[Honorshammer]

It's not just the bosses, it's the trash as well. In the 25 man raids that I run, it seems multiple Sheeps are almost expected for trash. How do you do that in a 10 man where you might not have a mage.

[Honorshammer]

Most significant line in the whole WotLK article: "Zero raid bosses have been designed at this point."

[Trual]

We're definitely speculating, but I can guarantee you that they've put thought into how they're going to do this before announcing it.

I'm with Vel on the differentiated content thing, and REALLY hope they don't just move the current normal vs heroic mode to raiding.

[Brucimus]

Source: Ringthane Yeah, I noticed that... I guess WotLK is further out than anybody thought.

I think we are easily a full year away from seeing WoLK and I'm not in a hurry since I still need to kill ol' Skanky Vashj and her curtain shopping buddy Kael

[Leytur]

It's awesome.

Every raid, every boss, every encounter will be available in 10 man or 25 man variety.

The vast majority of WoW players are NOT 5 night a week raiders. I love that Blizzard is paying more attention to us.

I DISLIKE that there will be NO attunements. I think attunements separate the serious players from the casual ones regardless of how much time they spend playing. Seriously, Karazhan attunement didn't take THAT long. Something similar to that questline in scope and time required is excellent.

[Roana]

Source: Velhym I'm still kinda hoping for differentiated content. I'd kinda despise running a 10 man instance only to run the same instance as a 25 man raid.

From An Interview With WoW's Lead Designers | World of Warcraft @ Curse.com:

"So Naxx will be pretty accessible in both the 10 and the 25 man versions."

So, it looks like there'll be two versions of each raid instance.

[1stormchaser]

I don't have a problem with the drops in a 10 man raid being of the same quality as a 25 man raid. But I would have a problem if the number of drops are the same quantities. Since 25 man raids have a 2.5 ratio over 10 man, I would expect the number of drops should be the same ratio.

There are some raids, Mag and SSC comes to mind; where I don't know how you could tone these down to just 10 mans. But I guess anything is possible.

[Hypatia]

Source: Leytur I DISLIKE that there will be NO attunements. I think attunements separate the serious players from the casual ones regardless of how much time they spend playing. Seriously, Karazhan attunement didn't take THAT long. Something similar to that questline in scope and time required is excellent.

Where did they say that? I only saw mention that 10-man raids will not be required to gain attunements for 25-man raids. I would be not at all surprised if the current-top-end 10-man and 25-man raids required attunements (probably the same attunement opens both 10-man X and 25-man X, which provides a really good path to gain attunements if you're wanting to get into larger raiding guilds.)

[Dismember]

Source: Brucimus I think we are easily a full year away from seeing WoLK and I'm not in a hurry since I still need to kill ol' Skanky Vashj and her curtain shopping buddy Kael

Here's a quote from the IGN interview I was reading:

IGN: Can fans expect to see roughly around a year and half, two years, a new expansion? Because it doesn't seem right now like Wrath of the Lich King is going to come out this year.

J. Allen Brack: [laughs] That's a good question, I think it really depends on what the feature set for the next expansion is. Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King ended up being fairly similar in terms of size and scope. We added 10 levels of content, we added two playable races in the last one and a new class in this one. They both had a new trade skill. In terms of those things I think it's reasonable to assume they'd take about the same amount of time. You also have to realize that our team gets more experienced and gets faster. We're always working on our tools, as our tools get better we get more efficient. Paul Sams has said publicly we have the stated goal of making an expansion in a year and we're kind of trying to do what we can to get toward that. We're not there yet.

And another quote regarding the difference between 10-man and 25-man Naxx:

IGN: In Wrath of the Lich King you can move through all of its dungeons in 10 or 25-man raid groups. How do the experiences between the two actually differ if you go through as a 10-man group versus a 25?

Jeffrey Kaplan: Naxxramas, for example, which is going to be the first raid zone players encounter, [will support] both 10 and 25; it's got like 14 bosses in there. It certainly is more work and more difficult to get 25 people organized than 10, but the encounters themselves--we're not going to tune anything so it's drastically harder with 25 than with 10. They'll be tuned for the correct number of people, but I think the level of complexity needs to stay at a very graspable level since it's the entry level of raiding. It can't be too insano-aggro as far as what people need to do.

