20 Man Mythic: Success or Failure?

[primalmatter]

It's kinda not comparable, due to the way how gear was handled, the hours people raided, etc.
There were no split runs and you couldn't get toons geared in a reasonable amount of time due to the silly amount of drops per boss.

That and each tier was its own difficulty You can't really compare tiers side by side till mid wrath. It is akin to comparing normal to mythic. Early wow tiers were easy be design for that purpose.

[kary]

That and each tier was its own difficulty You can't really compare tiers side by side till mid wrath. It is akin to comparing normal to mythic. Early wow tiers were easy be design for that purpose.

Tbh I don't even really think you can compare till LK.

[stevenho]

Yeah, I've read it and it doesn't negate the fact that Naxxramas itself had multiple bosses that took longer to kill from the kill of the previous boss than it took Method to clear all of HFC Mythic

No, they had one boss that took longer than HFC clear. Four horsemen. OK Loatheb too and the insane consumable grind, forgot about him.
4H was "hard" because the raid required EIGHT TANKS with T3 4set to kill it world first.
If blizzard overtuned archi mythic to the point where he could only be killed with 795 rings, he would take even longer.

And again - don't forget that world 1st guilds back then raided in a week as much as Method raided in 48h in HFC.

[Glorious Leader]

Tbh I don't even really think you can compare till LK.

Of course not. It belies the wow is for hardcore romantic bullshit that gets spewed around here. Regardless of the denial you people have its clear vanilla and tbc were far less complex and far more approachable for the casual player even if the demands on time were greater. It is precisely the point that wow got stupidly complex (cata) that the game jumped the shark for most players. It's also precisely why the devs are desperately trying to walk back complexity through never ending ability reductions. They just need to do the same to encounter design as well.

[primalmatter]

Of course not. It belies the wow is for hardcore romantic bullshit that gets spewed around here. Regardless of the denial you people have its clear vanilla and tbc were far less complex and far more approachable for the casual player even if the demands on time were greater.

That kind of was my argument for years...

[kary]

Of course not. It belies the wow is for hardcore romantic bullshit that gets spewed around here. Regardless of the denial you people have its clear vanilla and tbc were far less complex and far more approachable for the casual player even if the demands on time were greater. It is precisely the point that wow got stupidly complex (cata) that the game jumped the shark for most players. It's also precisely why the devs are desperately trying to walk back complexity through never ending ability reductions. They just need to do the same to encounter design as well.

Noone denied that vanilla and tbc were less skill and more time, lol.
However.
As the game evolved the game changed. WotLK was the first expansion where you actually had to avoid shit, where personal performance mattered.
But yeah, it's whatever.
I like the way the game has changed. Endless grinds for disappointing bosses was tons of fun
Also casual =! lazy.
Some people like having a challenge.

[Bonezerker]

No, they had one boss that took longer than HFC clear. Four horsemen. OK Loatheb too and the insane consumable grind, forgot about him.
4H was "hard" because the raid required EIGHT TANKS with T3 4set to kill it world first.
If blizzard overtuned archi mythic to the point where he could only be killed with 795 rings, he would take even longer.

And again - don't forget that world 1st guilds back then raided in a week as much as Method raided in 48h in HFC.

I'm not arguing that Vanilla bosses were hard in the mechanical sense, but you started off this conversation by saying that progression in Vanilla was not slower than it is now. For top guilds it may not be, but for average guilds it was. Going into those raids night after night trying to get enough gear to kill the next boss was a reality for many guilds, especially when a boss dropped 2 pieces for 40 players.

That being said, with multiple difficulties, you can't really compare the two because which difficulty of HFC would be equivalent to the only difficulty of Naxx, or BWL or AQ?

[Deleted]

So it was cleared except it wasn't actually cleared
*golf clap*

He wants to say all before in any mmorpg or mmo is easy. I agree.

[primalmatter]

He wants to say all before in any mmorpg or mmo is easy. I agree.

Thing is, your wrong.

[Deleted]

Thing is, your wrong.

No you think time matters, it doesn't.

[stevenho]

I'm not arguing that Vanilla bosses were hard in the mechanical sense, but you started off this conversation by saying that progression in Vanilla was not slower than it is now. For top guilds it may not be, but for average guilds it was. Going into those raids night after night trying to get enough gear to kill the next boss was a reality for many guilds, especially when a boss dropped 2 pieces for 40 players.

That being said, with multiple difficulties, you can't really compare the two because which difficulty of HFC would be equivalent to the only difficulty of Naxx, or BWL or AQ?

