+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 108

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

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5
    Maybe they should only let you equip 10 man obtained gear inside 10 man difficulties and vice versa. Raiders collecting legendary "shards" or hoping for the low % drop could only be eligible once a week. I think a 10/25 only legendary (again) would be bad, but it leaves the question how would blizzard conntrol progression of legendaries in dual raid guilds. Perhaps once someone in the guild earns their legendary there's a cooldown time before the next one can be turned in or "purchased" with the legendary "shards".The seperately usable loot seems to fit with the flavour of "something for everybody but maybe not for you" mop has going. It just means you have a second set of gear in your bank for alt runs.
    (my ipad wasn't letting me add breaks)

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    5,477
    I don't really like the idea of loot being exclusionary to a certain format. Even PvP/Raid gear you can at least USE in the other, even if it's not optimal. Splitting what gear you can use for what format seems.... tedious, for lack of a better word.
    [Today 09:38 AM] Reev: The older I get, the more I think those Greek philosophers were just annoying hipsters.
    Twitter @Aggathon || @Tankspot || Twitch.Tv/Aggathon

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    39
    Seems like the arguments for separating 10 and 25 lockouts are few and minor. It just doesn't make any sense to do that if they are still dropping the same loot.

    As far as adding prestige to 25 man raids, what if Blizzard put in PVE leaderboards/guild rankings within the game? They are already kind of doing that with challenge mode times. I think it would be really nice to have an in-game display of guild progression ranks, separated by 10 and 25 man.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    5,477
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoltar View Post
    As far as adding prestige to 25 man raids, what if Blizzard put in PVE leaderboards/guild rankings within the game? They are already kind of doing that with challenge mode times. I think it would be really nice to have an in-game display of guild progression ranks, separated by 10 and 25 man.
    The only reasons I can really think of to not do that are "how do you classify progress." For example, they've said T14 will have 14 bosses across 3 instances. What if one guild kills instance 1, while another clears instance 2. Instance 2 might have more bosses, but might be easier, and instance 1 might have a real hard boss to take down that that guild managed to take down and has more prestige, but not same number of points. I don't think blizzard wants to officially say, "raw number of boss kills = most progressed" or tag a boss as, "yes this is the hardest boss and you get more points for killing it."

    At least, those are the reasons I could think of for not doing it in a non-linear raid environment. If all raids were linear, maybe.
    [Today 09:38 AM] Reev: The older I get, the more I think those Greek philosophers were just annoying hipsters.
    Twitter @Aggathon || @Tankspot || Twitch.Tv/Aggathon

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    4,025
    I think the shared lock out has more to do with the loot in 10 and 25 being the same than any concern of hardcore raiders feeling compelled to run the same content multiple times. Based on Blizzard's desire to hook the casuals/new players, I don't think the hardcore raiders are that far up on the radar screen. They are important but not the centers of the WoW universe they believe themselves to be.

    It's matter a length of time to gear up. Gear up too fast and people stop playing - I feel somewhere Blizzard has done a calculation on how long it would take the average raider/player to fully gear up their toon based on boss kills per week and drop probablity and that they try to space out content upgrade based on this time line; generally.

    I agree 100% on LFR, it's not raiding, it just a fun free for all zerg fest that drops shinies.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    786
    Lore hits a lot of nails on the head as always. But the split lock out thing is a huge dilemna. I loved the Burning Crusade format where simply ran your 25 man raids and then did Karazhan and Zul'Aman on offnights. Samething in Vanilla with ZG and AQ20. Now there is the problem with people too casual to be in a 25 man guild.

    In WoTLK in most cases I hated running the same place twice. I would have preferred separate 10 and 25 man content. The only exception was when my 25 man raid wasn't able to do too many hardmodes while my 10 man was able to making the experience feel a lot more unique.

    Cataclysm with only on raid lock out I ran out of things to do quickly. While I hated running the same raid twice it was still something to do. Looking for Raid was a deathblow for me, like Lore said you pretty much have to run it, but its such a faceroll fest honestly feel like Blizzard should just give us the option to /roll 8 times and maybe get loot for it.

    I dont think there is a fix for this to be honest. The only thing I can think of is giving 10 and 25 man raids a few unique encounters exclusive to the raid mode, which I doubt Blizzard has time for.

    The next is I just think that Looking for Raid needs to be a 10 man only set up. Then they can crank up the difficulty close to WoTLK 10 mans and make it feel like an actually pug where people had to come together and raid.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggathon View Post
    The only reasons I can really think of to not do that are "how do you classify progress." For example, they've said T14 will have 14 bosses across 3 instances. What if one guild kills instance 1, while another clears instance 2. Instance 2 might have more bosses, but might be easier, and instance 1 might have a real hard boss to take down that that guild managed to take down and has more prestige, but not same number of points. I don't think blizzard wants to officially say, "raw number of boss kills = most progressed" or tag a boss as, "yes this is the hardest boss and you get more points for killing it."

