 guilds had a heroic kill.

As of right this minute, Halfus and Chimaeron are the only heroic modes that have been killed by any players out of the top 2%, although Maloriak gets by on decimal points. This says to me, quite clearly, that there could easily have been a gating system in place that affected the top 2% of the guilds without affecting everyone else.

Which means that there could, in fact, be a valid point being made by this guild in suggesting that some method of gating could have improved top end gameplay--because, in the end, their statement was nothing more than their feelings on how they could improve high-end gameplay--without that valid point being undermined by the illusion that any guild outside of the top 2% would feel any change at all to their content availability.

Ion
02-15-2011, 03:40 PM
Not particularly, I just enjoy discussion. Good contribution.

It was roughly on par with the rest of the drivel in this thread.

Bovinity
02-15-2011, 03:41 PM
More deflections. Again the question is what is so offensive about it? You can nit pick all you want but until you answer the question its going to remain the same.

What am I deflecting? I was perfectly straightfoward with my opinion on the current content. And stop asking what is so "offensive", I haven't said anything was offensive at all.


Do you really think there's no way to implement a gating system that affects the top end of players and not the bottom end, or those in between? Let's say, for example, the top 450 guilds in the world make up the top end, and we want to come up with a gating system for those players.

No matter what, a gating system is going to restrict *someone*. What is the big objection to leaving the content open and letting every single player decide what is the right pace for them? Why is that so.....offensive? *snicker*

Papapaint
02-15-2011, 03:51 PM
What is the big objection to leaving the content open and letting every single player decide what is the right pace for them? Why is that so.....offensive? *snicker*

This was what I meant with my discussion of how the community perceives "world firsts". Technically, the "right pace" for those top guilds is determined by what we as a community expect of them. We can assume that these players enjoy, to a certain degree, the freedom of dumping large amounts of time into progression in a competitive fashion. Can we therefore assume that there's a point where that same freedom they enjoy also becomes overwhelming with too much content?

While I wasn't a huge fan of limited attempts in ICC, I think there was a point--around 30 attempts or so--where it really worked out. Top guilds were able to spend a good deal of time on the encounter, but weren't forced to necessarily overdo it, while guilds like mine at the time never came close to using up all the attempts.

In addition, it did turn progression from "let's throw ourselves at this as many times as we can until it falls over" into "let's get as much data from each attempt as possible". I don't think time expenditure should be the only dividing factor between these top guilds.

cattebrie
02-15-2011, 04:06 PM
I think we should gate heroic modes only, and still make you kill the end boss of the instance first. I.E. All bosses are able open day one on normal mode, but you gate how fast we can kill heroic mode bosses.

I think this would be a perfect balance for all raiding guild. Most guilds (Casual/Semi-hardcore) would never even notice the gating system as by the time they kill the end boss of a raid, the heroic gates will have been opened.

However, it gives the Top end guilds a chance to breath every once and while. I also personally like the idea because it resets the race a couple times as well. Normally when there is no gating as soon as one guild gets ahead they stay ahead just because they get to see each boss first.

If you have a gate Premonition may win the first 4 heroic kills but it is forced to stop for 2 weeks because of a gate, it gives a change for the other guilds to catch up. And then when the next gate opens,the race is started anew.

Anyways that is my opinion.

Belak
02-15-2011, 04:27 PM
Personally, I think this was Bliz's response to the manhandling their end-game content took at the beginning of Wrath. Was it Ensidia who came out 60some hours after Wrath's release and complained they had cleared everything?

I strongly suspect Bliz remembered that, too, when they designed T11 content.

Knighterrant81
02-15-2011, 06:08 PM
Make the gates heroic-only, and I think we have a system. We actually ended up burning out in ICC because it took too long to get to the end boss. We were so tired of farming old bosses and just couldn't finish off the LK because alot of our players burnt out and went to do other things. Make the gates heroic-only, so that the world first crowd can pace themselves. The difficulty of normal modes could be adjusted down a bit as well - we've had to sit several raiders who weren't our absolutely top performers and a few actually left the guild over it - which was sad because they were good people, but we couldn't afford to bring someone in for bosses when they can't do enough DPS or manage the movement the boss requires. It would be nice if the DPS requirements were relaxed a bit, or perhaps that movement was a bit more forgiving in normal modes so we didn't have to be hardasses to people every week.

