Blizzard will let 25 mans die?

[CDShaidar]

I tend to find endless amusement in the people who quote that 25 mans are harder to run as justification for anything. That affects what, 3 people? Maybe as many as 6 in a really poorly run 25 man? For the average raider who just shows up, executes his/her rotation and doesn't stand in the bad stuff you can't really get up in arms about the amount of administrative overhead in a 25 man guild.
Also if you're going to argue difficulties of relative raid difficulties, you have to use numbers and normalise to something. For this tier let's use heroic madness and normal madness heroic madness for difficulty and normal to normalise to the number of guilds attempting the content.
25 man: 347 heroic/ 3001 normal ~ 10% of the guilds attempting the content cleared it on heroic.
10 man: 933 heroic/ 33000 normal ~ 3% of the guilds attempting the content cleared it on heroic.
you can choose many other metrics and normalisations but don't just say "go look at a video" as justification for your opinion. Anyone who looked at those stats above would be justified in saying that the data supports a theory that 10 mans are harder than 25 mans. It doesn't prove it, it doesn't make it fact, it supports, that's what data does in situations like this. 10 vs 25 man raids being harder or easier is purely a function of blizzards tuning of that specific encounter that's it.

As far as needing your achievement to say what raid size you killed it on? Are you frequently running into situations where you tell someone you killed a boss on 25 man and people aren't believing you? The argument should be that you are doing 25 mans because you enjoy them more than 10 mans for what ever reason and luckily that's not something that blizzard can add or take with you. The only possible place this issue has some merit is in realm 1st guild achievements, and I would be for having a separate guild achievement for each raid size. Though honestly I think it's more of a concern to add a way to tell if a guild has killed a boss w/ or w/o an optional raid wide buff but that's not what this topic is about.


Edit: I just read the reply above mine and literally giggled. "Nice try."

[Dax75]

Or maybe its just that the really good 25 man guilds have survived and a lot of medicore guilds have had to say goodbye and downsize to 10 man guilds. The medicore people didnt turn into super better players with that so you trim the fat from the 25s and dump it into the tens. so those percentages i really dont believe them to be the total truth.

[whoranzone]

I tend to find endless amusement in the people who quote that 25 mans are harder to run as justification for anything. That affects what, 3 people? Maybe as many as 6 in a really poorly run 25 man?

Yes and those "three" are supposed to be some kind of philanthropists and just devote all the extra time out of the good of their hearts and their fun. I assume this is something people come up with while never taking a peek outside.

[Shiny212]

They're already dead -.-

---------- Post added 2012-03-19 at 09:06 PM ----------

I tend to find endless amusement in the people who quote that 25 mans are harder to run as justification for anything. That affects what, 3 people? Maybe as many as 6 in a really poorly run 25 man? For the average raider who just shows up, executes his/her rotation and doesn't stand in the bad stuff you can't really get up in arms about the amount of administrative overhead in a 25 man guild.
Also if you're going to argue difficulties of relative raid difficulties, you have to use numbers and normalise to something. For this tier let's use heroic madness and normal madness heroic madness for difficulty and normal to normalise to the number of guilds attempting the content.
25 man: 347 heroic/ 3001 normal ~ 10% of the guilds attempting the content cleared it on heroic.
10 man: 933 heroic/ 33000 normal ~ 3% of the guilds attempting the content cleared it on heroic.
you can choose many other metrics and normalisations but don't just say "go look at a video" as justification for your opinion. Anyone who looked at those stats above would be justified in saying that the data supports a theory that 10 mans are harder than 25 mans. It doesn't prove it, it doesn't make it fact, it supports, that's what data does in situations like this. 10 vs 25 man raids being harder or easier is purely a function of blizzards tuning of that specific encounter that's it.

As far as needing your achievement to say what raid size you killed it on? Are you frequently running into situations where you tell someone you killed a boss on 25 man and people aren't believing you? The argument should be that you are doing 25 mans because you enjoy them more than 10 mans for what ever reason and luckily that's not something that blizzard can add or take with you. The only possible place this issue has some merit is in realm 1st guild achievements, and I would be for having a separate guild achievement for each raid size. Though honestly I think it's more of a concern to add a way to tell if a guild has killed a boss w/ or w/o an optional raid wide buff but that's not what this topic is about.


Edit: I just read the reply above mine and literally giggled. "Nice try."

You're not seriously arguing that 10mans are "equal" in terms of difficulty and organizational requirement to 25mans are you? You give us statistics why do you think the percentage of 10man raids that clear stuff is lower than the percentage of 25mans? Maybe it's cos so few fucking people have the presence of mind to even START a 25man that those that actually do are good enough to clear the stuff theyre clearing; ridiculous statistics that prove YOU wrong.

[CDShaidar]

Yes and those "three" are supposed to be some kind of philanthropists and just devote all the extra time out of the good of their hearts and their fun. I assume this is something people come up with while never taking a peek outside.

What are you on about? I'm not sure if you run a guild or not, but it happens that I do. Do you think we get something extra out of it? Do you think there's a secret in game mail with secret BiS items that people who administer guilds get when the group they run with kills something? I assume this is the kind of thing people come up with when they have no idea what they are talking about and just like to vomit text onto forums.

[lakhesis]

I tend to find endless amusement in the people who quote that 25 mans are harder to run as justification for anything. That affects what, 3 people? Maybe as many as 6 in a really poorly run 25 man? For the average raider who just shows up, executes his/her rotation and doesn't stand in the bad stuff you can't really get up in arms about the amount of administrative overhead in a 25 man guild.

