+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 108

Thread: The Weekly Marmot - 10/25 Man Shared Lockouts

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    5,519
    Quote Originally Posted by mavfin View Post
    That's why I asked if I misunderstood him, Slyvar. On the subject of ilevels: the raiders themselves *caused* the ilevel separation of tiers when they tried to do smaller tiers with the original Karazhan. Raiders basically said it wasn't worth running because it wasn't a big enough upgrade. Blizzard upped the ilevels of the loot, and the rest is history, and this was in BC.
    What? When? T4 and T5 was some of the most-run content ever. There's also this fixation that higher ilevel = better. Until recently (with base stats being so much better than ratings for most cases), this wasn't always the case. Something could be itemized better, but be a lower item level and thusly still valuable to get. When you have ilevels that are closer together, then the difference in an item having say... mastery instead of haste... actually matters because the difference in raw int or str isn't as significant so ratings start to matter again. Right now if you have a 410 piece and a 397 piece, whichever has more int or str or agi, etc. is almost always better. And that's just within the same tier. A 397 piece I think in all cases is better than any 378 piece. There might be small exceptions here and there, but for the most part there were a LOT of exceptions in TBC when tiers weren't immediately out-dated and you couldn't do the next tier without completing the previous one (either due to gearing or keying depending on what point you were at in the xpac).

    I completely agree with sly/feral, smaller ilevel differences between tiers is key, but this is all kind of going off on a tangent of "tiered progression" rather than 10s vs 25s shared lockouts, though I do agree with feral that I'd rather have more relevant content and tiered progression then see them try to use "well you can do 10s and 25s, that's more stuff to do, right?" as a cop-out response for more content. I agree with Lore. I'll do more content, I just don't want to do the same thing OVER AND OVER again.
    "If the world is something you accept rather than interpret, then you're susceptible to the influence of charismatic idiots." -Neil deGrasee Tyson

    Twitter @Aggathon || @Tankspot || Twitch.Tv/Aggathon

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggathon View Post
    What? When?
    This happened when Karazhan was very new. They redid the ilevels very early in the expansion, because of the outcry from raiders that it wasn't enough boost. I think Kara was dropping 100 instead of 115 or something like that.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    5,519
    Quote Originally Posted by mavfin View Post
    This happened when Karazhan was very new. They redid the ilevels very early in the expansion, because of the outcry from raiders that it wasn't enough boost. I think Kara was dropping 100 instead of 115 or something like that.
    Oh, that, no the problem there was that the DS3 sets were often itemized better than kara, that had nothing to do with ilevels between tiers. Like there was tons of 5 man dungeon stuff that was better than raiding. That was the outcry.

    Edit: like literally blues that were higher ilevel.
    "If the world is something you accept rather than interpret, then you're susceptible to the influence of charismatic idiots." -Neil deGrasee Tyson

    Twitter @Aggathon || @Tankspot || Twitch.Tv/Aggathon

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    39
    The new LFR loot system in mists of pandaria solves the whole issue of guilds farming LFR over and over with alts to gear out their mains. Your chance to get loot is going to be individualized. So it won't matter if the other 24 people are going to pass or if they have already used their "prime" lockout. But, I still think they need to do something about LFR, especially with T14 having 14 bosses. Killing 14 bosses on normal/heroic and then again in LFR every week is going to be much more burnout inducing than it was in dragon soul with just 8 bosses.

    You could simply combine all the lockouts (lfr, 10, and 25), but this would likely cause a huge decline in the quality of groups in LFR because anyone who raids normal or heroic wouldn't ever use LFR except possibly on an alt. A better option is to extend the loot-lockout period for LFR. Make LFR lockouts expire every 2 weeks instead of weekly. This basically cuts in half the number of times a raider would need to run LFR in order to maximize his gearing.

    Of course, with almost double the number of bosses, halving the frequency of runs just gets you back to square 1. So to go even further, you could limit the "wings" that are available in LFR each lockout if the raid tier is really large. So to use T11 as an example, perhaps one week the LFR raid would be BWD. When the lock resets, BoT and Throne would have been available. The issue would be trying to split a single raid in two. If I have to complete Siege of Wrymrest to queue for Fall of Deathwing, and Siege of Wrymrest isn't available, then I'd be forced to wait to for it to come back around.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggathon View Post
    Oh, that, no the problem there was that the DS3 sets were often itemized better than kara, that had nothing to do with ilevels between tiers. Like there was tons of 5 man dungeon stuff that was better than raiding. That was the outcry.