Gate the heroic modes, make it so they can do the heroic modes on day 1 if they want, and tone down the difficulty of the normal modes a bit (just a bit though I don't want the return of Wrath modes where joe blow in greens is an acceptable raider).

Kahmal
02-15-2011, 06:12 PM
I love how when I can finally raid hardcore in WoTLK it was made a joke.

They make it mean something again in Cata when I can't raid hardcore at all, and the Normals are to hard to pug lol.

I personally think it's ridiculous that Hardcore guilds are complaining about content difficulty. We all know Method, and Paragon or even Ensidia are awesome guilds, if you dont get a couple World First cause you felt like taking a break know one is going to forget your past accomplishments (meaning that you have had World First, who actually remembers the individual ones you killed first by heart?)

The encounters I've done so far 4/6 BWD aren't much harder then Karazhan. I mean sure Magmaw and Maloriak may have a few more mechanics then Attumen and Maiden of Virtue but from what I've seen in PuGs is a lot of healers just flat out suck. And it took me awhile to finally clear Karazhan in one night.

Katzazi
02-15-2011, 07:03 PM
They are not complaining about content difficulty but about the amount of available fresh content at the same time.

I think someone above has the right point and idea: There is more than one point of gating. It's giving more people a chance to compete. Without gating the guilds who can throw enough player time at the raid wins. (Sure, they have to play at an much higher level than most other players do, but it's a competition between the best guilds/players to begin with. All of them can and do play at that level.) If everybody has to take a break now and again it's best for everyone. The players who take those breaks naturally (the ones in the middle and the casual ones) are not affected by the forced breakes. If all, they get a chance to get closer to the top group because they have more time to close the gap.

The idea of gating stuff is not a new idea for competions. It's actually something you can see quite often when looking at sport races that go over multiple days. Think about the race Paris-Dakar or Tour de France. It's not a race that starts at one date and everybody can drive/ride as long as they want to. The races are broken down to relativevly short etapes doable on a daily basis. There are even days off. And everybody starts at the same time again at the next day. (Sure the time spent is added at the end, but at least everybody has the theoretical chance to beat the top guy at least on that day.)

So a gating system that let's everybody not fighting for world firsts be able to do it at their own pace but controls the speed of the race so it's done at a healthfull pace for all the attendants is a good idea.

My bet would also be on something that only gates the heroic modes. I like the idea with the number of bosses you can try/kill. But I doubt that it would work. The top end people would just change toons and enter the other encounters with them or stuff like that.

Kahmal
02-15-2011, 11:26 PM
Wasn't Sunwell far more brutal? Even Ulduar HMs perhaps when you think One Light or Zero Lights?

swelt
02-16-2011, 02:46 AM
I think if Lore's analysis illustrated anything, it's precisely that it's not possible to please everyone. I would challenge anyone to point to any given expansion and it's raid tiering approach and demonstrate that it's ever been achieved before. You can go back through each expansion and find groups that have had a really rough deal. The question comes down to how many people can you please, and how little can you piss off those that don't get exactly what they want.

I think if the complaint is that there's just too much content, that's a pretty good outcome. That wasn't exactly Sco's complaint though, and I think it's important to point out that the absence of gating around the Christmas holiday is a very legitimate point. As a 'middle class' guild, we simply decided that we would not make any serious efforts on progression until after Christmas, but even in our own realm ecosystem of competition, that decision probably cost us a few places. For guilds that really care about world progression rankings, that's a bigger deal. I always defended the rather harsh first gate in Icecrown Citadel solely on the fact that the patch hit just before Christmas. Sure, just having 4 bosses after months of ToGC was galling, but being under pressure to run progression raids over the holiday period isn't a nice position for a guild to be put in.

Should they nerf the current content? In the past, it was almost a standard practice for raid content to get a pass of nerfs to help along progression and I think we can probably expect to see a few things down-tuned fairly soon. Someone from a truly casual guild asked me where to start with T11 content the other day and I had to warn them that there were no easy bosses. The last patch unlocked heroic dungeons for the masses, I expect a similar (if not as extreme) pass of tuning to be applied to the raid content. Hopefully it will just be a case of adjusting the severity of the fight mechanics, maintain the importance of the mechanics but give a bit of slack if you fail them, rather than nerf them into the ground. No doubt hardcore (or more honestly, hardcore wannabee) forum jockeys will be in outrage over such nerfs, but MMOs aren't static content and this kind of unwrapping of content over time is what keeps vitality going.

krilz
02-16-2011, 04:34 AM
I find it hard to sympathize with guilds that spends huge amounts of time in instances in order to gain world firsts and claim to be burn out as a result. No one is putting a gun to their head and if they got sponsors that wants results, then that's their problem. I personally love this expansion so far and only by raiding 2-3 nights (4 hours at a time) we've achieved 4/13 in Heroic 10's. The fact that we don't have to wait for a gate to kill more just keeps us going in our own desired pace.

