The only way to make 25's seem more desirable is to make 25's drop 3-4 items per boss, and 10's would have to be dropped to 1 per.
I highly doubt they'd make 10-man bosses drop only one item, unless they wanted to make sure no one bothered raiding in general.
Exactly. It pretty much HAS to stay at 2 per boss for 10's. So logically, 25's need to drop 5 items to be comparable...and like we've said, I don't see Blizzard doing that!
Or unless they doubled the amount of armor pieces available for each tier of emblem vendor, which I doubt they'll do either since they love their RNG lottery.
My thoughts too; RNG is here to stay, due to the fact that it keeps people paying a monthly subscription!
As far as I can tell they aren't looking to do that though. Everything in that post screamed doing their best to ensure doing 10s or 25s is a choice for fun factor and not gear.
If it's purely fun factor, I doubt many people would want to do 25mans, and by do, I mean lead.
Leading a 10man is both a lot less complicated and a lot less stressful.
End on
I wish that someway, somehow, that I could save every one of us
It wouldn't surprise me at all if they give 25 mans a bit more lenience with distance between people for "spread out for AoE" fights.
IE: need to be 10 yards apart for 10 mans, but only 5 yards apart for 25 mans.
I can't see them getting rid of that type of raid damage entirely.
It'd be nice if instead of difficult they came up with fun and silly ideas for fights. Like more boat/saurfang/BQL/deathwhisper/dreamwalker
You list BQL when that is one of the most ridiculous "stay spread out" fights there is. Easily up there with Blood Council and Arthas (defile that is) for the biggest "spread out" logistical nightmare on 25-mans.
Meh, yeah, that part of the fight is shitty. I was more on the "interesting" aspect of the fight. If they lowered the damage of those missiles it'd probably be fun.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
In most cases a guild will work best when fielding the least number of raids possible.
If you have enough for a 25m don't run two 10m (as guild sanctioned runs).
Guilds that raid together, stay together.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
As far as I can tell they aren't looking to do that though. Everything in that post screamed doing their best to ensure doing 10s or 25s is a choice for fun factor and not gear.
Which is something I support with everything in me.
Yeah, I've got nothing against this. And as someone else mentioned a page or two back: 10-man Legendaries!?
It wouldn't surprise me at all if they give 25 mans a bit more lenience with distance between people for "spread out for AoE" fights.
IE: need to be 10 yards apart for 10 mans, but only 5 yards apart for 25 mans.
I can't see them getting rid of that type of raid damage entirely.
Right, I didn't say get rid of it entirely, but do something to tone it down because spreading out in 10-man fights is a joke compared to doing it in 25. Seriously, I can't think of a fight in 10-man in all of WotLK where the "spread out" mechanic isn't trivial compared to its 25-man counterpart.
Right, you weren't the only person I've seen complaining about that mechanic though which was why I didn't specifically respond to your post with it.
I honestly can't say I fully agree with any of the raid changes other than making them share an ID. Not even sure currently how to vocalize my thoughts on the subject due to shock value.
Or unless they doubled the amount of armor pieces available for each tier of emblem vendor, which I doubt they'll do either since they love their RNG lottery.
My thoughts too; RNG is here to stay, due to the fact that it keeps people paying a monthly subscription!
But does it really? Most people who stay subscribed long term have more reason to do it than just waiting for that last raid drop in the current tier.
I wonder if they overestimate how much never-dropping trinkets are keeping their cash flow up.
They really 'ought to just make it 20 mans and get it over with. That would make balancing them a hell of a lot easier.
BINGO.
I never understood why they didn't cap raids at 20 when they made the switch in TBC.
It logistically made the most sense, especially with Kara being a 10 man...
In most cases a guild will work best when fielding the least number of raids possible.
If you have enough for a 25m don't run two 10m (as guild sanctioned runs).
Guilds that raid together, stay together.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
While this is very true, something has to be said about how committed to a group a person choses to be. The argument has been made many times, but if you're on bowling team in a competitive league, are you not going to be structuring your after-work schedule around making sure you can be at the alley for Thursdays, 7-10 pm without fail? If it's just a pick-up league, having to miss the occaisional night because of whatever reason isn't going to let your team down as much. It makes it tougher on the captain, but ultimately there's less responsibility.
In most cases a guild will work best when fielding the least number of raids possible.
If you have enough for a 25m don't run two 10m (as guild sanctioned runs).
Guilds that raid together, stay together.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
While this is very true, something has to be said about how committed to a group a person choses to be. The argument has been made many times, but if you're on bowling team in a competitive league, are you not going to be structuring your after-work schedule around making sure you can be at the alley for Thursdays, 7-10 pm without fail? If it's just a pick-up league, having to miss the occaisional night because of whatever reason isn't going to let your team down as much. It makes it tougher on the captain, but ultimately there's less responsibility.
That argument tends to fizzle out when you start comparing video games to organized sports or really any other social activity. There is a silly stigma that video games should not be considered a hobby that you can schedule your time around.
Or unless they doubled the amount of armor pieces available for each tier of emblem vendor, which I doubt they'll do either since they love their RNG lottery.