    Edit: like literally blues that were higher ilevel.
    The issue of blues with higher ilvl.....
    If you cap off how good "blues" can be, then you will have the "I GOTSA HAVE EPICS!!!!!" effect. People want gear that is useful and meaningful. Be it blue or purple. We've crossed over into a point where the stigma is if it's not purple, it's trash.

    The problem with this currently is.... if purple has to be higher than blue in ilvl, everything past your first tier of raiding in an expansion has to be purple. In other words, taking Cata for example.... everything after tier 11, no matter how good or crappy it is compared to current content.... is "epic". And this problem is exacerbated by the growth of stats between tiers. In BC.... you COULD actually raid in blues because statwise, they were competitive. Now? Forget it.

    Really, you should just probably get rid of the "color coding".
    No one tanks in a void.........

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Leucifer View Post
    The issue of blues with higher ilvl.....
    If you cap off how good "blues" can be, then you will have the "I GOTSA HAVE EPICS!!!!!" effect. People want gear that is useful and meaningful. Be it blue or purple. We've crossed over into a point where the stigma is if it's not purple, it's trash.

    The problem with this currently is.... if purple has to be higher than blue in ilvl, everything past your first tier of raiding in an expansion has to be purple. In other words, taking Cata for example.... everything after tier 11, no matter how good or crappy it is compared to current content.... is "epic". And this problem is exacerbated by the growth of stats between tiers. In BC.... you COULD actually raid in blues because statwise, they were competitive. Now? Forget it.

    Really, you should just probably get rid of the "color coding".
    I could get on board with that. Rate gear by iLevel and not color... Legendaries still need to be orange though! :P

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    971
    I liked it.



    Wow your closing arguement was nice. I have submitted that to wowprogress's people for consideration.
    [Today 06:48 PM] Ion:swimming in a natural body of water ISN'T acceptable...it's momentarily tolerable

  8. #28
    Lore you are absolutely right that there would be no solution that pleases everyone.
    For me, the 'best' solution (although I have no interest in organizing 25mans again) to use the new LFR loot system across the board. (1 loot per boss per person in a week, can run any difficulty multiple times)

    This way players wouldn't be forced to run LFR (because you can only loot once from LFR, Normal, Heroic, 10 or 25).

    That means now they would have to add the option to pass on stuff (they would have to make sure it is very clear though)
    You CAN still run them multiple times, and because the loot is on a per player basis there is no way to artificially boost people up by running multiple alt raids (like how some did with LFR. Not the exploit, but a legit way).


    The problem is, making LFR 'only' an option means that there are much less 'raiders' on the LFR system.
    Yes being in a normal/heroic raid does not guarantee that the player is better, but in general people who raid regularly is better at the raid than people who only do LFRs.

    That means the average experience of LFR would be worse, and that means to counter that, Blizz would have to make LFR even easier, becuase people who do them usually dont want to spend a lot of time. (remember how a lot of people used to leave instances when they get que'd for an instance they think take too much time?)

    I think incentive to do LFR is needed, and here is what I think.
    You know how you can get marks for doing dailies that can be used for getting the charm of good fortune?
    Make participating LFR after your loot lockout(or if you pass) reward that.
    And make it 'take place' of the mark you would get for a daily, so you dont feel obligated to do LFR, its just an option for getting the mark.


    Example:its a daily, so lets say you can get 6 marks a day. you can either do 6 quests to get that 'cap' or you can do a single LFr run to get the cap. There is no way to go over 6, and LFR only allows you to 'skip' questing for the day.
    Some people would choose to quest, while others would choose to LFR.

    Not a perfect solution, but its the best I can think of by playing around with the current/MoP system.

    Yes with the system I am proposing, there is a much higher chance that you will get A loot in 25 than there is in 10, but that is true even right now. (there is a much higher chance for all 2 drops from a boss to be useless to the 10 manraid than it is for the 4? drops from a boss to be useless to the 25man raid.)
    So it isnt a new problem (if it even is a problem. 1 person getting new gear has a much bigger affect on the raid than 1 getting new gear in 25man)

    Also, I wholeheartedly agree that the community in general should split 10 and 25 man progress, and that starts from the major progress tracking sites.