Besides, one of the things I don't like about gating systems is that once someone beat a certain boss in order to progress, they gain an advantage over other guilds. The best comparison I have was Nihilum who was the first guild in TBC to beat Kael'thas and were the first into Black Temple. The fact that they got all number one kills in BT as a result of this wasn't the problem that you needed to kill KT to get that advantage but that the bosses in early BT were far too easy. If you start with gating again, it doesn't matter that you killed the last boss before the gate 1 month before the other guilds. As long as they kill the last boss before the next gate opens, you're on even terms again which sort of defeats the purpose IMHO.

As for attunement, I didn't have a huge problem with it. The biggest problem was that it was on an individual basis, meaning that if you had 25 people attuned for the next instance/boss/whatever, than those exact 25 people had to progress and if you wanted someone else you had to go back to kill the old boss and getting recruits who were already attuned was a huge hassle. However, if you could attune your entire guild instead that would solve a lot of problems. The biggest problem is how to solve it around guildless people in PUG's which I don't have a quick solution for.

sakkdaddy
02-16-2011, 04:48 AM
I actually liked the limited attempts system, mostly because our guild is full of highly skilled players but we only raid 3 nights a week, for 4 hours a night. When we were working on Anub'arak, some weeks we didn't even get through all of the attempts because the Anub fight was fairly long. It's nice to reward skill over time.

The main drawback though was that each pull did feel a bit more stressful, even when we knew we might not even use up all 50 attempts that week. The main benefit was that skill was rewarded over time for the most part, at least after the mass soulstoning was fixed. The other huge drawback was that people felt like they needed to run alt raids, even 2 alt raids, to get more practice and attempts on the bosses each week. These alt raids were the ultimate failure of a system that would otherwise be pretty nice.

I think a heroic only gating system makes sense. Allowing only 3-4 new heroic modes to be attempted each month would really prevent a lot of burnout from the top guilds, and not affect the rest of us much.

I do not want normal modes nerfed much at all though.

doom1992
02-16-2011, 06:35 AM
How about for a gating system, they have a system in place where you have say in a 12 boss raid, 2 bosses open straight away, then when you have killed those, the following week you have an additional 2 bosses onto that. For example, if (I am using Method as an example just because Lore talked about them), Method cleared 2 bosses within 4 days of the patch being out, they wouldn't be able to clear anything else till the next reset, then they would have those 2 bosses which should for them be relatively easy by then, and then 2 new bosses to kill that week, and then the following week they would have the first 6 bosses if they managed to kill the first 4 as a guild. Why not use the guild achievement system to implement this, and because pugs are likely to complain, make it so that every 2 weeks, whether you have killed the first 2 bosses or not the second 2 will open. This way you would have the top guilds like method, paragon or stars clearing content faster than other guilds as they do now, but they won't be overworked. This also allows them to continue to compete for the top, because they would be killing probably the 2 new bosses every week. Then make it so that in order to fight a boss on heroic, you have to have killed it on normal first. This means the top guilds have flexibility on what they progress first. They can try progress heroic from the start, or focus on normal progression first. Like guild were clearing different heroics at different times.

bludwork
02-16-2011, 08:08 AM
I am pretty unsympathetic to the "truely hardcore" guilds about the pacing of this expansion. NOBODY is forcing them to raid at that pace, a couple of guilds even raided on Christmas day! How ridiculous is that. I was reading Kungen's post on a similar topic at manaflask and he came up with the convoluted mechanism on how to do pacing. Hell no.

The only thing I would change is make the instance release or gating linear, like back in Vanilla. You did molten core, then you did bwl, then aq40 and naxx. An instance should be a entity by itself, not this 1 boss, 3 boss and 6 boss instances. If you're gonna do that make it one instance with different wings.

Getting back on track blizzard did the right thing, lots of instances at release of the expansion, no gating and no attunements. Look who is crying uncle.

relgatta
02-16-2011, 09:25 AM
Thought provoking Marmot this week Lore thank you.