My thoughts too; RNG is here to stay, due to the fact that it keeps people paying a monthly subscription!
But does it really? Most people who stay subscribed long term have more reason to do it than just waiting for that last raid drop in the current tier.
I wonder if they overestimate how much never-dropping trinkets are keeping their cash flow up.
I'm pretty sure there have been numerous analyses done on the MMO RNG-gear phenomenon, and its relationship with subs. I don't have one available, but I'd certainly like to read one!
Sure, an MMO will lose people due to item X never dropping (It was BoH for my guild in Naxx...17 weeks, no dice!), but the crack-like nature of these games keeps us coming back (and paying!) despite that.
In most cases a guild will work best when fielding the least number of raids possible.
If you have enough for a 25m don't run two 10m (as guild sanctioned runs).
Guilds that raid together, stay together.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
While this is very true, something has to be said about how committed to a group a person choses to be. The argument has been made many times, but if you're on bowling team in a competitive league, are you not going to be structuring your after-work schedule around making sure you can be at the alley for Thursdays, 7-10 pm without fail? If it's just a pick-up league, having to miss the occaisional night because of whatever reason isn't going to let your team down as much. It makes it tougher on the captain, but ultimately there's less responsibility.
How does your example apply to running 10's vs 25's at all?
They both require organization and commitment. At least with 10's you have an easier time ensuring people are properly geared and care. For a 25, making sure all 24 other people have their shit together, proper gearing/gemming/enchanting/specing and learning the fucking strats, is hell on earth. I'm sure there will be guilds that go with 25's instead of 10's, i expect it to be common. But I think there will be just as many that go with 10's instead of 25's for a plethora of reasons.
In fact I'd go so far as to say for a semi-casual raiding guild, running 10's instead of 25's will do more to promote guild cohesiveness because you won't have a group of hardcore raiders suffering weekly at the hands of people who just show up but don't care too much. I've seen an absurd number of /gquits for this precise reason.
Hardcore guilds like ones that killed HM LK 25, will still do 25 man. It will give them more badges, and loot and get them to their end game faster. Plus most of them will brag that they did it on 25 and laugh at us 10 man scrubs anyway. Plus it does nothing to stop them from doing 25 man for a few weeks and going into 10 to clear it out as well. Doing 25 man for a few weeks will give you about a 10 runs worth of extra loot.
Just go with 5 weeks/5 bosses for easy comparison. That would equal 10 pieces of loot per week, 50 for 5 weeks not including tier. On a 25 man(going with what we have currently) that would be 15 per week, 75 for 5 weeks not counting tier. Thats a huge difference. 25 pieces is a lot. And also in most cases will give you double the pieces of tier. Even if some pieces cant be used, they can go to offspecs, which can later be moved into 2 10 mans and help move that along faster especially with the gated way of doing things. This does not take into effect badges etc that you will get as well.
Sure 25 man raids will not be happy about the same loot. But the prestige for most of these guilds i assume comes from doing 25 man anyway and getting to the top before anyone else. For the rest of us, this is a HUGE boost.
In most cases a guild will work best when fielding the least number of raids possible.
If you have enough for a 25m don't run two 10m (as guild sanctioned runs).
Guilds that raid together, stay together.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
While this is very true, something has to be said about how committed to a group a person choses to be. The argument has been made many times, but if you're on bowling team in a competitive league, are you not going to be structuring your after-work schedule around making sure you can be at the alley for Thursdays, 7-10 pm without fail? If it's just a pick-up league, having to miss the occaisional night because of whatever reason isn't going to let your team down as much. It makes it tougher on the captain, but ultimately there's less responsibility.
That argument tends to fizzle out when you start comparing video games to organized sports or really any other social activity. There is a silly stigma that video games should not be considered a hobby that you can schedule your time around.
It is definitely a silly stigma, but one that needs to be put to rest. With the ever-increasing social networking and online communication technological advancements, there's a growing number of people who choose to interact with friends made via the internet. We're probably not at that point yet where the "average" person views gaming as a legitmate pasttime, but it is becoming more mainstream and slowly approaching acceptability.
How long ago was it when people scoffed at online dating sites? Look at where it's at now.
In most cases a guild will work best when fielding the least number of raids possible.
If you have enough for a 25m don't run two 10m (as guild sanctioned runs).
Guilds that raid together, stay together.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
While this is very true, something has to be said about how committed to a group a person choses to be. The argument has been made many times, but if you're on bowling team in a competitive league, are you not going to be structuring your after-work schedule around making sure you can be at the alley for Thursdays, 7-10 pm without fail? If it's just a pick-up league, having to miss the occaisional night because of whatever reason isn't going to let your team down as much. It makes it tougher on the captain, but ultimately there's less responsibility.
80 year old men bowl. College kids and people with young children are the demographic for WoW. Our guild of about 40 members has one person over 30. Bowling is also one day a week. Any serious casual progression guild raids 3-4 days a week. Any totally hardcore progression guild usually raids 7 days a week. Shit happens and holidays, exam weeks, etc etc are all prime time where the guild basically grinds to a halt because there are about 5-10 key members missing. Two 10 mans has the potential to never be interrupted by this stuff.