A good example I like to give is we've got Gruul in Burning Crusade, which is a very accessible, easy-to-understand, not terribly complex raid. And that's a 25-person raid. And then we've got some of the encounters in Zul'Aman, which is a 10-person raid, which are very complex and very hard to execute on. So rather than make it feel like it's a difficulty choice, I like to think of it more as a play-style choice. I enjoy playing with 10 people more, or I enjoy playing with 25 people more, and then within those avenues we can have escalating levels of difficulty where players can prove themselves more skillful.

[Derrick]

Source: ebs2002 I'm curious to see how they will rework encounters to be doable with 10 people...many of the 25man fights now I can't imagine a 10-man version (Magtheridon with cube-clicking, as an example...maybe there's less cubes I guess).

Think Heroic MgT Kael vs TK Kael. I'll wager this was a test of the new WotLK idea. The fight was heavily modified but still contains all the basic elements. Besides being a bit undertuned, the MgT one is a great encounter.

[Velhym]

Source: Roana From An Interview With WoW's Lead Designers | World of Warcraft @ Curse.com: So, it looks like there'll be two versions of each raid instance.

Yes, I read that, and I'm hoping they change their mind. They don't have anything designed yet, so here's to hoping.

[Ciderhelm]

Am happy w/ it in a general sense, because it helps out the vast majority of their customers. It'll be nice for me because I'd much rather not go back to 25-man raiding at this point.

It will definitely be a reduction in the epic feel of encounters. That should not seriously be up for debate.

[Roana]

Source: Ciderhelm It will definitely be a reduction in the epic feel of encounters. That should not seriously be up for debate.

Actually, it should be. That may be me being a language geek here, but I think the debate justified.

It is likely that encounters will lose certain qualities (and gain others!) when being scaled down to fewer participants. No doubt about that. Whether one of those qualities is being "epic" is not only something very subjective, it is also unlikely considering the actual meanings of the word "epic".

The word "epic" is derived from the greek word "epos" for a speech or poem. it related originally to the epic poems of the time, the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, and so forth. Characteristic of those poems were the travels and travails of one exceptional human individual, often, but not always accompanied by a supporting cast of varying size (a considerable part of the Odyssey, for example, is spent by the hero of that tale what we would call "soloing" in World of Warcraft). The same term was later used for Beowulf, the poetic Edda, the Nibelungenlied, and so forth.

If you have more than just a few characters in these stories, they are generally background noise. Large crowds do not make for great protagonists in stories told or written. The armies are put aside when Hector fights Achilles and you don't see them when Siegfried slays his dragon.

Now, since then, other meanings have been attached to the word "epic". It has become another synonym for "heroic", it has come to also mean "beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope" (Merriam Webster). That does not, however, equate to "big armies", though having a large supporting cast can help to increase the size or scope of something, obviously. But it is not the sole defining quality. The end of "The Return of the Jedi" does not gain its scope from the battle in space or on the nearby moon -- these are much like people doing their dailies -- it's all about three men in a secluded part of a big spaceship, a father deciding between the loyalty to his ruler and mentor and the love for his son, and the three between them fighting over the power that shapes their universe. That is what makes the event grand, not sticking more extras in Stormtrooper costumes.

That said, yes, obviously, the character of encounters will change from a 25-man to a 10-man, or vice versa. But the "epicness" of that is an orthogonal quality, related to the importance of the fight, how it is tied into the storyline, and so forth. "Epic" is a property of the resulting narrative, not of the tactics involved.

[Ciderhelm]

Source: Roana Actually, it should be. That may be me being a language geek here, but I think the debate justified.

But as a language geek you should also recognize that common usage today does not often carry it's original meaning for that word.

• very imposing or impressive; surpassing the ordinary (especially in size or scale); "an epic voyage"; "of heroic proportions"; "heroic sculpture"
• epic poem: a long narrative poem telling of a hero's deeds

Source: wordnet.princeton.edu (courtesy Google)

[Roana]

Source: Ciderhelm But as a language geek you should also recognize that common usage today does not often carry it's original meaning for that word.

That is true, but I provided the etymology as background and then discussed the more recent meanings. And I do not insist that I am right, just that there is plenty of room for debate here.