As a raider that perhaps drops somewhere in between the casual and hardcore/casual scenarios you described. I am curious as to how many people are really feeling this content is too difficult. Certainly it is difficult to PUG, I don't think that could be argued against. Several of my guild mates who have schedules that prevent them from raiding with us have tried, and to my knowledge none have succeeded outside of BH.

The complaining I see concerning the difficulty of Cata raid content is mostly linked to pugging. I have a difficult time with this however, as it seems to me that if content is simple enough that you can pug it easily it is too easy for a group with a slightly higher level of cohesion and coordination. We saw this in ToC and much of ICC.

I am very pleased with the difficulty of the content as it sits. I like very much the feeling that the content is challenging, and that my hand is not being held with some kind of fail buff like ICC or some other artificial means of advancing us through the content. I think I can speak for our guild in saying that the feeling is pretty much unanimous.

As to the gating question, as another poster has indicated, some kind of gating probably would have been undetectable to us as we are not exactly lighting the servers on fire with the pace of our progression. If it was conservative enough, tuned to limit the progression of only the top 5% of guilds, it wouldn't affect us at all. It seems reasonable to me for Blizzard to tune the rate of content so as to allow raiders to compete for achievements without trying to burn them out. In my mind, Blizzard plays a role similar to the NFL or some other sports organization. It would be bad for the sport if the NFL scheduled games in such a way as to exhaust the athletes. The best players would burn out quickly and be unable to compete. WoW benefits from having a bleeding edge. Blizz should work to support that so long as it is not at the expense of the rest of the community.

sifuedition
02-16-2011, 11:24 AM
I like them being separate. I like the 10-25 same loot tables and shared lockout. Therefore, if they were all in one, you would be totally locked to one or the other. The way it is, you can still designated 10 man raids for the week and others in 25.

I must say, I'm in agreement with several of the recent posts. Blizzard is not and never should be responsible for players decisions or behavior. That is largely what's wrong with society today, IMO. If it is not their responsibility, why should they code around it? Everyone has to be capable of making responsible decisions for themselves.

Reyntrannin
02-16-2011, 01:05 PM
Papa, i agree taht there could be a way to gate high end content that would work, but currently i'm failing to see the value in it.
Speaking as someone who is extremely competitive, at least out side of WoW, I would actually prefer to have teh content there pushing me. If I want to put in the time and tears to be the first, then so be it. I'll probably vent by complaining about the time involved or any of a number of things, but I've always preferred to have my goal in sight, rather than hidden behind a series of artificial 'gates'.
The satisfaction of hitting as fast as I possibly can is part of the satisfaction of winning the race.
Imagine a foot race where halfway through, everyone who got there in the first thrity minutes of the race was forced to stop until the 30 - minute mark. Would that be in anyone's interest?
Dealing with the time investment, the energy and burnout involved, and the sheer frustration of going on against incredible competition is a part of the game when you want to be #1, and trying to remove that will remove a major factor of the competition that these players are here for.

Dedic
02-16-2011, 01:56 PM
I thought the point was that there is too much to do before the weekly reset when you'd have to start all over again. In that case, you just need a way to progress through the resets. In other words, you down boss A and B one week, but the next week you don't have to down them again to get to boss C, and so on. I thought that was the problem, and a winged instance solves that problem.

Kazeyonoma
02-16-2011, 02:40 PM
... they already have a fix like that Dedic..

extend your raid.

Papapaint
02-16-2011, 02:57 PM
Dealing with the time investment, the energy and burnout involved, and the sheer frustration of going on against incredible competition is a part of the game when you want to be #1, and trying to remove that will remove a major factor of the competition that these players are here for.

I disagree completely. We don't admire players from Paragon, or listen to the theorycrafting of players like those in Elitist Jerks, or enjoy watching Premonition do live raids at Blizzcon because these players dump shitloads of time into the game. We are interested because they're extremely skilled players who frequently think outside the box to achieve these world first kills.

I don't see how taking what is already a large time investment and increasing it makes for more interesting world firsts. While I don't think limited attempts are a good idea, it did make for an interesting challenge--minus the few wasted accidental pulls or silly wipes, the world first race became who could most effectively use their raid time, not who had the most raid time. That is interesting gameplay.