Just go with 5 weeks/5 bosses for easy comparison. That would equal 10 pieces of loot per week, 50 for 5 weeks not including tier. On a 25 man(going with what we have currently) that would be 15 per week, 75 for 5 weeks not counting tier. Thats a huge difference. 25 pieces is a lot. And also in most cases will give you double the pieces of tier. Even if some pieces cant be used, they can go to offspecs, which can later be moved into 2 10 mans and help move that along faster especially with the gated way of doing things. This does not take into effect badges etc that you will get as well.
Except this is incorrect.
If you have 5 bosses, and on 10's they drop 2 items each, and on 25 they drop 3 items each:
In one week, the 10 man team will get 10 items, an average of one per raider.
In the 25 man raid, they will get 15 items, an average of only .6 items per raider
Yes, the raid gets more ITEMS per week on 25, but you get more items per raider on 10s.
Thus, the relative power of each raider grows faster each week on 10's...
In most cases a guild will work best when fielding the least number of raids possible.
If you have enough for a 25m don't run two 10m (as guild sanctioned runs).
Guilds that raid together, stay together.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
While this is very true, something has to be said about how committed to a group a person choses to be. The argument has been made many times, but if you're on bowling team in a competitive league, are you not going to be structuring your after-work schedule around making sure you can be at the alley for Thursdays, 7-10 pm without fail? If it's just a pick-up league, having to miss the occaisional night because of whatever reason isn't going to let your team down as much. It makes it tougher on the captain, but ultimately there's less responsibility.
That argument tends to fizzle out when you start comparing video games to organized sports or really any other social activity. There is a silly stigma that video games should not be considered a hobby that you can schedule your time around.
It is definitely a silly stigma, but one that needs to be put to rest. With the ever-increasing social networking and online communication technological advancements, there's a growing number of people who choose to interact with friends made via the internet. We're probably not at that point yet where the "average" person views gaming as a legitmate pasttime, but it is becoming more mainstream and slowly approaching acceptability.
How long ago was it when people scoffed at online dating sites? Look at where it's at now.
They are still scoffed at. Google the OkCupid article that internet dating does not work and that the commercials are blatant lies to get people to sign up. It's pretty hilarious. Also, I don't think playing games like WoW will ever become a social norm, simply because of the time commitment. It requires vast dedication to get to 80, and most people simply can't commit to 4 hour blocks of time without interruption.
In most cases a guild will work best when fielding the least number of raids possible.
If you have enough for a 25m don't run two 10m (as guild sanctioned runs).
Guilds that raid together, stay together.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
While this is very true, something has to be said about how committed to a group a person choses to be. The argument has been made many times, but if you're on bowling team in a competitive league, are you not going to be structuring your after-work schedule around making sure you can be at the alley for Thursdays, 7-10 pm without fail? If it's just a pick-up league, having to miss the occaisional night because of whatever reason isn't going to let your team down as much. It makes it tougher on the captain, but ultimately there's less responsibility.
How does your example apply to running 10's vs 25's at all?
They both require organization and commitment. At least with 10's you have an easier time ensuring people are properly geared and care. For a 25, making sure all 24 other people have their shit together, proper gearing/gemming/enchanting/specing and learning the fucking strats, is hell on earth. I'm sure there will be guilds that go with 25's instead of 10's, i expect it to be common. But I think there will be just as many that go with 10's instead of 25's for a plethora of reasons.
In fact I'd go so far as to say for a semi-casual raiding guild, running 10's instead of 25's will do more to promote guild cohesiveness because you won't have a group of hardcore raiders suffering weekly at the hands of people who just show up but don't care too much. I've seen an absurd number of /gquits for this precise reason.
You're right - it is easier to organize 9 others than 24 others. That's kind of the point I was making too. Choosing the more difficult (not in performance, but in organizing) path requires more commitment. It's a lot harder for a casual group of folks to organize 25's with consistency than 10's. In order to do so they need a larger pool of raiders to draw on than a more focused, committed group. I don't see what's so contentious about this.
I'm not trying to argue that 25s players are "l337" or shit like that...just saying that leading/joining any raid group has a choice attached to it - do you want to be casual, or committed?
Just go with 5 weeks/5 bosses for easy comparison. That would equal 10 pieces of loot per week, 50 for 5 weeks not including tier. On a 25 man(going with what we have currently) that would be 15 per week, 75 for 5 weeks not counting tier. Thats a huge difference. 25 pieces is a lot. And also in most cases will give you double the pieces of tier. Even if some pieces cant be used, they can go to offspecs, which can later be moved into 2 10 mans and help move that along faster especially with the gated way of doing things. This does not take into effect badges etc that you will get as well.
Sure 25 man raids will not be happy about the same loot. But the prestige for most of these guilds i assume comes from doing 25 man anyway and getting to the top before anyone else. For the rest of us, this is a HUGE boost.
Except this is incorrect.
If you have 5 bosses, and on 10's they drop 2 items each, and on 25 they drop 3 items each:
In one week, the 10 man team will get 10 items, an average of one per raider.