Also, there's a difference between language evolving and people being imprecise with the use of words. The former happens because there is a need to fill a linguistic void or to because an antiquated and ill-chosen phrase makes only sense in the original Klingon, so to speak, and is a good thing. People misusing perfectly good and serviceable English words, or appropriating them for a cause of theirs, is not a good thing.

Note that I don't think that anybody misuses the word "epic" here, but instead I see it reduced to a very narrow part of one of its meanings. "Surpassing the ordinary" is not something that requires a huge cast; for example, the entire superhero genre is predicated on the exact opposite.

[Velhym]

lIj SoS ghaH marmot

[Leytur]

Source: Roana Also, there's a difference between language evolving and people being imprecise with the use of words.

Here here!

I'm not saying anyone in this thread was imprecise with their word usage--just that Roana states a true fact.

P.S. I did that on purpose.

[Klimpen]

Source: 1stormchaser I don't have a problem with the drops in a 10 man raid being of the same quality as a 25 man raid. But I would have a problem if the number of drops are the same quantities. Since 25 man raids have a 2.5 ratio over 10 man, I would expect the number of drops should be the same ratio.

I can agree with this.

As long as difficulty is the same, reward should be too. Reward in 25mans would have to be 2.5 times as good to be equivalent.

[Kerchunk]

Source: sevve Even if this is positive or negative it is definately another addition to the wow4dummies road Blizzard is taking.

People who enjoy smaller groups are dummies? People who don't have the time (i.e., jobs, family, responsibilities) to organize 25 people into regular raid groups are dummies? What an elitist, jackass attitude. Sorry to be blunt. The notion that organizing more people together inherently means all of those people are more skillful is a fallacy. Organizing more people is just that. It takes time, patience, repetition, trial and error, recruiting, re-recruiting, booting, etc. but does it take more skill? Just more time and energy, really. Now, I'm not saying people ought not to be rewarded for this additional effort (they are - and will be - with better gear). What I'm saying is just because you 25-man instead of 10-man doesn't mean you're better at the game. It just means you (or your guild leaders) happen to have more time in their lives to devote to organizing a bunch of people to participate in a video game. Good on them for whatever situation they're in that allows them this kind of freedom and leisure time. To suggest, however, that those who prefer 10-man content are inherently dummies or less skillful, as I've said, is just kind of silly and self-serving.

I'm still kinda hoping for differentiated content. I'd kinda despise running a 10 man instance only to run the same instance as a 25 man raid.

So don't run the 10-man version? That's exactly the kind of flexibility this addition allows. Make a guild that's exclusively 25-man. Or make a guild that's exclusively 10-man. Or make a guild that uses 10-man to gear for some 25-man. Or make a guild that does both, some members floating between the two... the possibilities are very wide open and I can't imagine how you could see this as a negative.

It will definitely be a reduction in the epic feel of encounters. That should not seriously be up for debate.

Meh, have to disagree. I have played plenty of SINGLE player games that feel relatively epic once completed. Epic to me doesn't mean involving more people and I certainly disagree that a 10-man encounter is inherently less epic than a 25-man or 40-man one. Provided the encounters are well-designed, tuned properly, challenging, fun and (above all) various I think we will maintain all of the epicness of previous encounters. Of course, if they just design the encounters as 25-man fights and thendumb them down for the 10-man versions they I agree with you completely. Here's hoping that's not the approach the design team decides to make.

[Ciderhelm]

Source: Kerchunk Meh, have to disagree. I have played plenty of SINGLE player games that feel relatively epic once completed.

When Blizzard changes their engine to that of an action game, creates single player content for that format, and completely removes the cooldown, gearing, classes, and boss mechanics in World of Warcraft then that comparison will work.

In PVE content, the only thing that decreases the risk of success and increases the magnitude of accomplishment is raid size. Raid content does not and cannot require more player skill than can be learned in 5-Man content due to game mechanics. This isn't Halo or Counterstrike where exceptional timing and instinct have an impact. This isn't a standard RPG where you're forced to think outside the box on the fly. This is a class-based game with built-in cooldowns and casting times to allow people with different latencies to defeat gimmick monsters that can be reliably and repeatedly defeated by players on a schedule. It's great for what it is, but don't make it into something it's not -- raid size is the only difference in magnitude.