20 Man Mythic: Success or Failure?

[Deleted]

20 are a failure. Because some/almost all people who vote don't have access to a 20m mythic group.

[GiefEpixe]

We've also pointed out the reason for their perceived popularity, which is often met with "but I liked it so everybody must've liked it" rose-tinted nostalgia.

I again reason it's impossible for any one person to claim they know why 10s were objectively more popular.

Don't present it like a fact. That "reason" is still up for debate, you've said so yourself. I just wanted to call him out on that "guilds building around 20+ since Vanilla" bs.

[roahn the warlock]

From my semi-casual but enjoy to raid difficult stuff viewpoint; I disliked it. Would prefer an option for smaller.

As a grown adult who understands he can't get everything he wants and from a raid encounter perspective it seemed like it worked.

Here's why it works. With 20 people, you know at least one of every class is being represented in almost every role. The point of doing this was so not every class had to be homogenious and boring. All classes didn't need to do the same thing, since for a mythic raid, you would need almost one of everything.

this is why it is 20.

- - - Updated - - -

20 are a failure. Because some/almost all people who vote don't have access to a 20m mythic group.

I'm 10/13 mythic and I don't have a raiding guild.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're just pretending Cata and MoP didn't exist, got it.

Lol, if you actually raided you still kept your roster at about 20, so you could switch out, bench, or run two 10 man teams. So, yeah.

[Daffan]

15 is the absolute min IMO. Easier to balance for classes if you can bring 1 of each in serious raiding.

[voidillusion]

Could you name some of those incentives since I certainly didn't see a single one ?

There some incentives, increased chance on WF items as already mentioned, and increased drop on items for legendary staff in Firelands for example.

Nothing game breaking for sure, still there were some incentives in place.

The point still remains, if you were a "i only raid in large groups" die hard kind of guy the same argument used in this thread of "transfer, don't sit on your balls, if you want to raid go for it", you had the chance to do it, allowing at the same time others to raid 10M.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

Lol, if you actually raided you still kept your roster at about 20, so you could switch out, bench, or run two 10 man teams. So, yeah.

I don't know how you missed my point: New guilds were created in Cata and MoP to raid 10man. The one I joined wasn't a new guild, the majority of their raiders had quit by the end of WotLK and they only needed a couple people to fill a 10man.

[Lilija]

Sure, that's why 90% of all guilds were 10m in MOP, right? Because they were building around 20+...

Since Cata more and more guilds went with the smaller size and built around that for years. People have pointed out this development often enough in this thread.

When you have 2 ways to the same goal the majority of people will chose the easier option. That is the whole mistery of 10man popularity. It's based in human nature and is the most logical explanation. For the same reason Horde became more popular at some point on the PvE scene. Because if someone tells me that people suddenly desided to roll Horde because it's "more fun" I will make a very loud facepalm :P Yes, for sure there were people who did 10man because they prefered the atmosphere. But the nature of PvE raiders is "easier = better".

[Magnosh]

The extremist point of views is what keeps this debate raging. It's very much like the Legacy megathread, just different sets of people for and against for different reasons. I try to stay moderate myself but it's an internet argument and you know what they say about those...

I was not extremist, just pointed out how one can see things differently while backing up their thoughts. I think that stating opinions and trying to make them facts is what derail things.

[Deleted]

For anyone who can get 20 people and the required classes I'm sure it's great but for the people who couldn't it's terrible...

[Deleted]

I like it for the most part.
20 feels like kind of a sweet spot for raiding imo.

Yeah same. It killed my 10man guild but when I found a new one, it was better. I think 20 is a great raid size.

[cFortyfive]

The point still remains

No it doesn't if there isn't anything that even remotely offsets the effort there is no choice involved.

Because some/almost all people who vote don't have access to a 20m mythic group.

Everyone has access granted obviously he isn't a terribad.

[voidillusion]

No it doesn't if there isn't anything that even remotely offsets the effort there is no choice involved.

