[Norrath]

Ciderhelm -- I could not disagree more. Raid size does not have anything to do with the difficulty of the fight, once you've taken scaling into account -- and the difficulty of the fight is what provides the sense of accomplishment. The complexity of a fight -- the sheer number of factors involved -- will necessarily be lower, and some fights will be easier as a result. They can be changed, made more difficult, in order to retain the feeling of accomplishment.

Of course less complexity means you can make up for lack of skill with better gear, which will affect the feeling as well -- but if that's a problem, you'll just have to beat the encounters as fast as possible, giving yourself the least amount of time to gather better gear.

[Leytur]

Yea I disagree Cider. That's not true at all and the "epic" quality of a fight has nothing to do with raid size.

In FACT I postulate that smaller sized raids require MORE skill seeing as how there's less places to hide. I think people are seeing this through their Karazhan-on-farm glasses and not through there Holy-cow-Attumen-hits-HARD glasses they had a year ago.

[bosephus]

Source: Leytur In FACT I postulate that smaller sized raids require MORE skill seeing as how there's less places to hide. I think people are seeing this through their Karazhan-on-farm glasses and not through there Holy-cow-Attumen-hits-HARD glasses they had a year ago.

Seconded. I know a few players that absolutely refuse to do ZA because of their perception of its difficulty, let alone attempt to win the 4/4 timed loot. And these are dedicated 25 man raiders.

[Arael]

Well, the lesser Raid size may result in a lesser flexibility when we look at the classes that are needed for some encounters.

But maybe Blizzard will tune the encounters in 10 man-raids so a very well mixed group can handle them, for example with 1 player for each class with the introduction of the Deathknight.

At the moment I know some raids that are stacking classes to trivialize bosses and to make it easier at ZA timed runs for example.

In the end of january '07 I had also a group for karazhan in my old guild which runned the first times with 3 paladins as their healers. So Nightbane was kinda joke for them in his pre-nerfed state where the others groups really had problems with.


But back to topic: In my opinion it's a nice change from Blizzard to let more casual gamers experience the exciting raid-content. Also it blews away the organisational effort that 25 man-raids are requiring.

[Trual]

Source: Kerchunk 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.

Honestly, IMO, the people that say, "I'm just as good as the best raider, but I choose to only run with my friends." are the truly elitist people in this game. You know, considering it's a Massively Multiplayer Online game and all.

I'm a raider (fairly obvious by this point, I know). Between working 2 jobs, doing an MBA, building a house, maintaining a girlfriend, leading a guild, MTing for the same guild, and exercising every day, I confidently say that I'm busier than most "casuals" in this game. My guild isn't doing bleeding edge content, but we're working on Illidan right now, so I'm pretty happy with our progress.

It's really getting tiring of hearing that all raiders live in their mothers' basements and don't work, and maybe it's time the "casuals" get over their elitist attitude about it. Trust me - your life isn't any richer than mine because you don't raid.

The notion that organizing more people together inherently means all of those people are more skillful is a fallacy.

I can tell you from experience, I've got guys who aren't as good as many of the more casual players in this game on my team. Here's a quote from the EJ forums' thread on this subject.

As a solo encounter, this task has a 95% completion success chance (0.95^1). In a 5-man, the aggregate chance of success is ~77.38% (0.95^5). In a 10-man, the aggregate chance of success is 59.87% (0.95^10). In a 25-man, the aggregate chance of success is 27.74% (0.95^25). The more people you add, the more difficult it becomes despite the fact the individual task does not become any more difficult on its own. If you make the individual task more difficult on its own (definition of greater difficulty: greater chance for failure. 95% success becomes 90% success): As a solo encounter, this task has a 90% success chance (0.90^1). In a 5-man, the aggregate chance of success is ~59.05% (0.90^5). In a 10-man, the aggregate chance of success is 34.87% (0.90^10). In a 25-man, the aggregate chance of success is 7.18% (0.90^25). In order for any fight to be reasonably repeatable for any large groups (25+), individual tasks for most of the people must be really, really easy (99% chance of success or greater).

The very same encounter, scaled for 25 people instead of 10 will always be harder than the smaller version of it.

The root problem I have with this idea is that the requirements for a 10-man and 25-man raid are very, very different.

[Ciderhelm]

Source: Norrath Ciderhelm -- I could not disagree more. Raid size does not have anything to do with the difficulty of the fight, once you've taken scaling into account -- and the difficulty of the fight is what provides the sense of accomplishment.