    EDIT: sorry for any grammatical mistakes. Not a native speaker:/
    Last edited by BLSTMASTER; 04-11-2012 at 09:44 AM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Slyvar View Post
    I could get on board with that. Rate gear by iLevel and not color... Legendaries still need to be orange though! :P
    Legendaries being a radioactive topic in of itself. Sure. Keep them orange. Whatever. They are unique enough to maybe warrant it. But "rares/blues" and "epics/purples"? Are they really "rare" or "epic"?
    No one tanks in a void.........

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Leucifer View Post
    Legendaries being a radioactive topic in of itself. Sure. Keep them orange. Whatever. They are unique enough to maybe warrant it. But "rares/blues" and "epics/purples"? Are they really "rare" or "epic"?
    I was talking with a friend about this recently. It has made a shift upwards since TBC and vanilla. Where we used to sell every green on the AH and vendor everything below it. Now we sell BoE blues and vendor everything below that. Blue certainly aren't rare, and epics aren't very epic anymore. :P I remember the first time I saw someone in all epic gear, it was cool. I didn't get a character in all epic gear until AQ40...Yes, I raid up to Twin Emps before I got rid of my last blue. I think they dropped a trinket or a ring for me.


    On topic: I agree with pretty much everything Lore said. But, I think it's a bit sad that rankings on wowprogress have such a huge bearing on people. Too many guild leaders look at something and go "oh Paragon did it, so I must have to." When in reality, if your progression is anywhere below the top 2-4%, you don't NEED to run LFR for the upgrades. If your'e under the top 10%, you absolutely don't need to.

    My guild in WotLK only ran 25's. We ran a few 10's here and there. But it was rare and only when we had 10 people online on an off-night that felt like running. We managed to crack the top 100, and normally maintained just under world top 200. I will grant that the large gaps in iLevel contribute to this problem more than it did back in WotLK, though. It still feels silly for a guild that is ranked like 1500th in the world, to think they need to do LFR for that progression level.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggathon View Post
    What? When? T4 and T5 was some of the most-run content ever. There's also this fixation that higher ilevel = better. Until recently (with base stats being so much better than ratings for most cases), this wasn't always the case. Something could be itemized better, but be a lower item level and thusly still valuable to get. When you have ilevels that are closer together, then the difference in an item having say... mastery instead of haste... actually matters because the difference in raw int or str isn't as significant so ratings start to matter again. Right now if you have a 410 piece and a 397 piece, whichever has more int or str or agi, etc. is almost always better. And that's just within the same tier. A 397 piece I think in all cases is better than any 378 piece. There might be small exceptions here and there, but for the most part there were a LOT of exceptions in TBC when tiers weren't immediately out-dated and you couldn't do the next tier without completing the previous one (either due to gearing or keying depending on what point you were at in the xpac).

    I completely agree with sly/feral, smaller ilevel differences between tiers is key, but this is all kind of going off on a tangent of "tiered progression" rather than 10s vs 25s shared lockouts, though I do agree with feral that I'd rather have more relevant content and tiered progression then see them try to use "well you can do 10s and 25s, that's more stuff to do, right?" as a cop-out response for more content. I agree with Lore. I'll do more content, I just don't want to do the same thing OVER AND OVER again.
    this could maybe where the new valor system could fix it, running previous tiers for items with the right stats then use valor points to being them up to current lvl. this opens up more options for people to farm more raids than just the current tier

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    5,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Lestana View Post
    this could maybe where the new valor system could fix it, running previous tiers for items with the right stats then use valor points to being them up to current lvl. this opens up more options for people to farm more raids than just the current tier
    I like that idea a lot actually... way a lot!