What about personal preference?

[cFortyfive]

What about personal preference?

personal preference at no point outweighs large amounts of additional effort.

[Relapses]

I was not extremist, just pointed out how one can see things differently while backing up their thoughts. I think that stating opinions and trying to make them facts is what derail things.

I was referring to the post you quoted. There are definitely people on either side of the fence, some more militant than others.

[Magnosh]

I was referring to the post you quoted. There are definitely people on either side of the fence, some more militant than others.

Ah! My bad xD

[tithian]

Sorry to say this, but to me it sounds like you were unable to adapt to playing with new players ...
As you just said yourself, your guild is still raiding mythic, you just stepped out.

You can't really expect things to stay the same when you go up in roster from 10 to 20 raiders. Changes are expected in leadership and the social side of the game.

I wonder how the mythic + dungeons will be for people. So many people seem to enjoy playing with small groups. That might actually be part of the answer for them I myself like larger groups as it's often allot less stressfull to raid lead

Yes, it just happened that 90% of our roster, people that were playing for 6-8 years, rotated out after that change. It was just us being unable to play with new players, even if we ignore the number of people that joined throughout all the expansions. Those new players don't count, really. We had absolutely zero issues as a community while clearing the flexible raid modes, but strict 20-man mythic brought out a lot of problems with it, even with extreme preparation (8-10 months).

And where do you think these new people came from, the ones that are now part of the roster? Our guild ate away the better raiders of other guilds to survive, which doesn't really solve the issue: the current format of mythic raiding did wonders to break up communities. Maybe not mine, not entirely, but in my opinion it did more harm than good.

Unmitigated disaster is an understatement, really.

Re: Mythic dungeons, it really might've been the answer to people accustomed to smaller groups. Pity me and my friends will not be around to try them out, since we already moved on. If something like this was implemented in 6.1 (you know, instead of the nothing we got) then things would've been way better.

[Mlz]

20m felt as bad as I expected it to feel. The class requirements were arbitary (yey grip/immune, so complicated) and the fights felt dull (eventhough I would have loved to see the fights with MoP classes and without the retarded ring, maybe they would have been more enjoyable). But whatever, 20m is there to stay, whether I like it or not.

[Relapses]

And where do you think these new people came from, the ones that are now part of the roster? Our guild ate away the better raiders of other guilds to survive, which doesn't really solve the issue: the current format of mythic raiding did wonders to break up communities. Maybe not mine, not entirely, but in my opinion it did more harm than good.

Doing more harm than good is a matter of perspective. It's often cited that the change "destroyed communities," "fractured raid groups," etc. etc. And there's no doubt that it did. However, Blizzard has shown time and time again that they can and will change the endgame raiding landscape at the cost of whatever community had existed before it. The change from 40 to 25M surely resulted in similar displacement, then the change from 25M to a 10/25M dual raid size format segmented players even further. Moving to a fixed 20M size attempts to correct the necessity of balancing raids around two inexorably imbalanced raid sizes.

It's debatable whether this was the best decision but for players who prefer encounters designed around a singular raid size concept, the change is largely considered to be a positive one. It's unfortunate some of the players who preferred smaller raid sizes have yet to adapt to the change and that some of the 10M communities (disproportionately effected on small servers) have disappeared as a result. But looking at the bigger picture, a singular raid size is likely far more healthy for the game than continuously designing two versions of the same encounters.

[fiestatastic]

depends on what you consider to be a success or failure. If you're considering encounter tuning and consistency across groups it was a pretty big success, if you're considering retaining subscriptions and raiding participation numbers it was an epic failure.

[Riistov]

Yeah same. It killed my 10man guild but when I found a new one, it was better. I think 20 is a great raid size.

Funny how that works, same thing happened to my girlfriend and I. Our old guild fell apart, but out of the ashes we ended up finding a better one. Love the people we raid with now. We ended up progressing through Heroic and moved onto Mythic with a fairly laid back schedule.