Well it is probably true, but you can't eally compare the two.
Vanilla was 2-3 items per boss per 40 people. HFC is twice as much. Progress was slowed by gearing, be it resistance gear or just number of drops, or by consumable farming. Trash between bosses took up to 30 minutes and respawns were a thing. There was no such thing as 30 attempts raid nights in Naxx.
Would you like to go through this again in legion? I don't think so.

[Bonezerker]

Well it is probably true, but you can't eally compare the two.
Vanilla was 2-3 items per boss per 40 people. HFC is twice as much. Progress was slowed by gearing, be it resistance gear or just number of drops, or by consumable farming. Trash between bosses took up to 30 minutes and respawns were a thing. There was no such thing as 30 attempts raid nights in Naxx.
Would you like to go through this again in legion? I don't think so.

I never said I wanted to go back to Vanilla. I much prefer the personal responsibility model over the "You can kill the boss once everyone in your raid has X" model

[kary]

I'm not arguing that Vanilla bosses were hard in the mechanical sense, but you started off this conversation by saying that progression in Vanilla was not slower than it is now. For top guilds it may not be, but for average guilds it was. Going into those raids night after night trying to get enough gear to kill the next boss was a reality for many guilds, especially when a boss dropped 2 pieces for 40 players.

That being said, with multiple difficulties, you can't really compare the two because which difficulty of HFC would be equivalent to the only difficulty of Naxx, or BWL or AQ?

Normal for mostly everything. Heroic for Naxx 40, heroic for sunwell heroic for yogg-saron, mythic for mu'ru, mythic for OS+3 and Firefighter + algalon. ToC started the heroic/normal lockout system.
LFR for Molten core and naxx 10/25 and OS 10/25 no drakes.

[Mahourai]

Based off of what? A national consensus of Mythic raiders? Or your anecdotal opinion?

A guild that cleared Dragon Soul in 6 months would have been world 5500. A guild that cleared Hellfire Citadel in 6 months would be world 600. Mythic raiding is not sustainable for the majority of guilds. They cannibalize each other and disband due to recruiting pressure. You can argue this is a good thing, in that it winnows out all the middling hardmode progression guilds I suppose, but that's nothing to do with whether it's sustainable.

Tuning encounters around two separate raid sizes led to encounters which were inexorably under/overtuned on one raid size vs. the other.

Who cares? What about it? Why is this important enough to eliminate one format? "10-man cannot be allowed to exist because Thok was undertuned." Try saying this out loud and seeing how it sounds.

They didn't tune Amalgam of Corruption though they flat out gutted the fight. To claim it was half as hard the second week as it was the first is stretching it.

I'm not sure what you mean, as Norushen week one was defeated by zerging it down and people ignoring the mechanics of the encounter. This is certainly hard in one sense, but Norushen was mechanically tuned UP by the changes that required people to actually obey the fight design.

We already saw ten mans struggle throughout cata and finally break down in MoP.

No, we didn't. There was no "struggle" or "breakdown" in 10-man participation or design.

[Cynep]

Who cares? What about it? Why is this important enough to eliminate one format? "10-man cannot be allowed to exist because Thok was undertuned." Try saying this out loud and seeing how it sounds.

I'm watching this conversation go in circles round and round... I have no stake in your fight, let me help you get out of this eternal circle. The correct and true statement would be:

"10-man cannot be allowed to exist because 10 and 25 fights need to happen in different-sized rooms to be interesting and balanced, and creating rooms is the most expensive part of WoW development".

Numbers tuning is trivial and unimportant. They chose not to make separate 10-mans in WotLK to reduce development costs. Cata unification was a mistake, and to fix that mistake they chose to cut one set of numbers instead of adding a second set of rooms in WoD.

[Mahourai]

I'm watching this conversation go in circles round and round... I have no stake in your fight, let me help you get out of this eternal circle. The correct and true statement would be:

"10-man cannot be allowed to exist because 10 and 25 fights need to happen in different-sized rooms to be interesting and balanced

This is not an assertion that comes off as self-evidently correct.

[Glorious Leader]

No, we didn't. There was no "struggle" or "breakdown" in 10-man participation or design.

The format was ridiculously popular in Wotlk so much to the point that 25 mans were a dying bread. In cataclysm they decided to merge loot and difficulty so 10 man moved up a notch and fights were seriously punishing. Blizzard has a hard on for 25 mans .