In the 25 man raid, they will get 15 items, an average of only .6 items per raider
Yes, the raid gets more ITEMS per week on 25, but you get more items per raider on 10s.
Thus, the relative power of each raider grows faster each week on 10's...
Also the badge thing is moot as they said in the same post that they will continue with the gated raids. Assuming they continue some sort of daily or weekly event to get badges as well, 25 man raids will not gain many more badges than 10 mans, unless of course they continue to not fix the faction xfer which will allow the hardcore 25 mans to faction xfer every 3 days for badges and gear.
In most cases a guild will work best when fielding the least number of raids possible.
If you have enough for a 25m don't run two 10m (as guild sanctioned runs).
Guilds that raid together, stay together.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
While this is very true, something has to be said about how committed to a group a person choses to be. The argument has been made many times, but if you're on bowling team in a competitive league, are you not going to be structuring your after-work schedule around making sure you can be at the alley for Thursdays, 7-10 pm without fail? If it's just a pick-up league, having to miss the occaisional night because of whatever reason isn't going to let your team down as much. It makes it tougher on the captain, but ultimately there's less responsibility.
How does your example apply to running 10's vs 25's at all?
They both require organization and commitment. At least with 10's you have an easier time ensuring people are properly geared and care. For a 25, making sure all 24 other people have their shit together, proper gearing/gemming/enchanting/specing and learning the fucking strats, is hell on earth. I'm sure there will be guilds that go with 25's instead of 10's, i expect it to be common. But I think there will be just as many that go with 10's instead of 25's for a plethora of reasons.
In fact I'd go so far as to say for a semi-casual raiding guild, running 10's instead of 25's will do more to promote guild cohesiveness because you won't have a group of hardcore raiders suffering weekly at the hands of people who just show up but don't care too much. I've seen an absurd number of /gquits for this precise reason.
You're right - it is easier to organize 9 others than 24 others. That's kind of the point I was making too. Choosing the more difficult (not in performance, but in organizing) path requires more commitment. It's a lot harder for a casual group of folks to organize 25's with consistency than 10's. In order to do so they need a larger pool of raiders to draw on than a more focused, committed group. I don't see what's so contentious about this.
I'm not trying to argue that 25s players are "l337" or shit like that...just saying that leading/joining any raid group has a choice attached to it - do you want to be casual, or committed?
You can be committed and still have stuff come up that is more important than WoW. This remains just a video game.
In most cases a guild will work best when fielding the least number of raids possible.
If you have enough for a 25m don't run two 10m (as guild sanctioned runs).
Guilds that raid together, stay together.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
While this is very true, something has to be said about how committed to a group a person choses to be. The argument has been made many times, but if you're on bowling team in a competitive league, are you not going to be structuring your after-work schedule around making sure you can be at the alley for Thursdays, 7-10 pm without fail? If it's just a pick-up league, having to miss the occaisional night because of whatever reason isn't going to let your team down as much. It makes it tougher on the captain, but ultimately there's less responsibility.
That argument tends to fizzle out when you start comparing video games to organized sports or really any other social activity. There is a silly stigma that video games should not be considered a hobby that you can schedule your time around.
It is definitely a silly stigma, but one that needs to be put to rest. With the ever-increasing social networking and online communication technological advancements, there's a growing number of people who choose to interact with friends made via the internet. We're probably not at that point yet where the "average" person views gaming as a legitmate pasttime, but it is becoming more mainstream and slowly approaching acceptability.
How long ago was it when people scoffed at online dating sites? Look at where it's at now.
They are still scoffed at. Google the OkCupid article that internet dating does not work and that the commercials are blatant lies to get people to sign up. It's pretty hilarious. Also, I don't think playing games like WoW will ever become a social norm, simply because of the time commitment. It requires vast dedication to get to 80, and most people simply can't commit to 4 hour blocks of time without interruption.
You can get to 80 casually with only an hour or two a night, it just takes longer. In the end the time equals out but it seems less severe when it's spread out over longer periods of time. IMO the primary issue with the video game as a hobby argument is that general assumption that all gamers fall into the charicature that is portrayed by the media. Like it or not it simply is not cool to tell someone that playing WoW is your hobby. I don't think that will change anytime soon.
Just go with 5 weeks/5 bosses for easy comparison. That would equal 10 pieces of loot per week, 50 for 5 weeks not including tier. On a 25 man(going with what we have currently) that would be 15 per week, 75 for 5 weeks not counting tier. Thats a huge difference. 25 pieces is a lot. And also in most cases will give you double the pieces of tier. Even if some pieces cant be used, they can go to offspecs, which can later be moved into 2 10 mans and help move that along faster especially with the gated way of doing things. This does not take into effect badges etc that you will get as well.
Sure 25 man raids will not be happy about the same loot. But the prestige for most of these guilds i assume comes from doing 25 man anyway and getting to the top before anyone else. For the rest of us, this is a HUGE boost.
Except this is incorrect.
If you have 5 bosses, and on 10's they drop 2 items each, and on 25 they drop 3 items each:
In one week, the 10 man team will get 10 items, an average of one per raider.