    At least, those are the reasons I could think of for not doing it in a non-linear raid environment. If all raids were linear, maybe.
    I think the way you would distinguish between guilds progressing in different dungeons would be a point system. You assign points to a boss based on difficulty and how soon they were killed. Rankings are based on the amount of points you get. That's really the only way to do it (that I can think of). But, I do agree that Blizzard would probably be reluctant to officially say "this boss is harder than that boss," mostly due to the amount of whining that would occur.

    The only way you could do it and avoid a point system is by time: First guild to kill all bosses = first place. Second guild to kill all bosses = second place, and so on. But you wouldn't be able to compare progression until a tier was cleared, with that system.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    4,025
    While they take an interest in world firsts, do you really think Blizzard likes or cares about guild ranking. If anything, I would think they would want to avoid it like the plague since it would only serve to be a divisive force in the game and they're not going to want to promote divisiveness.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoltar View Post
    Seems like the arguments for separating 10 and 25 lockouts are few and minor. It just doesn't make any sense to do that if they are still dropping the same loot.
    This !
    &
    Quote Originally Posted by Theotherone View Post
    I think the shared lock out has more to do with the loot in 10 and 25 being the same than any concern of hardcore raiders feeling compelled to run the same content multiple times. Based on Blizzard's desire to hook the casuals/new players, I don't think the hardcore raiders are that far up on the radar screen.
    This !

    Blizzard won't separate the lock-outs just to give 25m raids prestige. Maybe in MoP they'll give different achievements and guild achievements but that's all.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    144
    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
    Pretty sure you'd just be able to upgrade the "top" tier of gear in ilevels, making those win out v the upgraded lower ilevel gear.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggathon View Post
    The only reasons I can really think of to not do that are "how do you classify progress." For example, they've said T14 will have 14 bosses across 3 instances. What if one guild kills instance 1, while another clears instance 2. Instance 2 might have more bosses, but might be easier, and instance 1 might have a real hard boss to take down that that guild managed to take down and has more prestige, but not same number of points. I don't think blizzard wants to officially say, "raw number of boss kills = most progressed" or tag a boss as, "yes this is the hardest boss and you get more points for killing it."

    At least, those are the reasons I could think of for not doing it in a non-linear raid environment. If all raids were linear, maybe.
    I don't see the issue with going by raw number of boss kills. Even if it's non-linear, I don't see an issue. Lets say for example, I decided that my guild will just do BOT, and we end up clearing 4/4 while another group went 3/4 in BOT and 5/6 in BWD. 8 kills is more than 4, even if that 4 includes an "end" boss. Progress is progress, and that's what we are trying to label. My 4/4 guild might be "better" or "more skilled", but once again we are measuring progress. And guilds will naturally take the path of least resistance and kill the easier bosses first, so the "problem" isn't that likely to crop up, at least not to that extreme of a degree.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    There already is a very basic "progress" classification system.

    Achievements.

    It's built into the game and is a very simple, binary, sort of thing. Problems arise though in tiers with multiple raids (this boss is harder or this instance is harder) or within the tier iteself (boss X killed pre-nerf). What's lacking is a system that quantifies some of the basic measures that the raiding community uses. I don't see Blizzard eager to jump into this beyond achievements though simply due to the issue that... if they insert themselves as a "judge" or "referee".... they open themselves to further criticism.

    Say, Blizzard ranks boss A as worth more than boss B. Questions as to "Why?" What mechanics do they use to score this? How did they weigh this out? Guilds will inevitably try to "hack" that to aim for the things that will give them the "highest score".

    And then, of course, there's the inevitable, "OMGZBLIZZ HOW R U SO FAIL?!?!?! BOSS B OBVIOUSLY > BOSS A!!!!!"

    Postscript: This might be an area where something like what exists with EVE Online might be really handy. Where there is an "elected" player representation that has a voice/say over things. Say, for example... guilds involved with a World First Kill for a tier get an automatic seat at the table for sorting out the difficulty rating of various bosses for a tier.

    Blizzard wants to bring the player.... so... bring them. Give them an official voice in a calm and rational manner. Just a thought.

    Last edited by Leucifer; 04-11-2012 at 03:11 PM.
    No one tanks in a void.........

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Leucifer View Post
    There already is a very basic "progress" classification system.

    Achievements.
    For some reason, I completely forgot about achievements. That would simplify a way for Blizzard to do rankings on there own, quite a bit. More achievement points in a given tier = higher ranked on progression lists.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Slyvar View Post
    For some reason, I completely forgot about achievements. That would simplify a way for Blizzard to do rankings on there own, quite a bit. More achievement points in a given tier = higher ranked on progression lists.
    Yes. That'd be a simple system. Would it work? Yes. Would it "work"?..... As in please the entire raiding population?.....

    Sorry.... I'm done laughing now.
    Probably wouldn't. It wouldn't be the "only" ranking at the least.
    No one tanks in a void.........

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    17
    (This is really long, sorry. Just got on a tangent. - T.Jay)

    It seems to me, this is a question more akin to progression, and the personal preferences of the community as to how they want to progress and how certain changes could assist/hinder them.

    First of all, there is a very real use and even need in my opinion for the lockouts being the way they are. As it stands, I see a lot of the people hoping for certain changes to assist them/their guild/their raid team and a great many more looking for balance in the game. I see some of the problems (Selling raid slots, circumventing the loot system, burning out the community, etc) but i think the system as it stands does, kind of, work.