The race analogy falls short, because every world first counts. Just because one guild gets the world first on Sinestra doesn't mean the other 12 bosses are now irrelevant--each boss is a race. I think the NFL analogy was significantly more accurate--too many games in too short a time. You beat one game only to find you have another in 10 minutes, you're still tired, and you can quit whenever you want... but then you're a quitter. No one likes feeling like a quitter, especially those people who choose to be extra competitive.

Muffin Man
02-16-2011, 03:20 PM
Personally, I think this was Bliz's response to the manhandling their end-game content took at the beginning of Wrath. Was it Ensidia who came out 60some hours after Wrath's release and complained they had cleared everything?

I strongly suspect Bliz remembered that, too, when they designed T11 content.

I'm positive they remember. Just like they remembered how the Hardcore guilds QQ-ed that TBC reset their T3 with greens dropping off boars in Hellfire Penninsula.

Of course Blizzard gave them what they wanted (or so they thought) since Naxx was cleared with a not insignificant amount of T6.

And that echoes the point that you just can't please everyone.

For more non-scientific evidence: Adept claims that their US first of H Al'Akir was on 10 man because those 10 players were willing to raid on their off-day. So even in one of the guilds that *should* be burning out, they still had players willing to play *even more*.

Edit: To be constructive I feel Blizzard is just going to have to bite the bullet and accept that there will be a very vocal minority complaining about any change they make. When they rolled out limited attempts (I mean the ToC attempts not ICC) and Algalon before that, I'm pretty sure the official stance was they wanted to reward skill versus time. They backed off because of baseless complaints from people who weren't even using up all their attempts. I like to consider my guild a middle of the road one and when we did H ToC we never used more than 15 attempts in a lockout, so I'd imagine the guilds that actually ran out were few and far between.

Dedic
02-16-2011, 03:42 PM
... they already have a fix like that Dedic..

extend your raid.

I didn't think that was something you could do indefinitely. I guess I misunderstood what I heard in the video.

Kahmal
02-16-2011, 11:56 PM
Tier one Raids in WoTLK they cried it was too easy, Cata Tier one Raids are too much of a pain for the Bleeding Edge Hardcore Raiders now?

You can't satisfy every level of raider, and I'm sorry but the Bleeding Edge Raider's population just isn't high enough for me to care. Hardcore guilds that merely rush for server first and such dont seem deal with similar concerns, since those super raiders proceed them, and present strategies and kill videos for their reference. And naturally middle tier guilds probably enjoy the amount of content they have. Finally the casual raider....content will be nerfed eventually and gear will be easier to access, they can get over it.

No one is putting a gun to their head and making them raid every night constantly. I feel no remorse.

Fetzie
02-17-2011, 12:09 AM
Well tier 1 WLK WAS too easy. You could jump right in 2 minutes after dinging 80 (that was how long it took to fly to the instance) and clear naxx in under 2 hours. That is wrong. The only "hard" fight was Sartharion3D, which was overtuned in ten man until you could bulldozer it with 46000 rDPS in under 88 seconds in T8 gear.

FuzzyLama
02-17-2011, 01:50 AM
Just wait a second.

Why Blizzard should cater the amount of time it takes to take a part in WF race to what current hardocre players would like it to be? As counter example lets just think about ppl that cant raid more than 10hr per week and would be very keen to also be a part of WF progress. Some of them will have skill to compete, but amount of time that they can put into game simply dosent allow them.

At the moment such a person is just forced to join some semi progressions guild and be somwhere between world 500-1000. And following this example You could say that If somebody in current best progression guilds think that he dosent have enough time to be a part of it, he can just leave it as many ppl did before him, or switch to not so hardocore progression guild that will fit more his raiding times. You can say its brutal but hey, guild raiding is brutal for everyone to get into high progress guild, and stay high on attendance from as low as world progress 5-10k - it is just a matter of point of view to see how it is.

What we suggest now in most previous posts is that there is some fair value of lets say 'x' hr of raiding per week that should be maximum of effort time into progress when competing for WF race, problem it will always leave some ppl on ice, and others will feel limited.

If You would like to have sport like competition in Wow, its not healthy to limit amount of training in swiming pool, everyone should be allowed to do as much as fits him. And there will always be a way to go around limitations for those keen enough to get multiple alt raids going on for example.

Trexokor
02-17-2011, 03:08 AM
The reason they should cater to the bleeding edge progression guilds is quite literally what Papapaint outlined in one of his first posts in the thread. The community wants to see how these races play out, and keeping this group of players happy keeps them raiding and keeps them competitive.