In the 25 man raid, they will get 15 items, an average of only .6 items per raider
Yes, the raid gets more ITEMS per week on 25, but you get more items per raider on 10s.
Thus, the relative power of each raider grows faster each week on 10's...
Also the badge thing is moot as they said in the same post that they will continue with the gated raids. Assuming they continue some sort of daily or weekly event to get badges as well, 25 man raids will not gain many more badges than 10 mans, unless of course they continue to not fix the faction xfer which will allow the hardcore 25 mans to faction xfer every 3 days for badges and gear.
In most cases a guild will work best when fielding the least number of raids possible.
If you have enough for a 25m don't run two 10m (as guild sanctioned runs).
Guilds that raid together, stay together.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
While this is very true, something has to be said about how committed to a group a person choses to be. The argument has been made many times, but if you're on bowling team in a competitive league, are you not going to be structuring your after-work schedule around making sure you can be at the alley for Thursdays, 7-10 pm without fail? If it's just a pick-up league, having to miss the occaisional night because of whatever reason isn't going to let your team down as much. It makes it tougher on the captain, but ultimately there's less responsibility.
How does your example apply to running 10's vs 25's at all?
They both require organization and commitment. At least with 10's you have an easier time ensuring people are properly geared and care. For a 25, making sure all 24 other people have their shit together, proper gearing/gemming/enchanting/specing and learning the fucking strats, is hell on earth. I'm sure there will be guilds that go with 25's instead of 10's, i expect it to be common. But I think there will be just as many that go with 10's instead of 25's for a plethora of reasons.
In fact I'd go so far as to say for a semi-casual raiding guild, running 10's instead of 25's will do more to promote guild cohesiveness because you won't have a group of hardcore raiders suffering weekly at the hands of people who just show up but don't care too much. I've seen an absurd number of /gquits for this precise reason.
You're right - it is easier to organize 9 others than 24 others. That's kind of the point I was making too. Choosing the more difficult (not in performance, but in organizing) path requires more commitment. It's a lot harder for a casual group of folks to organize 25's with consistency than 10's. In order to do so they need a larger pool of raiders to draw on than a more focused, committed group. I don't see what's so contentious about this.
I'm not trying to argue that 25s players are "l337" or shit like that...just saying that leading/joining any raid group has a choice attached to it - do you want to be casual, or committed?
You can be committed and still have stuff come up that is more important than WoW. This remains just a video game.
I think we're going in circles here...
I'm not disagreeing. I choose not to go into super-hardcore guilds, not only because I doubt I could hack it skill-wise, but because I value my real life time more than the number of hours I would have to commit. For me, 8-12 hours of raiding per week is my absolute limit. But when I do choose a guild that matches my time allowances, I block off my time for them as if it was a intramural hockey league, or softball team or whatever organized social event that exists, because it's those other people's time I'd be wasting if I bailed on flaky reasons.
*note - this does exclude legitimate reasons. Work > play, always. As does family > play. But if the choice is the pub with some work buddies or the raid that I committed to, I'll take the rain check on the pub and catch them some other time.
Just go with 5 weeks/5 bosses for easy comparison. That would equal 10 pieces of loot per week, 50 for 5 weeks not including tier. On a 25 man(going with what we have currently) that would be 15 per week, 75 for 5 weeks not counting tier. Thats a huge difference. 25 pieces is a lot. And also in most cases will give you double the pieces of tier. Even if some pieces cant be used, they can go to offspecs, which can later be moved into 2 10 mans and help move that along faster especially with the gated way of doing things. This does not take into effect badges etc that you will get as well.
Except this is incorrect.
If you have 5 bosses, and on 10's they drop 2 items each, and on 25 they drop 3 items each:
In one week, the 10 man team will get 10 items, an average of one per raider.
In the 25 man raid, they will get 15 items, an average of only .6 items per raider
Yes, the raid gets more ITEMS per week on 25, but you get more items per raider on 10s.
Thus, the relative power of each raider grows faster each week on 10's...
Relative power has a chance to grow. You could also more easily run into a situation where
a) you dont have a person that can use it
b) everyone already has it
The chances of varied loot and someone using that loot is higher with 25 the more you run it, than with 10s. You get a drop in 10s that is going to get sharded is 50% loss on the raid. On 25 man its a 33% loss, but its prob even lower since there are more people to use. Over the course of a few weeks, in a 10 vs 25, the 25 would come out ahead. This argument does fall apart somewhat with 2 10 man vs 25 man i guess, but im not a mathematician and am going to concede that its way over my head and its prob better to do 2 10s.
So in reality.. ill just shut up as i dont know what im talking about. O_O
I would not be surprised if you start to see a shift away from having to be in a guild and scheduling time to raid. It's only a matter of time before all content becomes cross server and PUGable.
I would not be surprised if you start to see a shift away from having to be in a guild and scheduling time to raid. It's only a matter of time before all content becomes cross server and PUGable.
I certainly hope so. I'm not saying I want it to be easy mode, but making everything PUGable would rock my world (being as I'm a student, a father, and generally just don't have the ability to say "Yes, I can raid from X time to X time every week" without getting myself in trouble.