I don't recall saying anything about difficulty, other than suggesting per player difficulty does not change regardless of raid size and that, due to game mechanics, raids are incapable of providing more difficult content per player than can already be found in 5-mans.

What does change is the risk involved in an encounter, particularly the risk that one person does not perform their part. As you add risk and decrease the likelihood of a kill, you increase the perceived and actual accomplishment. Yes, a 10-man kill is going to be a great experience if the kill isn't virtually guaranteed to you by the quality of players in your raid.

In FACT I postulate that smaller sized raids require MORE skill seeing as how there's less places to hide. I think people are seeing this through their Karazhan-on-farm glasses and not through there Holy-cow-Attumen-hits-HARD glasses they had a year ago.

Again, I don't recall saying anything about player skill, other than you don't require any more skill than you can learn from 5-mans.

On the second part of your comment, when I first cleared Karazhan, I did so in 3 days with less gear than I recommend people start Karazhan with today. This is because the early Armor buff had not occurred. Why is that relevant? Both Karazhan and Zul'aman were well tuned and designed from their launch, but by virtue of being 10-mans, raids were significantly less likely to wipe on a per-player basis, and with solid players and encounters requiring equal skill, the content can be worked through faster than 25-mans.


You guys may be forgetting that I support the 10-man move and am happy for it since it means I'll get to see content I probably would have skipped. I've made no insult to player skill or encounter difficulty nor have I made a casual vs. hardcore argument.

[Norrath]

Source: Ciderhelm I don't recall saying anything about difficulty, other than suggesting per player difficulty does not change regardless of raid size and that, due to game mechanics, raids are incapable of providing more difficult content per player than can already be found in 5-mans.

I don't recall saying you did. I made a connection between difficulty and accomplishment, though.

I'm really not sure what you mean when you say raids can't provide more difficulty per player than a 5-man -- it seems a moot observation. Naturally there are hard-coded barriers that can't be overcome -- any encounter has to take gear level, latency, class abilities as well as a host of other factors into account -- but that doesn't mean we've seen the limits of difficulty that can be introduced.

Source: Ciderhelm What does change is the risk involved in an encounter, particularly the risk that one person does not perform their part. As you add risk and decrease the likelihood of a kill, you increase the perceived and actual accomplishment. Yes, a 10-man kill is going to be a great experience if the kill isn't virtually guaranteed to you by the quality of players in your raid.

This ties directly into what I said about complexity. Some encounters will be made easier by decreasing the size of the raid. This can be circumvented by increasing the difficulty of the encounter in other areas. Yes, it means changing the encounter in fundamental aspects, possibly changing the encounter enough that it is not really the same encounter any longer, but it is possible.

Source: Ciderhelm You guys may be forgetting that I support the 10-man move and am happy for it since it means I'll get to see content I probably would have skipped. I've made no insult to player skill or encounter difficulty nor have I made a casual vs. hardcore argument.

Not at all. If you've inferred such from my comments, I apologize; I never meant to imply anything of the kind -- I simply disagree that the feeling of accomplishment is necessarily diminished merely due to a raid size change.

[Ciderhelm]

Source: Norrath I'm really not sure what you mean when you say raids can't provide more difficulty per player than a 5-man -- it seems a moot observation. Naturally there are hard-coded barriers that can't be overcome -- any encounter has to take gear level, latency, class abilities as well as a host of other factors into account -- but that doesn't mean we've seen the limits of difficulty that can be introduced. This ties directly into what I said about complexity. Some encounters will be made easier by decreasing the size of the raid. This can be circumvented by increasing the difficulty of the encounter in other areas. Yes, it means changing the encounter in fundamental aspects, possibly changing the encounter enough that it is not really the same encounter any longer, but it is possible.

The two sentences in bold are where I disagree. How do you increase difficulty in this system? The best Blizzard came up with for Burning Crusade was, "lol let's make people play other class roles instead of their own in High King Maulgar and Gorefiend!"

[Norrath]

Source: Ciderhelm The two sentences in bold are where I disagree. How do you increase difficulty in this system? The best Blizzard came up with for Burning Crusade was, "lol let's make people play other class roles instead of their own in High King Maulgar and Gorefiend!"

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this point, then. I freely admit it's possible we've reached the limit, though I doubt it.

[Kerchunk]

Honestly, IMO, the people that say, "I'm just as good as the best raider, but I choose to only run with my friends." are the truly elitist people in this game. You know, considering it's a Massively Multiplayer Online game and all.

