+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Competitivemess of a 10-Man Guild

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2

    Competitivemess of a 10-Man Guild

    With the introduction of 10-man versions for every raid in WotLK, it opens up an interesting possibility for those wishing to experience end game content. As Ciderhelm and several others have stated in threads such as Time Management for Raiding Guilds, guilds that are on the cutting edge of content raid less over the course of an MMO than so-called "hard-core" guilds that raid 5-6 days a week, every week. Blizzard has stated that they intend for 10-man content to mirror 25-man content as closely as possible, although being scaled down for fewer players and having a lower quality of gear drops.

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

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

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    730
    I think you're going to have parallel progression benchmarks. You'll have a world first 10 and a world first 25. And I think both are worthy of accolades.

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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbatus View Post
    Would a 10-man guild following the same raid schedule as Nihilum, SK-Gaming, Exodus, or numerous others (namely raid until the content is cleared, then hibernate until the next big content release) be considered competitive for world firsts as long as the bosses die, or will that remain strictly the domain of the 25-man guilds?
    Unlikely, considering how outgeared they'll be by a similar 25-man raiding guild clearing the 10-man version. Also, in order for the 10-man version to be allowing enough progression with gear that is 1 tier behind the 25-man version, the smaller raid will have to be easier than the larger one; that's the nature of gear tuning.

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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    241
    Quote Originally Posted by Leytur View Post
    I am doing the same thing you are--building up my guild for 10 mans in the xpac.
    I'm actually thinking of doing the same thing as well but I want to see how they handle it. I've heard you won't be able to kill Arthas in 10 man, only 25 and that the 10 mans won't open until the 25 man is defeated. Both of those idea are poor choices on Blizzards part.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Honorshammer View Post
    I'm actually thinking of doing the same thing as well but I want to see how they handle it. I've heard you won't be able to kill Arthas in 10 man, only 25 and that the 10 mans won't open until the 25 man is defeated. Both of those idea are poor choices on Blizzards part.
    I agree with all of this. I too am considering forming up a group with some close friends either as a subset of a larger guild or something else, possibly remaining unguilded and still doing just that.

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

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

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

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

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

    EDIT: Also in response to Honor, I see both sides of the 10 v 25 and the ability to kill Arthas. Who's to say they cannot have different scenarios, animations, outcomes, etc. If you "kill" him in 10 man, make it like 25 man Kael in BC. He gets pissed, talks some smack, drops a chest of goods and then drags ass, leaving you to try to defeat him in 25 man. I realize it would be cheap if all bosses did this but this is the big, bad end villian we're talking about. You get to fight and defeat him other way but killing him should be reserved for the highest level of progression content. Playing devil's advocate to an extent....not sure how I really feel about it beyond assessing the situation and seeing how to have the most fun out if it.
    Last edited by Horacio; 07-14-2008 at 11:45 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    241
    I guess that's why I'm in a wait and see mode. Will 10 mans be treated as a lesser tier of raiding by Blizzard or will they try to make each rewarding.

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

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

    Edit: I realize they drop a less tier of loot. I have no problem with that. Drop loot appropiate to the number of people in the instance.
    Last edited by Honorshammer; 07-14-2008 at 01:42 PM. Reason: Added something for clarification

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2
    Its simply much easier to organize and direct 10 people than it is 25, especially in a more casual environment. The odds that you are going to find 10 good, committed, and class balanced raiders whose schedules mesh is greater thn 25.
    This is exactly the reason I want to attempt putting together a 10-man guild. I'm seriously doubting my abilities to successfully lead a small raiding guild, much less one that raids 25s. If it all turns out horribly, I'll just give in and re-app to a 25-man raiding guild where I just follow orders instead of giving them.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    552
    To be blunt I think Blizzard is making a foolish choice by having 10 man mirror versions of 25 man raids. I think it takes away from the awesomeness of completing a raid at the 25 man level. This game is getting more and more carebear. Removing all the attunements and giving everyone a chance to raid the same thing feels like socialism to me. I don't care about the masses of players. I'm an elist at heart, and the changes they are making with the upcoming expansion are tilting the game heavily towards the casuals. Remember when in pre-BC having full epics actually meant something? When it didn't just mean you pvp'd or did 5 mans for a couple days? I'm sorry but this game is getting WAY too easy.