I would not be surprised if you start to see a shift away from having to be in a guild and scheduling time to raid. It's only a matter of time before all content becomes cross server and PUGable.
I certainly hope so. I'm not saying I want it to be easy mode, but making everything PUGable would rock my world (being as I'm a student, a father, and generally just don't have the ability to say "Yes, I can raid from X time to X time every week" without getting myself in trouble.
Egg zack lee. It also goes along with their design philosophy of making content available to everyone.
I doubt 25mans will only drop 3 items. We'll probably see at least 5 or 6 for parity, but if you follow the implication that it'll be more "efficient" then it could be more. Probably 6.
We might even see 10mans being harder than 25mans with this change. If they require the same level of gear, 10mans will have a much smaller margin of error. Losing one guy to a freak accident is a much worse thing on 10man than on 25mans.
I think it's hard for someone not to rage at mario kart, while shouting "Fuck you Donkey Kong. Whose dick did you suck to get all those red shells?"
0
FeriluceAdrift on the morning star.Aberdeen, WARegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Why not get rid of having multiple raid sizes of the same raid instance altogether? Have the amount of players actually make sense for the raid itself. If it makes sense to have the raid be a 10-man, make it a 10-man, if you feel it needs to be more 'epic' in a scope that requires more players, make it a 25-man or whatever.
How they do it now is effectively doubling the amount of work they have to do as they need to balance it for two different group sizes. Thoughts?
In most cases a guild will work best when fielding the least number of raids possible.
If you have enough for a 25m don't run two 10m (as guild sanctioned runs).
Guilds that raid together, stay together.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
While this is very true, something has to be said about how committed to a group a person choses to be. The argument has been made many times, but if you're on bowling team in a competitive league, are you not going to be structuring your after-work schedule around making sure you can be at the alley for Thursdays, 7-10 pm without fail? If it's just a pick-up league, having to miss the occaisional night because of whatever reason isn't going to let your team down as much. It makes it tougher on the captain, but ultimately there's less responsibility.
How does your example apply to running 10's vs 25's at all?
They both require organization and commitment. At least with 10's you have an easier time ensuring people are properly geared and care. For a 25, making sure all 24 other people have their shit together, proper gearing/gemming/enchanting/specing and learning the fucking strats, is hell on earth. I'm sure there will be guilds that go with 25's instead of 10's, i expect it to be common. But I think there will be just as many that go with 10's instead of 25's for a plethora of reasons.
In fact I'd go so far as to say for a semi-casual raiding guild, running 10's instead of 25's will do more to promote guild cohesiveness because you won't have a group of hardcore raiders suffering weekly at the hands of people who just show up but don't care too much. I've seen an absurd number of /gquits for this precise reason.
You're right - it is easier to organize 9 others than 24 others. That's kind of the point I was making too. Choosing the more difficult (not in performance, but in organizing) path requires more commitment. It's a lot harder for a casual group of folks to organize 25's with consistency than 10's. In order to do so they need a larger pool of raiders to draw on than a more focused, committed group. I don't see what's so contentious about this.
I'm not trying to argue that 25s players are "l337" or shit like that...just saying that leading/joining any raid group has a choice attached to it - do you want to be casual, or committed?
You can be committed and still have stuff come up that is more important than WoW. This remains just a video game.
I think we're going in circles here...
I'm not disagreeing. I choose not to go into super-hardcore guilds, not only because I doubt I could hack it skill-wise, but because I value my real life time more than the number of hours I would have to commit. For me, 8-12 hours of raiding per week is my absolute limit. But when I do choose a guild that matches my time allowances, I block off my time for them as if it was a intramural hockey league, or softball team or whatever organized social event that exists, because it's those other people's time I'd be wasting if I bailed on flaky reasons.
*note - this does exclude legitimate reasons. Work > play, always. As does family > play. But if the choice is the pub with some work buddies or the raid that I committed to, I'll take the rain check on the pub and catch them some other time.
We're not going in circles. Your argument is that 25 mans are the most time conservative and that "a guild works best" and "the guild that plays together, stays together", which simply aren't true. If you are in any sort of organized 25 man raiding guild, you vastly underestimate the time your officers spend working on logistics on running the guild. I led a 25 man guild by myself in Naxx/Ulduar, it collapsed and my heart broke, and now I'm an officer of my guild of 9 months and my time online has doubled. I certainly didn't miss this aspect from Naxx/Ulduar, but the alternative was not having an officer on one night a week which meant no raids which meant people would probably quit (and about 10 of them did).
Make all raids a minimum of 10 to get in on a sliding scale up to 25. Dungeon difficulty adjusts depending on total numbers in the instance. Loot tables also adjust as well so you get more drops with more people.
Make all raids a minimum of 10 to get in on a sliding scale up to 25. Dungeon difficulty adjusts depending on total numbers in the instance. Loot tables also adjust as well so you get more drops with more people.
That'd be pretty neat. Setting the scaling would be tricky (but it's already going to be tricky...)