    Re: should things be epic. Yes keep the color system in. No being "full epic" has not meant as much as it did now as it did in vanilla, but I think that's just a progression of the game. Greens = leveling/questing items (and largely are used for DE mats these days instead of selling to twinks and such), Blues = 1st round dungeon stuff to get you prepared for first tier raiding and/or are quality rewards/items while leveling, Epic = Raid quality gear. The first raiding tier has ALWAYS dropped epic loot since the days of MC. Keep it that way. There's nothing wrong with the color system at all.
    "If the world is something you accept rather than interpret, then you're susceptible to the influence of charismatic idiots." -Neil deGrasee Tyson

    Twitter @Aggathon || @Tankspot || Twitch.Tv/Aggathon

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Karlsruhe/Germany
    Posts
    4,008

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    5,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Fetzie View Post
    Zul'gurub and AQ20 dropped blues.
    Which were released after MC. Also AQ20 didn't drop blues iirc... the only blue stuff in AQ20 was the books and ZGs blues were just a couple items off the first few bosses.
    "If the world is something you accept rather than interpret, then you're susceptible to the influence of charismatic idiots." -Neil deGrasee Tyson

    Twitter @Aggathon || @Tankspot || Twitch.Tv/Aggathon

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    971
    20 man raid content was to raids what ZA/ZG were to raids when they first released. A step up from 5mans but not real raids.
    [Today 06:48 PM] Ion:swimming in a natural body of water ISN'T acceptable...it's momentarily tolerable

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    5,519
    Quote Originally Posted by leethaxor View Post
    20 man raid content was to raids what ZA/ZG were to raids when they first released. A step up from 5mans but not real raids.
    ^ That too.

    I mean you could argue that UBRS was a raid originally too and it dropped blues, but let's face it, raiding in vanilla was kind of... amorphous and it's really beside the overall point I'm trying to make which is "AFTER" Vanilla, being full epic "meant" less. Redoing the color system or removing it at best doesn't matter, at worst I think is a bad idea.
    "If the world is something you accept rather than interpret, then you're susceptible to the influence of charismatic idiots." -Neil deGrasee Tyson

    Twitter @Aggathon || @Tankspot || Twitch.Tv/Aggathon

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    971
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggathon View Post
    ^ That too.

    I mean you could argue that UBRS was a raid originally too and it dropped blues, but let's face it, raiding in vanilla was kind of... amorphous and it's really beside the overall point I'm trying to make which is "AFTER" Vanilla, being full epic "meant" less. Redoing the color system or removing it at best doesn't matter, at worst I think is a bad idea.
    No before 1.4? 1.6? You could bring any number of people to any instance so every instance was a raid therefore raid's dropped greens.
    [Today 06:48 PM] Ion:swimming in a natural body of water ISN'T acceptable...it's momentarily tolerable

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggathon View Post
    ^ That too.

    I mean you could argue that UBRS was a raid originally too and it dropped blues, but let's face it, raiding in vanilla was kind of... amorphous and it's really beside the overall point I'm trying to make which is "AFTER" Vanilla, being full epic "meant" less. Redoing the color system or removing it at best doesn't matter, at worst I think is a bad idea.
    You could add Strat and Scholo to that list. They were originally 15-man raids that dropped blues. :P

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    5,519
    Ya ya ya, point is. Purples are fine.
    "If the world is something you accept rather than interpret, then you're susceptible to the influence of charismatic idiots." -Neil deGrasee Tyson

    Twitter @Aggathon || @Tankspot || Twitch.Tv/Aggathon

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3
    Lore is right in that there is no way to satisfy everyone on the point of shared lockout (except perhaps to leave it in place).

    I appreciate the idea of someone in a 25 man guild wanting more stuff to do, but the same is also true for 10 man players. So if more is being given for raiders to do it must fit the 10 man guilds as well. As it stands right now on live both groups have the same lockout and rough number of raids to do per week with LFR to run as that "extra thing" and LFR sort of fits the slot of where 10 man raids were in wrath for the 25 man guilds.

    My own feelings on this are that the minute we start tinkering with lifting the shared lockout is that it will adversely impact the 10 man raider because 25s will be able to run twice a week for loot drops while 10 man guilds will not be able to. This in turn could destroy a lot of 10 man guilds out there as committed players feel obligated to sign up to a bigger guild.

    I am all for giving more things to do for raiders, but it has to be provided to both 10 and 25 man sets of players or we could see a lot of good guilds falling apart.

    perhaps another possible solution is to enable ALL raiders to be able to clear an instance twice a week?

+ 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