    Currently, outside of the LFR goat rope of ninjas and piņata looting, the idea of having one chance to loot a boss per week, does drop us to a level playing field. 10 man or 25 man, its your option. Blizzard seems to want 'choice' to be the flavor of the month and there it is, your 'choice'.

    When we get into terms of progression though, yes they need to be separated via guildox.com etc. I run a 10 man group because thats all I can muster together, but I do run 25s as a PUG when I can. It's just two different classes of groups. I have nothing to say about difficulty because it is ALL difficult to somebody. Hence why we play our choice.

    The only options I can see working comes down to a three option system.

    You got raid #1 which is 25 man only.
    Raid #2 which is 10 man only.
    And Raid #3 which offers a choice of 10 or 25 man.

    Separate them via the progression tracking websites to their 4 groups (25 man raid, 10 man raid, Raid #3 25 man and Raid #3 10 man) and let the chips fall where they may.

    As for balance in a guild over 'We're a 25 man raid group, now we need to add/subtract/divide (Hell, maybe even multiply)' from our teams or guild to make this work, I say, that is YOUR challenge. It keeps you moving and progressing for quite a while and like any good progression seeker, you can and will get your kills, without burnout from repeating yourself with the current, and potentially stale, tier you are working on. The true challenge lies in who can get all the boss kills. Blizzard could even make it a Meta Achievement to appease those looking for that all important 'World/Realm First!' Achievement. It'd be similar to the BWD, Tot4W, and BoT achv, with its corresponding 'Glory of the Cataclysm Raider' achievement and in some cases, can make your guild grow as you attempt to develop/recruit for the teams for your rank.

    Now, as for the argument of 'That's not fair! Guild X has a a 25 man team and mine is only a 10 man! It's easier for them to do this!' I am sorry, but as mama says 'Life ain't fair.' That, respectively, is YOUR challenge. I had my issues with it for a while as well, but when I see the #1 guild on my server touting their 'Realm First' achievement and I look on my guild, which isn't even close, I may get a bit upset, but I have to accept that there is nothing I can do about it. The only thing they do that's different is they have 25 people, and I have 10. And I have a hard enough time organizing 10 people, let alone another 15.

    Lastly, for those like me in the, 'We'll get there when we get there!' category, you got the time, and you'll never run out of content!

    Maybe I'm off my rocker, but I like how 'choice' and 'things to do' are becoming more of the focus of the game. I am fully aware that the number crunchers are hard at work to determine all the 'right' answers on how to complete Raid X or how to properly set up your toon for Instance Y. In the mean time until that's done, like the beginning of any expansion, it is open season. I know it will be difficult to do everything, but thats part of the challenge of it.
    Last edited by tjayrocket; 04-11-2012 at 03:57 PM. Reason: Too long, giving a warning.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,379
    I think individual lockouts with the same loot rewards for 10 and 25 man normal and heroic modes works. Remember that in Wrath, 10 man raid sizes offered inferior gear to 25 man, even though they had their own lockouts. With the addition of LFR, this causes an issue though. I don't know how they could combat it effectively, unless you put LFR regardless of size on a shared lockout with both 10 and 25 man Normal/Heroic but allow Normal/Heroic to be separate raids from themselves.


    The measure of a life is the measure of love and respect. So hard to earn, so easily burned - Neil Peart

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    99
    I wanted to say something about those people saying how unfair is the advantage for 25 man to have a second lockout (they seem to ignore some vitals part of the video). But I will just say that I would love to have a chance to pug 25 after I raid with my guild in 10 man. I would love to see /2 with a lot of 25 pugs of people that needs their second round this week or guilds looking for another guild to partner to do the second round, guilds looking for a second group so they can help each other. Right now I login, farm the instance, see you next week; I have more to do when too many people fail to attend and I need to pug.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    59

    10 vs 25

    So if 10 man and 25 man give the same gear, what is the insentive to run 25 man at all?

    My computer cannot handle 25 man raids so I am happy to be able to get gear in 10 mans and the lockout does not affect me at all.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    11

    On the Topic of Loot

    In the Marmot you talked about loot and how loot works on 25 mans and how its and insentive

    Being not much of a raider but have watched a lot of the Lore's questions and heard from a lot of the raiding community. Would it help larger raiding guilds if a group was dropped from 25 man to 20 man and then gave one more piece of loot so that it would 4 pieces. That way the loot preportions would be the set the same as the ten man. As for 2 for each group of ten.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Leucifer View Post

    Say, Blizzard ranks boss A as worth more than boss B. Questions as to "Why?" What mechanics do they use to score this? How did they weigh this out? Guilds will inevitably try to "hack" that to aim for the things that will give them the "highest score".
    Why would they count some bosses more than others? I'm saying that the PVE rankings would be just based on number of bosses you have killed and what dates. If my guild has killed 11 bosses of the current tier and yours has killed 10, then my guild is ranked ahead of yours. It doesn't matter if they were different kills or your 10 were "harder" than my 11. That stuff won't make much of a difference in the end.

+ 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