End on
I wish that someway, somehow, that I could save every one of us
Make all raids a minimum of 10 to get in on a sliding scale up to 25. Dungeon difficulty adjusts depending on total numbers in the instance. Loot tables also adjust as well so you get more drops with more people.
This would be incredibly complicated because of the varying number of tanks/healers required going from 10man to 25man.
Make all raids a minimum of 10 to get in on a sliding scale up to 25. Dungeon difficulty adjusts depending on total numbers in the instance. Loot tables also adjust as well so you get more drops with more people.
This would be incredibly complicated because of the varying number of tanks/healers required going from 10man to 25man.
Yeah. I kind of went into that thought using Diablo 2 as a model but it would be pretty tough to balance that right. The potential to cheese that system would be huge as well.
Posts
My thoughts too; RNG is here to stay, due to the fact that it keeps people paying a monthly subscription!
If it's purely fun factor, I doubt many people would want to do 25mans, and by do, I mean lead.
Leading a 10man is both a lot less complicated and a lot less stressful.
Some folks really like 25's. Yeah, leading them will suck; but that has never changed.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Meh, yeah, that part of the fight is shitty. I was more on the "interesting" aspect of the fight. If they lowered the damage of those missiles it'd probably be fun.
Spoken by someone who has never had to juggle 24 raid slots for 24 people with their own lifes and the problems that come with it that prevent that from being on time and at every raid.
They really 'ought to just make it 20 mans and get it over with. That would make balancing them a hell of a lot easier.
Right, you weren't the only person I've seen complaining about that mechanic though which was why I didn't specifically respond to your post with it.
I wonder if they overestimate how much never-dropping trinkets are keeping their cash flow up.
BINGO.
I never understood why they didn't cap raids at 20 when they made the switch in TBC.
It logistically made the most sense, especially with Kara being a 10 man...
While this is very true, something has to be said about how committed to a group a person choses to be. The argument has been made many times, but if you're on bowling team in a competitive league, are you not going to be structuring your after-work schedule around making sure you can be at the alley for Thursdays, 7-10 pm without fail? If it's just a pick-up league, having to miss the occaisional night because of whatever reason isn't going to let your team down as much. It makes it tougher on the captain, but ultimately there's less responsibility.
Mmmmm....toasty.
That argument tends to fizzle out when you start comparing video games to organized sports or really any other social activity. There is a silly stigma that video games should not be considered a hobby that you can schedule your time around.
I'm pretty sure there have been numerous analyses done on the MMO RNG-gear phenomenon, and its relationship with subs. I don't have one available, but I'd certainly like to read one!
Sure, an MMO will lose people due to item X never dropping (It was BoH for my guild in Naxx...17 weeks, no dice!), but the crack-like nature of these games keeps us coming back (and paying!) despite that.
How does your example apply to running 10's vs 25's at all?
They both require organization and commitment. At least with 10's you have an easier time ensuring people are properly geared and care. For a 25, making sure all 24 other people have their shit together, proper gearing/gemming/enchanting/specing and learning the fucking strats, is hell on earth. I'm sure there will be guilds that go with 25's instead of 10's, i expect it to be common. But I think there will be just as many that go with 10's instead of 25's for a plethora of reasons.
In fact I'd go so far as to say for a semi-casual raiding guild, running 10's instead of 25's will do more to promote guild cohesiveness because you won't have a group of hardcore raiders suffering weekly at the hands of people who just show up but don't care too much. I've seen an absurd number of /gquits for this precise reason.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Just go with 5 weeks/5 bosses for easy comparison. That would equal 10 pieces of loot per week, 50 for 5 weeks not including tier. On a 25 man(going with what we have currently) that would be 15 per week, 75 for 5 weeks not counting tier. Thats a huge difference. 25 pieces is a lot. And also in most cases will give you double the pieces of tier. Even if some pieces cant be used, they can go to offspecs, which can later be moved into 2 10 mans and help move that along faster especially with the gated way of doing things. This does not take into effect badges etc that you will get as well.
Sure 25 man raids will not be happy about the same loot. But the prestige for most of these guilds i assume comes from doing 25 man anyway and getting to the top before anyone else. For the rest of us, this is a HUGE boost.
Thus the same loot in 10/25 and the same lockout.
EDIT: And I have a strong suspicion the achievements will now be one and the same.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
It is definitely a silly stigma, but one that needs to be put to rest. With the ever-increasing social networking and online communication technological advancements, there's a growing number of people who choose to interact with friends made via the internet. We're probably not at that point yet where the "average" person views gaming as a legitmate pasttime, but it is becoming more mainstream and slowly approaching acceptability.
How long ago was it when people scoffed at online dating sites? Look at where it's at now.
Mmmmm....toasty.
80 year old men bowl. College kids and people with young children are the demographic for WoW. Our guild of about 40 members has one person over 30. Bowling is also one day a week. Any serious casual progression guild raids 3-4 days a week. Any totally hardcore progression guild usually raids 7 days a week. Shit happens and holidays, exam weeks, etc etc are all prime time where the guild basically grinds to a halt because there are about 5-10 key members missing. Two 10 mans has the potential to never be interrupted by this stuff.
Except this is incorrect.