I run with my friends because that’s what’s fun to me. I do it because I don’t have the time to commit to a regular raiding schedule, nor to organize the number of raiders it takes to consistently do 25-man content. The difference between me and the “truly elitist people” in this game is that I don’t believe the things I choose to do make me “better” at the game than those who just happen to choose to play a different way because that’s what they find fun.

I'm a raider (fairly obvious by this point, I know). Between working 2 jobs, doing an MBA, building a house, maintaining a girlfriend, leading a guild, MTing for the same guild, and exercising every day, I confidently say that I'm busier than most "casuals" in this game.

What’s your point? Are you honestly arguing that doing 25-man content doesn’t require a more dedicated schedule, rigorous recruiting and time investment than 10-man content? Congratulations on all you have going on in your life, but that doesn’t change the fact that not everyone has a schedule that permits them to do 25-man content. I work variable hours and shifts, and simply can’t commit to a regular raid schedule. Period. Does that make me less skillful than those who can? Not in my opinion, but most “hardcore” players would disagree with me, saying they’re the superior player simply because their lifestyle permits a more dedicated, regular play schedule.

It's really getting tiring of hearing that all raiders live in their mothers' basements and don't work, and maybe it's time the "casuals" get over their elitist attitude about it. Trust me - your life isn't any richer than mine because you don't raid.

I don’t recall mentioning anyone’s basement. All I said was some people have more time to devote to this activity than others. I also play my XBOX 360 a lot as well as playing 20+ hours of Poker every week to supplement my income. I could certainly stop these activities and devote that time to WoW, but I don’t because I like to do those other things too. Other people decide to devote larger portions of their leisure time to WoW than me. Good for them. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I love the game and would do the same thing if I could, quite honestly. Try not to put words in my mouth and be so defensive when you’re not being attacked. =)

The very same encounter, scaled for 25 people instead of 10 will always be harder than the smaller version of it.

Incorrect. You are mincing words. Having “less chance of success” does not mean something is more challenging. It simply means the chance of success is lower. Those are not the same thing. For instance, clapping is easy, right? Getting two people to clap in unison? Pretty simple – high chance of success. Getting 100 people to clap in unison? Much less chance of success here. The fundamental activity – clapping – remains the same. Simple. Each individual participant requires very little skill. Just stand there and clap. It’s the coordination, planning, repetition and training that provides the additional level of effort. Now, I’m not saying raid encounters require the same amount of skill as standing and clapping – but the same logic applies. It doesn’t take any more “skill” to do the things that you do in 25-man encounters, it just requires more coordination, planning, repetition, etc. and all that really means is more time – more time spent repeating the encounter until people memorize it – more time spent recruiting so that you can get 25 dedicated “clappers” to show up on time and prepared, etc. You’re not better at the game than those who prefer 10-man content, you just happen to have more time to devote to herding and training a bunch of clappers. (I think this is essentially the same point Ciderhelm is making – difficulty does not change with raid size. The challenge comes from actually organizing the raid, not in doing the individual activities required to beat the content).

[Ciderhelm]

Source: Kerchunk most “hardcore” players would disagree with me, saying they’re the superior player simply because their lifestyle permits a more dedicated, regular play schedule.

I find it interesting you can say the above and go on to say this:

Source: Kerchunk Try not to put words in my mouth and be so defensive when you’re not being attacked.

The casual vs. hardcore argument does not belong on these forums.

Source: Kerchunk Having “less chance of success” does not mean something is more challenging. It simply means the chance of success is lower. Those are not the same thing. ... (I think this is essentially the same point Ciderhelm is making – difficulty does not change with raid size. The challenge comes from actually organizing the raid, not in doing the individual activities required to beat the content).

How is having a lower chance of success not a direct reflection of how challenging something is, given that increased player coordination allows you to increase the chance of success? You clearly say that there is additional challenge from organizing the larger raid at the end of the same paragraph. My statements do not support the idea that larger raid sizes are equal accomplishments -- they aren't -- only that the per-play skill required is.

The entire post and tone reaches in then falls face first into the "if you don't know what you're talking about, don't post" pool. You are fully capable of defending your own position without letting everyone know your misperceptions about raiders.

[Ciderhelm]

Source: Norrath We will simply have to agree to disagree on this point, then. I freely admit it's possible we've reached the limit, though I doubt it.