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

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

    Long live the satisfaction of working hard for your success!
    Tanks: We like it rough.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Krashtork View Post
    ...I'm an elist at heart, and the changes they are making with the upcoming expansion are tilting the game heavily towards the casuals. Remember when in pre-BC having full epics actually meant something?...
    What did having full epics mean? That you were there from the start? I started tanking late. I was a healer. I can't compare my skill yet to top tanks but I've reached a level of play where I out-tank a lot of the T5 geared tanks. It isn't my gear I'm just a better player. This was (among other things) possible because of the "freebee" badge awards.

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

    I think such changes are good.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    2,437
    Ugh Elitists!!! It is a bloody video game!!! It is supposed to be casual, hence the word GAME! And why doesn't having epics mean anything anymore? I do not mean afk'ing in BG's, or the guys (like me) who suck so bad at arena's that all we ever have is last season's gear or the unrated stuff, I mean the trinekts that you had to do heroic magister's 25 times for, or sun eater after the 50th mech run. That means something. Reaching the highest level of your crafting profession to make your goggles, or your dragonstrike? Why doesn't that mean anything? When so called elitists use the words casual the contempt is dripping. Being in 25 mans and 40 mans has absolutely NOTHING to do with ability, just with can 25 people or 40 people coordinate their schedule to play at the same time every week. Anything that allows more people to see and do things DESPITE scheduling and RL issues is a very good thing.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    60
    I'm actually thinking of doing the same thing as well but I want to see how they handle it. I've heard you won't be able to kill Arthas in 10 man, only 25 and that the 10 mans won't open until the 25 man is defeated. Both of those idea are poor choices on Blizzards part.
    i could have sworn that it was the opposite. 10 man completion for attunement for the 25 man.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    241
    But to be honest, I really embrace the fact that its less about whose right or wrong about how many people they have and more about getting people to experience the content, and then rewarding them for whatever difficulty level they beat it on and however many people they have with them. - Jeff Kaplan

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    552
    Having full epics used to mean you played frequently, were a good player, and could put those epics to good use. At least that's how it was on my server. I'd say the average person had full blues and maybe 1 epic.

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

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

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

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

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

    Some people are just better than others, and recognizing that is not a bad thing.
    Last edited by Krashtork; 07-16-2008 at 10:28 AM.
    Tanks: We like it rough.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Krashtork View Post
    Having full epics used to mean you played frequently, were a good player
    It meant you played frequently and could make the times of a raiding guild, nothing more nothing less.

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

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    552
    orcstar on my server, you didn't get epics unless you were good. There really wasn't much of a way around it. The only guilds that bothered to raid anything wouldn't take nooby players, and the guilds that did didn't get anywhere.

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

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Krashtork View Post
    orcstar on my server, you didn't get epics unless you were good. There really wasn't much of a way around it. The only guilds that bothered to raid anything wouldn't take nooby players, and the guilds that did didn't get anywhere.

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

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

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

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

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

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    552
    While I don't disagree with you, I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

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

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

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

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

    My complaint is now those players who would normally be in full greens, are now in full epics, and are harder to identify as noobs.
    Tanks: We like it rough.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    60
    i think you both generally are talking about the same thing.

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

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

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

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



    Back to being close to the original topic...

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

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

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


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



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

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



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

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

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by kawika View Post
    Both methods do work. Method 1 is what i call raiding harder...method 2 is what i call raiding smarter. You can have a guild that only raids 2 days a week downing Illidan where another guild that raids 5 is barely able to clear ssc/tk. Of course there's the raiding hard AND smart...which is where the top world wide guilds are =p.

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

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

    Another interesting point is that a 5 day a week raiding guild that is successful (doing current tier content before it is obsoleted) is going to remove the noobs. You can't have "Mr. I fail out of my arena matches 10 times a week, but have Vengeful Glad gear" screwing your raids and it's a lot harder to hide massive incompetence on a 5 day schedule.
    Last edited by minrog; 07-23-2008 at 04:21 AM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    60
    I guess the timeline would be relevant when talking about competitiveness. I don't think they had it cleared, but i think there was one guild on my server that had made a decent amout of headway in naxx pre-bc. Fairly sure they were at 2 or 3 nights a week raid schedule. That was some time ago so memory is a bit fuzzy...hehe. I'm not aware of any guild downing Kiljaeden that's raiding less than 3 days a week...but then again i don't really pay attention to that stuff.



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

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

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


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




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

    A strictly 10 man guild in the expac may loose ground because of the accessibility of gear. Those doing 25 mans will have an edge because they have access to more gear than the 10 man guild does. A 10 man guild may not get world firsts, but i think it should still be considered reasonable that they'd be able to keep up with content as it comes out.
    Last edited by kawika; 07-23-2008 at 08:22 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts