I think I'm done discussing the problem I have with this and the solution I have. People are choosing to be ignorant to the problems present by Spiritus. Fine, we'll wait and see what happens, and I'll be the first one to say I told you so.
Edit: While I agree that the "sky is falling" crap is old, I do think that some of the points we've discussed in the other thread in the General forums does have some merit, and while we hope that as cata approaches they'll address some of these, there's no harm in discussing the pitfalls and possible solutions in the meantime. I don't think myself or Spiritus have every outright said "ZOMG 25s are dead, GG", but we say things will get harder for 25 mans, and we foresee the non-hardest core 25 man guilds breaking up into 10 man groups since it'll largely be an easier task to manage 10 players than 25.
Last edited by Kazeyonoma; 05-03-2010 at 02:16 PM.
EDIT: I retract the word moderator, I would actually expect more of anyone in a discussion such as this.
Last edited by Mwawka; 05-03-2010 at 02:35 PM.
There may be some people that are truly upset about these changes. I think most people who are critical of the raiding changes on TankSpot merely foresee potential issues that could arise out of the system as explained currently. Some of which, like increased PuGing difficulties & guild breakups, may just be resolved as acceptable losses.
It is certainly true that we do not have any hard numbers, nor do we have any period of time to look back on to see how these changes will have affected the game. It is, however, reasonable to provide criticism on something that changes the structural gameplay on such a basic level. Though the beta will go a long way to help tune the content, it will do little to show how these changes will affect guild dynamics, which is where most of the criticism lies.
I'm fairly confident that the final product will be ultimately successful economically. I am just hesitant to suggest that the proposed changes as presented are the best options to solve the problems of gear inflation and player burnout, as they seem to present as many problems as they aim to resolve.
How am I wrong here? People are choosing to remained uninformed or happen to be unaware of the fact that 25 man guilds will suffer heavy losses in their rotation/reserve/backups because of these changes, and yet people continue to ignore those, and continue to talk about how "well I'm gonna enjoy being in a 10 man" is going to somehow fix this. Notice that Spiritus posted up 4 points, and only some of them have been addressed, the one that I brought up is the one most passionate to me, and yet people continue to ignore it. Am I being inflammatory? No, because it's the truth, people continue to talk about this discussion while completely ignoring the fact, and thus are Ignorant, uninformed, unaware despite it being right there in front of them.
To elaborate on a couple of the points I tried to make in the video:
I don't think PUG's will suffer too much. Look at 25 Normal ICC right now. A handful of alts and nonraiders in my guild easily manages to PUG the majority of the instance every Saturday evening by grabbing the 10-15 or so regulars and pugging the rest. As the buff continues to grow, those runs clear more and more in less time.
Remember that there's two separate distinctions that are made regarding what content you're clearing: 10 vs 25, and normal vs heroic. As I mentioned in the video, GC said relatively recently that they weren't real happy with making the hardcore guilds wait to get into the heroic modes. So I imagine we'll see this sort of setup:
10 Normal: Very PUG/alt/casual guild friendly. Very easy to organize and clear.
10 Heroic: More serious players who don't have the time or would just rather play with 9 other people instead of 24. The "casual hardcore" crowd will probably see the most appeal here. Some potential for serious hardcore 10man raiding as well.
25 Normal: Still very pug/alt/casual friendly, just takes a bit more organization. I think we'll see a lot of "Come to Xrichardx's 25man on Tuesday!" going on. Small groups of people who organize the 25man runs because there's better loot returns. Casual 25man guilds will be happy here as well.
25 Heroic: The real meat of progression. Better returns on loot make running 25man better for progression (your average raider will be better geared than if you were running 10s), and the organization of 25 people will artificially inflate the difficulty so that you feel like it's "harder". I don't see 25H losing the "real progression raiding" title.
As far as 25man guilds losing people to 10mans, yeah, that's pretty likely. I imagine most 25man guilds will have to do a lot of recruiting once they start getting to 85 and wanting to get into the raids. Thing is, that always happens with expansions regardless of game changes. When MB started running 25mans in Wrath, we were bringing maybe 6 people from our TBC 25man roster. Today, there are 3 people in our main roster that even set foot with us into Sunwell. Same exact thing happened in TBC, when the 40->25 switch was supposed to "kill" endgame raiding. As long as people still exist who want to be at the top of progression, serious 25man guilds will still have raiders.
I don't feel uninformed on your concerns, but I don't share them. I understand your passion and commend you for it. If you think I haven't put thought into your concerns, I actually have put a lot into them, because when you first brought them up, I shared them to some extent, but after putting thought into it, I don't share them anymore. That's not ignorance, I have made a decision based on thought and knowledge. If you feel I am missing any knowledge based on my comments and not some perceived 10 man bias, then please share them with me.
Maybe Blizzard has a solution they haven't shared with us. I don't know. Other than your issue, this thread is mostly a rehash of the other one at this point.
I do think that any proposed solution that ignores Blizzard's wish to control speed of gear acquisition is just wishful thinking, though.
Last edited by mavfin; 05-03-2010 at 03:51 PM.
@mavfin, so why aren't we campaigning the boss lockout with single lockouts to 10/25 per week (as current), explain to them the benefits, display the only con (confusing i guess?) and then offer ways to show how the con can be overcome with simple UI modifications to the "raid info" tab that we all are aquainted with. Stating that "it'll be confusing to new raiders" is BS to me, so is getting locked out of 25 mans once you kill a boss in 10 mans they'll just be as quick to say "wait what?" and be confused until they are explained to.
So long as we are disjointed in our agreement that there IS a problem, then we can't push to get it fixed and that is what is infuriating me the most.
Once again, just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me wrong or uninformed. I may be wrong, but the fact of the matter is neither one of us knows right now. So I ask you this question (or anyone with BC raiding experience). What did guilds do in BC to maintain a functional raiding roster when this problem must have existed? Quite frankly, I don't see how the situation will differ from it did then. So please inform me so I'm not ignorant anymore.
Mwawka: we ran Karazhan a lot because there wasn't a badge system implemented until Sunwell/late BT, so we had to run back content to get caught up in gear. And in BT we ran ZA.
I apologize for the ignorant comment, it wasn't directed necessarily at you, but more at people who choose to gloss over the issues that Spiritus presented. I'm aware that most people who post in this thread who were active in the other thread are probably well aware of the pitfalls of these changes.
To be honest the instance was called "Dramazhan". It actually tore a lot of guilds apart.
There is something so appealing about backhanding someone across the face with a shield.
I don't know that you and I are disjointed that there is a problem. I can see your problem plainly, as well as the reserve issue for 25s AND for 10s. Yes, 10-man guilds have reserves, too. We don't pick our 10s out of as many people as you pick your 25s out of, after all.
So, I'll lay out my opinion/thoughts here on the lockout issue, and add the rest of the issues in a 2nd section.
1) All my thoughts on this are based on the assumption that Blizzard is doing the shared lockout to control maximum gear-up speed, not to control anyone's playtime; i.e. playtime reductions on X toon are a consequence of the change, not the intention of it. I've stated before that Blizzard really didn't like seeing guilds run 10 and 25 to gear up as fast as possible, clear all the content, and then post everywhere they could read that 'Wrath is faceroll, we cleared it too fast!'. They're going to limit max progression speed to as fast or slow as they want it to be, and this is one of the mechanisms. They're capping max badges per week, and max raid loot opportunities per week. It's fine if you disagree with them wanting to do this, but that's outside the scope of this post.
2) So, we have people like Kaz who like to raid 10s and 25s, one for progression, one for social, and are perfectly willing to give up loot in one of them to be able to run them. IMO, any solution will have to do this. Any solution that gives loot in both sizes will break the loot-control in the first point, and won't fly with Blizzard.
3) So, a 'boss-lockout' system has been proposed here on Tankspot, and probably other places. How that would work would be that once you've seen a boss die in a raid week, then you can still kill him again, but you're not eligible for loot or badges from that boss after the first time. This would allow people like Kaz to do his 10-mans every week for progression, or 25-man when he gets in early, and still be available for the other to help if needed, but not eligible for loot, therefore not breaking Blizzard's control of gear-up speed.
4) As has been brought up here also, this could be abused by taking a 10-man raid to <end boss>, and then starting 10 new raids cleared to <end boss>. The way I proposed to fix that would be to tie a boss lockout to the raid ID or IDs. Maximum of one 10 and one 25-man raid ID per boss ID per week. There's been some discussion of how extending raid lockouts would work with this system, but that's not yet fleshed out that I know of. There may be other solutions to prevent abuse, feel free to toss them out here. Tying boss-IDs to raid-IDs is just one.
With that, I've covered my thoughts on the boss lockout issue.
On to thoughts on the loot:
1) Loot ilevels I: They should be equal at the normal difficulty level. 10-man normal and 25-man normal, in appropriate gear, are pretty much equal difficulty, averaged across fights. Fights with spread-out requirements push 25s more, fights with individual person requirements push 10s more; i.e. losing 1 person in 10s is worse than losing 1 person in 25s in normal-mode fights. The two ways balance out. I basically call bullshit on anyone who says Blizzard "can't" balance 10 and 25 at the normal level. Also, yes, 25-man has more organizational overhead. Blizzard's signalling that they're not going to give the whole raid better loot for the work of a few people organizing it. Fact is, I've seen a lot of 25-man puggies who got better loot than 10-man for doing almost nothing, so don't put the 'challenge' argument in my face at this level. I'll laugh at you.
2) Loot ilevels II: Heroic mode balancing is a different issue. At the 'any one person can cause a wipe at any time' level, 25-man has more points of failure. However, only heroic mode fights will be balanced to this level, and will run into this issue. What they do with loot ilvls here, I don't know, as there is some validity to the 10/25 balancing arguments here. My gut feeling is that they will leave the loot ilvls equal, because the numbers here relative to normal mode are quite a bit smaller, and they're going to put controlling ilvl inflation above tossing 25-man heroic raiders a bone. Again, that's only my opinion of what they'll do.
No one yet knows what else will come with this, or exactly how many raid instances, with how many bosses, will be available at Cataclysm launch, so, for the rest, I'll wait and see. Personally, I like the changes, with the exception of the part that's got Kaz stuck in a bad situation, which I outlined one possible solution to.
Thanks for the apology, and I understand it's coming from a position of frustration. I do understand that there are concerns with guild organization, but I just hate to jump to conclusions on how it will play out once the content is actually released. I've thought through a lot of solutions guilds could use to keep a happy roster, but until we see the final product it is really all conjecture. I am sure that no matter what happens raiding both 10 and 25 will continue and solutions will be found and there will always be people who feel like they've been short changed. I've really made all my points and if I have something new to offer or get some information that makes me alter my view, I will certainly post something to that effect. Remember though, I very much respect your opinion as I do Spiritus'. I'm not trying to change your minds or convince you to think otherwise, because you might be right, I'm just trying to offer a counter argument to your concerns, based on a more moderate stance.
EDIT: I also would like to say that I think the idea if a 'boss' lockout system is worth listening to. It's different, but not bad and certainly would make guild management a lot easier. Guild management issues are something Blizzard would be wise to listen to.
your shirts are always sweet Lore
I'll readily admit that anything said before the final product is released is conjecture. We have no clue exactly what will be implemented based on feedback from the beta. I'd venture to say that the core of these changes will remain intact, just because Blizzard is not apt to release information like this and then execute a 180. I can only present what I see as issues that can, and in some instances I believe will, arise from the proposals.
I have a very Aristotelian view of argument; that is rhetoric uncovers the truth. The more people present their positions clearly, the better off the community will be as a whole. Conflict is a necessary byproduct to these ends.