8 or 16mans?

[JustintimeSS]

Yes
P.S. Sound logic =/= trapping you. Unless you need to be trapped into thinking reasonably.

You get defensive way too fast friend. The trapping comment was in jest. I obviously wasn't really implying that your post was really trying to get me to admit something.

And again, you've already stated your elitist opinion (twice now), so I don't need to continue the conversation with you about it. I think people will be able to read and see who is thinking reasonably on their own.

On the flip-side I will argue that you can have a number that is so big that is also loses legitimacy if not properly balanced. If raid's suddenly accounted for 100 people, but 50 of those people could stand in fire and slam their faces on the keyboard that wouldn't be as legitimate as an 8-man team who at least required those 8 people to all be performing at an elite level. That was the problem with Vanilla's 40 mans. You may have required 40 people to be in the raid, but only 25-30 of them needed to know what they were doing. I remember a guild back in Vanilla who would pug 7 random people through Naxx every single week. They only needed 33 people to complete the instance successfully, and would make the 7 puggers pay some astronomical amount of gold to experience the raid with them, which they would then split among their raiders. That is a flawed design and needs to be avoided.

Not to continue to talk about wow but I raided vanilla naxx at 60. It took everyone in the raid to be geared and understand what was going on to be successful. Hell, I only cleared 2 wings before BC. I just find it hard to believe.

[Atoj]

Not to continue to talk about wow but I raided vanilla naxx at 60. It took everyone in the raid to be geared and understand what was going on to be successful. Hell, I only cleared 2 wings before BC. I just find it hard to believe.

Whether you believe it or not has little bearing on the truth of my statement. Naxx was a lot easier once your guild was already decked out in T3 and knew the fights.

P.S. I'm not your friend, buddy.

[JustintimeSS]

Whether you believe it or not has little bearing on the truth of my statement. Naxx was a lot easier once your guild was already decked out in T3 and knew the fights.

So to reel this back in to remotely on topic -

A group of people in a large raid that out gear an instance can make the difficulty of the instance easier?

Seems mighty similar to my theory on how 25 mans being better than 10 mans began.

My whole point, starting from the beginning - using wow as the core example because it was the bad seed, was that the elitism started to spread because of gear differential. This created a rift that could never be healed because from that point on, 10 man would be considered less difficult. Coupling that with 25 man players in 25 man gear defeating 10 man HM content and then reporting to the eager community that it was easier put the nail in the coffin.

Now you're looking at faceless, blind followers (not all mind you) who will fight tooth and nail to keep this elitism intact because they enjoy the feel of being superior.

p.s. I'm not your buddy, guy

[Atoj]

I agree entirely with your point about Blizz's downtrodding of 10-mans throughout Wrath. Remember before that in BC you only had one option for raids. Kara had to be run in 10-man and the other raids required 25-man. Kara was by far my favorite raid in BC and a lot of that had to do with it being a 10-man raid. I've gone out of my way to state that I personally prefer the close-knit feel of 10 people working together as compared to 25 where I feel less of a personal connection with my raiding mates. With that said, I am not so foolish as to outright deny that it takes more time, energy, and effort to organize and execute a raid of 25 people as compared to the time, energy, and effort it takes to organize 10 people. The reason there are two different size raids is BECAUSE it is recognized that not everyone wants to put in the extra time, energy, and effort to flesh out a full raid and that those people should still have the same opportunity to experience the content. Blizzard's originally flawed idea took it a step forward in thinking that people who didn't want to put the energy into fleshing out a full raid also wouldn't want to put in the time to work through difficult content, hence they made all the content easy. I didn't appreciate that, and I for one am glad that the 10-player community revolted against the attitude they received from Blizz. I was apart of it. It is something I wish the LFR community would revolt against now as they have raid bosses heads handed to them upon a silver platter, but they seem to be of a different breed than the 10-man raiders in only wanting to see loot and cinematic cut-scenes. But I digress from that tangent. I am not so blind as to ignore the increased work it would take 16 people to do if the content is of similar difficulty as the content 8 people would have to do. I again point you to the simple observation that a 16-man team could always cut away 8 of their members and become a stronger unit on average because of it. Adding people to a raid increases the chances of someone making a mistake, and because of that simple fact it is more impressive when a bigger group downs a boss. If you don't understand that, and still want to bitch I can't think of anything more I could possibly say to convince you otherwise.

[detectivekr]

My friends and I are planning to make a small guild and do 8-mans together. We're thinking about recruiting people we meet in game to do 16-mans, but it's not a big priority. We just want to see the content, complete the hardmodes, and have fun. If we're feeling brave, we'll try nightmare mode (if they're available to 8-mans).

[JustintimeSS]

If you don't understand that, and still want to bitch I can't think of anything more I could possibly say to convince you otherwise.

Damn, and I thought the entire response was going to be civilized. You built me up through this whole reply that was decently written and then you took a crap on me right at the end as if I didn't deserve a happy ending.

This has gone back and forth long enough. I don't agree with you about more people defeating equally geared content being a greater achievement and further trying to argue this out is fruitless.

Also, just because I do not agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you're saying and doesn't mean I'm bitching about anything. I don't follow how that was a decisive wrap up but let us call it what it is - agree to disagree.

[nazrakin]

Do 8m and 16m Operations share a lockout?

[JustintimeSS]

Do 8m and 16m Operations share a lockout?

Yes.

/10char

[heyvid21]

The arguing over which raid was harder in WoW was ridiculous. Most of the North American servers all considered 25 man to be the hardest, but must Korean and Chinese servers considered 10 man to be harder.

It really is a pointless argument. 10man tier 11 were harder than 25. 25man tier 12 raids were harder than 10 man. It changes from patch to patch, and it is largely based off of opinion.