Amending my statement, here's the list of requirements I believe Blizzard actively follows:

• Encounters must be built around roles and, in limited cases, specific classes;
• Players must have built in cooldowns and casting times to allow players of different latencies to work together effectively and not create a noticeable geographical disparity between players;
• Encounters must be easily repeatable by players who understand the timers and gimmicks involved so that players can reliably take down encounters on a schedule; in other words, as little randomness as possible.

Jumping back to whatever our last conversation on this was, there is a solution that fits all of these and would increase the actual individual difficulty -- built-in lockout timers.

[ebs2002]

Ten-man content does not mean it's easier than 25man content if you increase the cost of mistakes in 10mans. If a tank gets sheared on Illidan, it is theoretically possible for another tank class to pick him up and keep the raid alive; you only lost 4% of your raid force, not 10%.

I'm reminded of the Simon Says raid in EQ (in MPG), where a single mistake meant certain death for that player. One mistake meaning instant death when you need to be constantly ducking/removing jewelry/stand still/move away/remove weapon/etc every 10seconds was hard, and a lot of guilds couldn't get past it because, up to that point, there wasn't as big of a punishment for a single mistake.

Then the Vishimtar dragon fight (also in EQ), where a single mistake will kill you (riposting a cloud, failing to get to a mournful spirit, letting snare run off of the kited add, etc) AND spawn a skeleton add which will usually run to a clothie and spawn a skeleton add, etc etc. There was another encounter that had adds spawning on person death, but it was a larger raid, and that wasn't nearly as difficult as Vishimtar was because more people meant more likelihood to stop the steamroll effect.

The raid numbers went down, but the cost of a mistake went up.

We haven't seen them yet, but to use that Elitist Jerks math, for all we know, the cost of a mistake in the 10man could be 0.9 vs 0.95 for the 25man, meaning:

0.95^25 = 27.7% chance of success for a 25man, and
0.90^10 = 34.8% chance of success for a 10man.

Regardless, I still wholeheartedly disagree with any sentiment that 10man content is less difficult or has less of an epic feel when you finally overcome it, just by its nature. Blizzard has the tools to make difficult 10-man content...Prince is up there as a pretty damn difficult fight, and that's largely because of the chaos of the infernals; and I'll say that when we've had our worst infernal placement on our 5th attempt that night, and we still manage to kill him with only 3 people alive at the end, that's pretty f'ing epic.

[ebs2002]

Encounters must be easily repeatable by players who understand the timers and gimmicks involved so that players can reliably take down encounters on a schedule; in other words, as little randomness as possible.

I'm not sure that I agree on that point, though. Moroes and MgT Priestess have random adds that vastly change the encounter. Prince infernal placement is completely random and can either trivialize an encounter, or make it damn near impossible.

I'm sure there are other examples in 25man content, but I haven't seen them. I'm not convinced that Blizzard avoids randomness in encounters, though.

I'm also pretty sure that blizzard doesn't take into account differing latencies; 500ms ping is gonna make tanking illidan pretty damn tough. That's why they have East-Coast, West-Coast, Europe, and Oceanic servers.

Cooldowns aren't a way of simplifying things, it's a way of requiring more strategy to a game by limiting a resource. Casting times are the same: It makes each choice a player makes more deliberate.

[Ciderhelm]

Source: ebs2002 Ten-man content does not mean it's easier than 25man content if you increase the cost of mistakes in 10mans. If a tank gets sheared on Illidan, it is theoretically possible for another tank class to pick him up and keep the raid alive; you only lost 4% of your raid force, not 10%.

If a tank gets sheared on Illidan and you aren't bringing a fourth tank to the raid (in tanking gear, no less), this is not theoretically possible on a progression kill.

Source: ebs2002 I'm reminded of the Simon Says raid in EQ (in MPG), where a single mistake meant certain death for that player. One mistake meaning instant death when you need to be constantly ducking/removing jewelry/stand still/move away/remove weapon/etc every 10seconds was hard, and a lot of guilds couldn't get past it because, up to that point, there wasn't as big of a punishment for a single mistake. Then the Vishimtar dragon fight (also in EQ), where a single mistake will kill you (riposting a cloud, failing to get to a mournful spirit, letting snare run off of the kited add, etc) AND spawn a skeleton add which will usually run to a clothie and spawn a skeleton add, etc etc. There was another encounter that had adds spawning on person death, but it was a larger raid, and that wasn't nearly as difficult as Vishimtar was because more people meant more likelihood to stop the steamroll effect.