If you make the time investment too high, you see guilds like Paragon that can put in immense amounts of time coming out on top nearly every time. There are a few other guilds that can do this and have the skill to compete, but as your time investment requirement increases, the number of guilds in the competition decreases.

A NASCAR race would be much less interesting if 6 cars were competing, rather than the 43 cars that do. Chances are, even if you follow NASCAR, you only know a handful of the actual competitors. But what keeps it exciting is that someone you don't really know could still win and now you're keeping an eye on the race to see if your favorite is keeping up or not. If you know your favorite is going to win, why bother following the race?

Gating that allows guilds to close the gap if they've fallen behind would keep the high end raiding competition exciting. You'd likely still see the same 6-10 guilds getting first-kills, but the world 11th or world 20th guild would have the chance to close the gap each round and, if they can manage to fix whatever kept them from pulling ahead in the last round, they might have a shot at a first-kill in the next. Perhaps they're the first guild to think of a clever way to handle whatever new mechanic that boss has, and they beat it that way. They don't get this chance if the top guild is 2 weeks and 4 bosses ahead of them 6 weeks into the patch.

However, instead of a gating system, my question is simple: Why not release content quicker, in smaller bites?

Are PvP seasons why this can't happen? Surely Blizzard can think of a solution if so. Back in Wrath of the Lich King, we had Naxxramas (a small bite due to its difficulty) which lasted longer than it should. We had Ulduar (a large bite) which didn't last nearly long enough in the scope of all the content released in Wrath. We had Trial of the Crusader (a small bite) which was released far too early, and lasted far too long. And we had Icecrown Citadel, which was fed to us in small bites and was far too easy until The Lich King was released and the real fights were unlocked.

In each of the above cases except perhaps Ulduar, the environments and fights got old very quickly. Nobody wanted to do Naxxramas over and over when it was just so utterly easy to do. Nobody wanted to do ToC over and over when there was no new scenery and there was only 5 bosses. Nobody was even looking forward to Icecrown's heroic bosses so much because we'd already seen several of them for a month or two on normal mode. It felt exhausting.

In the current content tier, I would have suggested releasing Blackwing Descent on patch day, with Bastion of Twilight and maybe Throne of the Four Winds as well around the end of February / early March, or maybe a little earlier depending on when 4.1 is supposed to hit.

This serves two purposes. First, you have fresh content more often. Your players don't get bored so easily when they know something new is coming a little more often. You might get bored of the fights a bit, but you can still be excited because more is just around the corner. Chances are, however, that your guild won't have Nefarian heroic down yet.

Second, players aren't gearing up in raids so ridiculously fast. This tier of content was good in terms of 10 vs 25 rewards. They get about the same amount of loot and the decision between them is supposed to come down to which you prefer. That would have been the case with a bit better balance tweaking, but that's a different subject altogether. However, the fact remains that on 25 man, with up to 13 bosses to kill and a slot machine boss for tier, players are gearing up too fast. Reducing the number of bosses but keeping the increased amount of loot serves the purpose of letting players feel rewarded each week for their boss clears, and keeping gearing 'gated' to a reasonable point.

There are logistics to deal with in this type of system; for example, why even do Bastion of Twilight if it's also 359/372 loot and you've gotten most of that in Blackwing Descent? However, with careful loot placement and some other things tweaked, and Bastion's difficulty increased slightly, this could be a non-issue. Or whatever Blizzard could come up with.

Why we have to have 12-14 new bosses each tier and then wait 4-6 months is beyond me. Even when you're not clearing each of them on heroic, sometimes the content can get exhausting when you've got no clue how long you're waiting for fresh scenery.

Additionally, this kind of content release can even be thought of less as a gating system, and more as increased content patch frequency. I'm fairly sure the PvE player base would thoroughly enjoy this.

Kazeyonoma
02-17-2011, 06:28 AM
The reason they should cater to the bleeding edge progression guilds is quite literally what Papapaint outlined in one of his first posts in the thread. The community wants to see how these races play out, and keeping this group of players happy keeps them raiding and keeps them competitive.

While i don't argue that it's fun to watch the competitive nature of the world firsts knowing full well i can't compete, i don't think suddenly the entire face of competitive mmo first kills will disappear because of this. SOMEONE will step up to the plate. It used to be DnT then Nihilum, then Ensidia, and now Paragon. Honestly look at the top 10 now, a lot of them were from before but a good amount of them are people who are new. Who even heard of STARS until they beat someone. limiting the attempts to cater towards a group just inhibits competition overall. If someone else wants to make a name for themselves then they need to strive for it.