[Deleted]

5 people on a basketball team kicking ass isn't any less amazing than 11 football players kicking ass. I know it's two different sports but the size is the important part. 5 are working perfectly to succeed just as hard as 11 are and if content difficulty and gear are not an important element, then it comes down to the number of people playing perfectly.

The perfect example. They both kick asses...in a different game!
10=/=25
8=/=16.
I thought that Star Wars has a chance for succesfull raiding.
If they keep the cataclysm model, they will fail as Cataclysm has failed.
It's not good to start a game with a model that is dividing the community and turning people against eachother.

[Forsedar]

The perfect example. They both kick asses...in a different game!
10=/=25
8=/=16.
I thought that Star Wars has a chance for succesfull raiding.
If they keep the cataclysm model, they will fail as Cataclysm has failed.
It's not good to start a game with a model that is dividing the community and turning people against eachother.

Well I am fine with the 8 and 16man models. I like to raid with a closeknit group of people, and 8 man allows that. I can be with the same 7 people every raid night and people are most likely not to bail out some times. I know if I ran 16mans, we'd always have an incident somewhere in the future where people just stopped showing up and I don't want progression to be halted because of 1 or 2 people.

[Forsedar]

Mans ?!? Fyi, it's "manses". So 8 or 16 manses.

I would punch myself in the face before referring to it as that hahaha.

[Raeli]

The argument of 25 vs 10 or 16 vs 8 is often a silly one. When you argue these, in terms of "what matters" people will often state 25/16 Mans are harder because it's harder to get more people.

This statement is filled with so much stupidity, I just can't believe it. You're comparing content difficulty, and explaining it by stating it's harder to get more people. They aren't even the same thing. If the content is harder in one size than the other, then it is harder because it is harder, and if the aim is for them to be the same difficulty, then that is something that needs to be addressed. However, the number of people doesn't inherently make something easy or hard. Smaller guilds still have a lot of the work that larger guilds have - some tasks just don't get easier or quicker simply because there are less people.

I've led guilds of multiple sizes, and there are some things that just don't get any easier or harder depending on the size, the primary factor for how difficult I felt leading a guild was the people. If I have a guild of stable, drama free people that I can rely on, it doesn't matter if it's 400 members or 40. I've had guilds that were relatively small, and been quite a pain in the arse due to other officers not pulling their weight, people causing drama, people suddenly quitting without notice - these things cause trouble and make things difficult, then trying to find replacements for your best tank or healer suddenly out of the blue etc. These affect guilds of all sizes. Size is irrelevant, it's the people that matter.

As for the difficulty of the actual encounters, that's something we simply can't compare yet, so you can't really go about saying one is easier than the other.

I personally will be raiding 16mans, I personally feel like 8 is just too small a number for my liking, while 16 (18-20 total raiders) seems like a nice group size, enough people that there's likely to be a few on outside of raiding hours, but not too many that there are multiple cliques in the guild. This is purely from a social point of view, as the social part of these games is a large part of what keeps them fun after doing the same raid for the 5, 10, 15th time.

[Deleted]

The argument of 25 vs 10 or 16 vs 8 is often a silly one. When you argue these, in terms of "what matters" people will often state 25/16 Mans are harder because it's harder to get more people.

This statement is filled with so much stupidity, I just can't believe it. You're comparing content difficulty, and explaining it by stating it's harder to get more people. They aren't even the same thing. If the content is harder in one size than the other, then it is harder because it is harder, and if the aim is for them to be the same difficulty, then that is something that needs to be addressed. However, the number of people doesn't inherently make something easy or hard. Smaller guilds still have a lot of the work that larger guilds have - some tasks just don't get easier or quicker simply because there are less people.

I've led guilds of multiple sizes, and there are some things that just don't get any easier or harder depending on the size, the primary factor for how difficult I felt leading a guild was the people. If I have a guild of stable, drama free people that I can rely on, it doesn't matter if it's 400 members or 40. I've had guilds that were relatively small, and been quite a pain in the arse due to other officers not pulling their weight, people causing drama, people suddenly quitting without notice - these things cause trouble and make things difficult, then trying to find replacements for your best tank or healer suddenly out of the blue etc. These affect guilds of all sizes. Size is irrelevant, it's the people that matter.

As for the difficulty of the actual encounters, that's something we simply can't compare yet, so you can't really go about saying one is easier than the other.

I personally will be raiding 16mans, I personally feel like 8 is just too small a number for my liking, while 16 (18-20 total raiders) seems like a nice group size, enough people that there's likely to be a few on outside of raiding hours, but not too many that there are multiple cliques in the guild. This is purely from a social point of view, as the social part of these games is a large part of what keeps them fun after doing the same raid for the 5, 10, 15th time.

Yet it creates huge issues to the community.
Recent Cataclysm model is the living proof of it.
We shouldn't discuss if it is stupid or not.

For as long as you have 2 ways to aproach a thing that offers EXCACTLY the same rewards, people that are doing it will argue on

- Which is the easiest (and disregard it)
- Which offers best rewards and why should it be (in quantity)
- If the easier makes the harder diminish.

And other arguments i can't start bothering to mention.
You want a fair game? Set an instance, set a reward for doing it, and give to people the chance to aproach it. Then you can argue about who has the best team.

And it all comes to that, when others openly dispute your kills if the mode you have chosen is too small...
As it is the permanent argument of many small mode lover "hate to carry bads", "hard to find 16 people that are not idiots" etc.

Things like the dont help the game. May it be WoW or SW:TOR.
Soz, but thats the way it is.
Maybe Bioware should reconsider that part of their game. It will eat their community alive before the game grow to claim their chance to succeed WoW as the Dominant MMO.