If you have 5 bosses, and on 10's they drop 2 items each, and on 25 they drop 3 items each:
In one week, the 10 man team will get 10 items, an average of one per raider.
In the 25 man raid, they will get 15 items, an average of only .6 items per raider
Yes, the raid gets more ITEMS per week on 25, but you get more items per raider on 10s.
Thus, the relative power of each raider grows faster each week on 10's...
They are still scoffed at. Google the OkCupid article that internet dating does not work and that the commercials are blatant lies to get people to sign up. It's pretty hilarious. Also, I don't think playing games like WoW will ever become a social norm, simply because of the time commitment. It requires vast dedication to get to 80, and most people simply can't commit to 4 hour blocks of time without interruption.
You're right - it is easier to organize 9 others than 24 others. That's kind of the point I was making too. Choosing the more difficult (not in performance, but in organizing) path requires more commitment. It's a lot harder for a casual group of folks to organize 25's with consistency than 10's. In order to do so they need a larger pool of raiders to draw on than a more focused, committed group. I don't see what's so contentious about this.
I'm not trying to argue that 25s players are "l337" or shit like that...just saying that leading/joining any raid group has a choice attached to it - do you want to be casual, or committed?
Mmmmm....toasty.
Also the badge thing is moot as they said in the same post that they will continue with the gated raids. Assuming they continue some sort of daily or weekly event to get badges as well, 25 man raids will not gain many more badges than 10 mans, unless of course they continue to not fix the faction xfer which will allow the hardcore 25 mans to faction xfer every 3 days for badges and gear.
You can be committed and still have stuff come up that is more important than WoW. This remains just a video game.
You can get to 80 casually with only an hour or two a night, it just takes longer. In the end the time equals out but it seems less severe when it's spread out over longer periods of time. IMO the primary issue with the video game as a hobby argument is that general assumption that all gamers fall into the charicature that is portrayed by the media. Like it or not it simply is not cool to tell someone that playing WoW is your hobby. I don't think that will change anytime soon.
People actually do this? That blows my mind.
I think we're going in circles here...
I'm not disagreeing. I choose not to go into super-hardcore guilds, not only because I doubt I could hack it skill-wise, but because I value my real life time more than the number of hours I would have to commit. For me, 8-12 hours of raiding per week is my absolute limit. But when I do choose a guild that matches my time allowances, I block off my time for them as if it was a intramural hockey league, or softball team or whatever organized social event that exists, because it's those other people's time I'd be wasting if I bailed on flaky reasons.
*note - this does exclude legitimate reasons. Work > play, always. As does family > play. But if the choice is the pub with some work buddies or the raid that I committed to, I'll take the rain check on the pub and catch them some other time.
Mmmmm....toasty.
Relative power has a chance to grow. You could also more easily run into a situation where
a) you dont have a person that can use it
b) everyone already has it
The chances of varied loot and someone using that loot is higher with 25 the more you run it, than with 10s. You get a drop in 10s that is going to get sharded is 50% loss on the raid. On 25 man its a 33% loss, but its prob even lower since there are more people to use. Over the course of a few weeks, in a 10 vs 25, the 25 would come out ahead. This argument does fall apart somewhat with 2 10 man vs 25 man i guess, but im not a mathematician and am going to concede that its way over my head and its prob better to do 2 10s.
So in reality.. ill just shut up as i dont know what im talking about. O_O
I certainly hope so. I'm not saying I want it to be easy mode, but making everything PUGable would rock my world (being as I'm a student, a father, and generally just don't have the ability to say "Yes, I can raid from X time to X time every week" without getting myself in trouble.
Egg zack lee. It also goes along with their design philosophy of making content available to everyone.
We might even see 10mans being harder than 25mans with this change. If they require the same level of gear, 10mans will have a much smaller margin of error. Losing one guy to a freak accident is a much worse thing on 10man than on 25mans.
How they do it now is effectively doubling the amount of work they have to do as they need to balance it for two different group sizes. Thoughts?
Steam: Feriluce
Battle.net: Feriluce#1995
We're not going in circles. Your argument is that 25 mans are the most time conservative and that "a guild works best" and "the guild that plays together, stays together", which simply aren't true. If you are in any sort of organized 25 man raiding guild, you vastly underestimate the time your officers spend working on logistics on running the guild. I led a 25 man guild by myself in Naxx/Ulduar, it collapsed and my heart broke, and now I'm an officer of my guild of 9 months and my time online has doubled. I certainly didn't miss this aspect from Naxx/Ulduar, but the alternative was not having an officer on one night a week which meant no raids which meant people would probably quit (and about 10 of them did).
Make all raids a minimum of 10 to get in on a sliding scale up to 25. Dungeon difficulty adjusts depending on total numbers in the instance. Loot tables also adjust as well so you get more drops with more people.
That'd be pretty neat. Setting the scaling would be tricky (but it's already going to be tricky...)
This would be incredibly complicated because of the varying number of tanks/healers required going from 10man to 25man.
Yeah. I kind of went into that thought using Diablo 2 as a model but it would be pretty tough to balance that right. The potential to cheese that system would be huge as well.