[Deleted]

I raided both, 10 man was harder. There was less room for mistakes, less class stacking, and more personal responsibility. You got 1 battle res instead of 3 and one person dying is 1/10 of your raid lost instead of 1/25. It also focused more on actual boss difficulty instead of the recruitment boss. Seriously, the hardest thing about 25 man is making sure you have a full raid and minimising the amount of people you are carrying. The bosses are so laughable in comparison to 10 man. Garrosh is the perfect example. The only thing that was harder on 25 man SoO was Klaxxi, and once again that is due to a combination of a lot of mechanics and having to carry a few to fill up the raid. Now that describes ALL raiding.

These forum arguments about 10 vs 25 were all so one-sided. On just about any raid in the history of 10/25 man raiding it was harder on 10 man. You would be hard-pressed to find ANYONE on the forums who both actually raided during tiers like T11 and claims 10 man was easier. The only people who claimed that are people who bring up baseless, opinionated, feels-over-reals nonsense like "10 man doesn't feel like a raid at all". It doesn't matter how you feel about 10 man or exactly what constitutes "feeling like" a raid; 10 man took more personal skill than 25 man for all the raiders involved.

Why do you think the majority of top guilds raided 25 man? Why do you think bosses like Ragnaros were killed on 25 man before they were killed on 10 man?

Oh, and finally, I don't give a damn about this being your opinion. Opinions can and often are misinformed, and yours is.

- - - Updated - - -



It provably didn't, though. The raiding population have significantly declined, as have the number of raiding guilds (source: wowprogress). When you get threads like this one ALL the time with 20+ pages, you know it hasn't worked well.

I`m not agree with you
First of all you get much less room for all these 25 ppl to spread.Second dediation need is much bigger no need to say the amount of powers who GM/Officers have t throw to keep a steady team.And for last Garrosh 10 was just laugh for me most easyest boss ever.As strictly 25 man raider i think that 10 mans just make ppl to lazy yes some bosses was more hard in one team or another but we see the results in WoD 20 mans
Now back to topic.From 25 player point of View it is success.Its helps alot on guilds who never turn back to 25 man raiding and also my guild is one of the biggest one from our community with alot of ppl online 24/7 not some epty desert

[Bepples]

I`m not agree with you
First of all you get much less room for all these 25 ppl to spread.Second dediation need is much bigger no need to say the amount of powers who GM/Officers have t throw to keep a steady team.And for last Garrosh 10 was just laugh for me most easyest boss ever.As strictly 25 man raider i think that 10 mans just make ppl to lazy yes some bosses was more hard in one team or another but we see the results in WoD 20 mans
Now back to topic.From 25 player point of View it is success.Its helps alot on guilds who never turn back to 25 man raiding and also my guild is one of the biggest one from our community with alot of ppl online 24/7 not some epty desert

Your claim is laughable. Just about everyone involved says that Garrosh 10 man was harder, and rightfully so. Go google "Garrosh 10 man vs 25 man". Literally every thread says 10 man is harder. A lot of that is due to parts like the phase 1 transition and the adds in phase 3; those parts are stupidly easy in 25 man when you have far more different people to handle the adds/interrupts, not to mention just 1 battle res v.s. 3. This was the story for most fights. The fights that were harder on 25 man were the ones were space was an issue, like Klaxxi.

Oh, and what you said about recruitment is exactly the issue people like me have: the hardest part about 20/25 man is the recruitment boss. Actual bosses tend to be EASIER provided you aren't carrying too many people. In 10 man you really can't carry anyone.

[Deja Thoris]

I`m not agree with you
First of all you get much less room for all these 25 ppl to spread.Second dediation need is much bigger no need to say the amount of powers who GM/Officers have t throw to keep a steady team.And for last Garrosh 10 was just laugh for me most easyest boss ever.As strictly 25 man raider i think that 10 mans just make ppl to lazy yes some bosses was more hard in one team or another but we see the results in WoD 20 mans
Now back to topic.From 25 player point of View it is success.Its helps alot on guilds who never turn back to 25 man raiding and also my guild is one of the biggest one from our community with alot of ppl online 24/7 not some epty desert

Please, only the most biased fucking idiot would call garrosh harder on 25 man.

10 man had 15 adds in the intermission. 25 man had 15 adds in the intermission. How much better do you think 10 people have to play to keep 15 adds stunned or interrupted so they can't cast? 25 people can almost roll their faces along the keyboard and chances are you've nailed that part.

This isn't even talking about the first phase where ironstars hurt and 25's had infinitely more CD's for them (and ways to control the adds)

Then we get to the phase with the sha adds that spawn. 25 man took *any* undergeared monk that could kite the adds for eternity without being touched. That negated a mechanic and allowed that dps saved from killing adds to be pumped into the boss.

So tell me again how 25 man was harder...