The problem is that both of those mechanics you've described have been used in 40-man and 25-man raiding. You can add them to 10-man content but unless you're simultaneously nerfing future 25-man content, this doesn't close the gap. In truth, reactive raid damage mechanics are already in 10-mans (Shade of Aran) and it works well there.

Source: ebs2002 I'm not sure that I agree on that point, though. Moroes and MgT Priestess have random adds that vastly change the encounter. Prince infernal placement is completely random and can either trivialize an encounter, or make it damn near impossible.

Random adds that you see before you pull them can be conveniently handled by multiple classes. Same with Hex Lord Malacrass. There is nothing random or new about these encounters -- you know exactly what you're doing before the pull even occurs.

Source: ebs2002 I'm also pretty sure that blizzard doesn't take into account differing latencies...

Blizzard has done an incredible job of adjusting for different latencies since Starcraft. The global cooldown mechanic serves that specific purpose. The entire ability and cooldown system used in WoW is to level the playing field for people. Bosses are built around this as well (except for Thaddius). Oceanic servers are a good illustration of why they do this -- they're located in the US.

That is also the reason this game does not require more per-player skill than can be learned in 5-mans. This is not an action game. This is not Halo, Counterstrike, or any other number of games built for specific networks or specific gamer demographics. This is not a strategy game requiring instant reaction times. MMOs are fairly unique in their need to adjust for player latency, but the cost is fairly archaic PVE systems that do not lend themselves to incredible talent.

[sevve]

Source: Kerchunk 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.

First of all, to clarify, the wow4dummies expression was used about Blizzard's way of trying to please everyone. It does not mean that people who don't have time to/care about pushing their game to higher levels are in any way stupid or poor players.
What it does mean is the way dedication to raiding is being valued is a very important part of the game, and it contributes to making raiding a lot of fun.


The way you compare challenge vs. skill is to be completely ridiculous here. Challenge is what PvE is about. Yes, 25-man encounters are more challenging. Harder. Encounters are not measured in individual skill, but in the skill of a raid.

Why should you as an awesome player that lacks the time have the same rights to see content as a dedicated player?
It's like saying "I would have been the world's fastest sprinter if I had the time to practice, give me a spot in the olympics".

[Roana]

Source: sevve Why should you as an awesome player that lacks the time have the same rights to see content as a dedicated player?

Because game companies don't make money from limiting content to a fraction of their customers.

There are no "rights" involved here. Blizzard is selling an interactive story with game elements (or a game with interactive story elements, depending on your personal preference). The game elements exist to create additional entertainment value, not as a means to create an online version of the Olympics. The raid encounters are challenging so that people come again and play again, not so that a few hundred players in the top guilds can race for world first kills. Encounters are designed by Blizzard to be beaten and will, over time, be nerfed to accomplish that, not to separate different classes of gamers.

[Leytur]

Source: Ciderhelm How is having a lower chance of success not a direct reflection of how challenging something is

Playing the lottery isn't "challenging." You can simply increase the luck factor in order to lower chances of success. Doesn't make it more challenging.

[Ciderhelm]

Source: Leytur Playing the lottery isn't "challenging." You can simply increase the luck factor in order to lower chances of success. Doesn't make it more challenging.

Second half of what you quoted:

Source: Ciderhelm How is having a lower chance of success not a direct reflection of how challenging something is, given that increased player coordination allows you to increase the chance of success?

In other words, if you are in a situation where player coordination determines the chance of success then the chance of success is a direct reflection of how challenging the encounter is.

[Arrivan]

Source: ebs2002 I'm also pretty sure that blizzard doesn't take into account differing latencies; 500ms ping is gonna make tanking illidan pretty damn tough. That's why they have East-Coast, West-Coast, Europe, and Oceanic servers.

Blizzard's Oceanic servers are physically located in the United States. All Oceanic guilds that have killed Illidan and such killed him with 200-500ms ping.

Edit: This has apparently already been mentioned. However, my point stands. People who have lower latencies do have an advantage over those who don't, but encounters are balanced to be doable with higher pings.

Also, this thread seems to have brought out the attitudes I came here to escape. I personally think it's a great thing that this is going to happen, as long as they deliver on their promise that you won't have to do the 10 mans to progress in the 25 mans and vice versa. As for difficulty, Zul'Aman is a great example of what they can do in 10 man raids, even if most of the fights have similar themes (don't stand in the fire, don't stand in the storm, heal the tank as they get hit very hard, don't stand in the damn fire; however this is true for much of the Burning Crusade's raid content).