Jericho
02-17-2011, 03:14 PM
Getting to this discussion a bit late, so I will cherry pick the one thing in this thread that has really irked be so far...


I do still think that world firsts should require large time investments, but surely there can be a middle ground between the awful gating systems of Coliseum and ICC and the extreme breadth of content available in Cataclysm. It is worth noting in this discussion that Cataclysm has presented the largest amount of endgame content ever available at a single release.

The underlined is the biggest falacy there is in WoW today. The amount of endgame content is not necessarily large. We have 13 bosses (+ the slot machine). People that include the Heroic Modes as separate entities in terms of evaluating content need to take a step back. Yes, I have taken a step back since I was raiding in TBC/Wrath and we are now a tighter knit vastly more casual 10man raid instead of a progression oriented 25 guild, but that has nothing to do with the amount of actual content. We never had as much initial content given to us than we did in TBC. Of course a good chunk of that content was far overtuned, but it was there as long as you were attuned for it.

Heroic Mode encounters are NOT new content. They are merely rehashes of existing content made more difficult by adding multiple new elements to the encounter. While these new elements are just that, new, and they change the existing encounter mechanics, often requiring completely different strategies, they do not always change the underlying encounter to a great degree.

Consider current content HMs, how many encounters drastically change? 3 maybe 4? Its more about the addition of requirements, "More Damage Needed", "More Damage Taken", "More and Faster Movement Required". These additions do not make new content, they make old content more challenging.

In ICC a lot of guilds both 10 and 25 were worn out, not by the fact that there were limited attempts. Guild's were worn out because by the time guild's killed Lich King and could start Heroic Modes, it had been months. Thus the heroic mode content was not only not "new", it was far less challenging because it took months of farming the "old" content just to be able to see it, it was boring to a lot of people. The only Heroic Mode that changed with any real degree was Lich King himself. The rest of the Heroic Encounters were just small tweaks or additions and did nothing to change the overall mechanics of the fight.

I am tired of seeing these WF guild's say that there was "too much content". In my mind, there is far less content available in WoW than there should be at any given end game tier. Blizzard needs to expand their idea of what endgame content is and give us a cross section of other end game opportunities.

---

Now that I got that out of the way...

The limited attempts model, while annoying and less than stellar has huge upsides in terms of gating. It focuses those WF guild's at being efficient. However, there are huge flaws with this model. Namely the "Alt raid". I believe that this is also one of the huge flaws with the WF raiding methodology in general. I have no way of knowing how many of those WF guilds ran alt raids during this time in order to gear up characters so they had raid makeup options for encounters. I am going to assume many of them ran multiple alt raids in order to accomplish this.

While I have no sympathy for those WF raiders a great deal of which are apparently receiving some kind of compensation for the time they spend in WoW, I do agree that some form of gating is in the best interest of the game as a whole.

In TBC we had attunements that in essence gated the community. Yet TBC raiding was not only gated by the attunements that Blizzard set forth, they were gated by the level of difficulty of the content and then the slowly nerfing of said content until it was easy enough for the masses. Now Heroic modes were set forth in Wrath to make attempts to not have to continually nerf content. But that wasn't enough, we were given the Strength of Wrynn in ICC as another slow nerf and gating system above the already existing "Attempt" system.

I would propose that we go back to a combination of the Attunement and Attempt system as a way to gate the WF guilds. Yet instead of making these things individual, make them work through the new Guild Rank and Achievement system.

Could we not set up a manner in which a guild was attuned through some form of achievement to do Heroic Modes for individual encounters?

Could we not set it up so an entire guild had only so many attempts on Heroic Mode encounters for the week? Something where only the GM or Officer could turn it on, so that one disgruntled guildie cant just go solo wipe to Sindra 20 times and screw a guild?

Both systems were very good systems, that were flawed when they were first included because of the lack of any real guild tracking and control. Now that we have a basic system in place, it would be a much easier feat for Blizzard to modify one or both systems and fix their inherent flaws while doing so.

--

Personally, the biggest issue I have about the entire "whining and crying" over the gating and time involved in WF raiding is just that, the time involved. Many of these WF guilds spend 6-7 days a week in these instances, not only with their main raid, but alt raids, trying to get more and more efficient for both the encounters they have conquered and those encounters they have failed to master. Dragging alt characters to secondary and tertiary raids in order to make sure they are geared so they can pull off that 11 Druid Heroic Nef WF kill. In all honesty, I would like to see a tracking of how many attempts and how much time it took Paragon to kill Heroic Nef vs how many attempts/time it took for Method to do the same. By limiting guilds to a numbered amount of attempts for their entire guild may gate these players significantly and make them much better at their chosen job. By forcing them to be efficient, rather than allowing them to bum rush encounters with hours and hours of play time.

We often see things about how much time the end game bosses in other MMOs take just to kill. The 18 hour Pandemonium Warden kill in FFXI a while back comes to mind. However, that really is nothing compared to the amount of raid time some of these guilds are willing to sit through in one go around.

Kahmal
02-17-2011, 06:05 PM
So there is a need for guilds like Paragon to have competition? TBH i haven't cared about who got a World First since TBC. I was curious as to when someone would finally kill Heroic LK, but again I really dont care.

Being competitive in the realm is a different story. It's very exciting to see Trade Chat spammed with the percentage of that final raid boss. I remember when Illidian was first taken down on Bleeding Hollow, I remember my 10 man group being responsible for the Argent Dawn statue in Dalaran.
Competition is a good motivation, but it's also horrible for moral when you lose at the final boss.

Papapaint
02-17-2011, 07:07 PM
Heroic Mode encounters are NOT new content. They are merely rehashes of existing content made more difficult by adding multiple new elements to the encounter. While these new elements are just that, new, and they change the existing encounter mechanics, often requiring completely different strategies, they do not always change the underlying encounter to a great degree.

Of the 10 hardmodes I've seen, each one has changed the fight significantly enough that a similar or greater amount of time was needed to learn the encounter. I have not seen a single encounter in hard mode that is simply higher numbers all around.

In fact, a majority of the hard modes actually challenge you to learn to "un-learn" much of what you learned in normal mode--Omnotron, Magmaw, and Conclave jump to mind.

So I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think hard modes this tier are entirely different bosses. :p

Katzazi
02-17-2011, 07:08 PM
Could we not set it up so an entire guild had only so many attempts on Heroic Mode encounters for the week? Something where only the GM or Officer could turn it on, so that one disgruntled guildie cant just go solo wipe to Sindra 20 times and screw a guild?

That's a really bad idea. It would not change anything about the alt raids. They just have to open another guild for those alts. And depending on how you implement it, even changing the guild for the mains could work.

What it would do: It would prevent any PUG raid to EVER do heroic modes. And it would prevent raids who are mostely from one guild but have some freelancers or raids from two guilds to do them. (Or it would give them double amount of trys but that would be even worse.) Maybe you don't care, because for you its raid=guild. But I did server/horde firsts in a 2-guild-raid on my server. I never did raid in a one-guild-only raid since MC and I'm not doing it now. It would also prevent a guild to run any 2nd raid on heroic mode, as long as the 1st raid may need all the attempts. There are big guilds with multiple raids. Sometimes those raids are at the same level or at different levels.

Any gating system fixed to guilds would not change anything for the world first raids, because they would do just anything valid to contradict it. But it would hurt a big part of raiders. Especially those at the casual end, but also many inbetween. It would hurt them not because they are doing something good or bad, invest huge amounts of time or whatever. It would hurt them just because of their guild-tag.

lavastyle
02-21-2011, 12:30 PM
while i agree with the problems lore brought up , i don't understand why no one brought the folowing idea: three dificukty modes easy , normal and heroic and ther you problem is solved pretty much

Quinafoi
02-21-2011, 01:45 PM
while i agree with the problems lore brought up , i don't understand why no one brought the folowing idea: three dificukty modes easy , normal and heroic and ther you problem is solved pretty much

Because does "uber 1337 roflpwn" difficulty of Molten Core drop Tier 1 or Teir 37?

Yeah, you can add a hundred different difficulties to the same thing, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still the same thing. People want content. Not more and more different difficulties of the exact same thing.

If progression was...

Run Easy Blackwing Descent
Run Normal Blackwing Descent
Run Hard Blackwing Descent
Run Even Harder Blackwing Descent
Run Really Hard Blackwing Descent
Run Really Really Hard Blackwing Descent
...

You see a problem here? Yes you can add more and more difficulties, but people get bored if they continually have to run the same content over and over in order to progress.