That's actually incorrect imo.

In any group of a fixed size (the server population), when you're trying to fill 10 spots with the most competent people available you're going to have an easier time & come up with a higher calibre of player than if you're trying to fill 25 spots with the most competent people available. Even if you were dealing with the 100 best players in the world, the 10 man group would be better than the 25 - the only thing is that at that level, the players are selecting the format based on prestige rather than (i.e.) gear or non-benched playtime, and for historical social reasons 25 is still regarded as the 'cool'/'better' format.

When you're learning a fight, 25 is dealing with 25 people's learning curves versus 10 people's learning curves yet in both formats you're typically held back by the biggest window licker in both formats. When you combine in the fact that choice number 25 for a raid team is invariable going to be a bigger dumbarse than choice number 10 for a raid team, it's just exaggerating the issue.

I'm not saying that this is an inequality that should necessarily be solved by (i.e.) boosting the loot to artificially incentivise 25 man. I'm just saying the idea that only the officers/admins are affected is wrong.

At present, in my opinion, what we're seeing is a culling of 25 man guilds down to a level where they're comprised of only those who are specifically interested in (a) the creme de la creme prestige (i.e. not just realm top rankings, but into regional/world world top rankings) and (b) raiding 25 because they truly love the larger raid size.

Eventually we'll reach a point where the bleed stops & only those two groups will be left - it's just a question of how many 25 man guilds will be left at that point... looking at the middle-ranking servers on wowprogress, it seems like that'll be 0-2 per average server but with an artificially larger number on the top-end servers where there's a higher percentage population of the type (a) prestige players.

If you're good enough to be in the top 10 players in a 25 man guild, then you're good enough to ditch the 15 suckiest & go further than those bottom 15 are capable of. So naturally, most people tend to & that affects everyone.

[TheViper]

I tend to find endless amusement in the people who quote that 25 mans are harder to run as justification for anything. That affects what, 3 people? Maybe as many as 6 in a really poorly run 25 man? For the average raider who just shows up, executes his/her rotation and doesn't stand in the bad stuff you can't really get up in arms about the amount of administrative overhead in a 25 man guild.
Also if you're going to argue difficulties of relative raid difficulties, you have to use numbers and normalise to something. For this tier let's use heroic madness and normal madness heroic madness for difficulty and normal to normalise to the number of guilds attempting the content.

Ive done this tier, both 10man(under protest) and 25man on heroic so in a good position to comment.

25man raiding is harder, pure and simple. Assuming you dont have 25 "world class" raiders. Which the absolute majority of guilds dont.
There is a single fight which is actually more difficult on 10 man, and thats hagara. Other than that single fight ie, logistically, encounter difficulty and socially, a 25man raid is harder to do. Its harder to fill a roster, its harder to get everyone to the right thing everytime (ok we all know the mechanics, but we are human and make mistakes). Its harder to organise, its harder for the officers. This is 7 years of experiance talking with both 10man, 20man, 25 and 40man raiding.

Most guilds are 10man because its easier, simple as that. Those that are 25 still, choose to be because they feel 10man isnt epic enough, a sentiment i share, despite the fact its more difficult without any extra rewards.

[Archidamos]

I tend to find endless amusement in the people who quote that 25 mans are harder to run as justification for anything. That affects what, 3 people? ... "Nice try."

No you tend to have inferiority syndrom and truth is hurting you.
It will still hurt you even when you will running 10s without combetition whenever a random person will come to the forums with the "bring back the 25s petition".
You will not resist not to reply in a manner like the one you and the ones like you are using. The same old baseless arguments that cant convince anybody anymore.
Hopefully Blizzard will reconsider some things for the next expansion and then you will cry for your achievement that wont feel so unique and shiny anymore

[lakhesis]

I tend to find endless amusement in the people who quote that 25 mans are harder to run as justification for anything. That affects what, 3 people? Maybe as many as 6 in a really poorly run 25 man? For the average raider who just shows up, executes his/her rotation and doesn't stand in the bad stuff you can't really get up in arms about the amount of administrative overhead in a 25 man guild.

That's actually incorrect imo.

In any group of a fixed size (the server population), when you're trying to fill 10 spots with the most competent people available you're going to have an easier time & come up with a higher calibre of player than if you're trying to fill 25 spots with the most competent people available. Even if you were dealing with the 100 best players in the world, the 10 man group would be better than the 25 - the only thing is that at that level, the players are selecting the format based on prestige rather than (i.e.) gear or non-benched playtime, and for historical social reasons 25 is still regarded as the 'cool'/'better' format.

When you're learning a fight, 25 is dealing with 25 people's learning curves versus 10 people's learning curves yet in both formats you typically held back by the biggest window licker in both formats. When you combine in the fact that choice number 25 for a raid team is invariable going to be a bigger dumbarse than choice number 10 for a raid team, it's just exaggerating the issue.

I'm not saying that this is an inequality that should necessarily be solved by (i.e.) boosting the loot to artificially incentivise 25 man. I'm just saying the idea that only the officers/admins are affected is wrong.

At present, in my opinion, what we're seeing is a culling of 25 man guilds down to a level where they're comprised of only those who are specifically interested in (a) the creme de la creme prestige (i.e. not just realm top rankings, but into regional/world world top rankings) and (b) raiding 25 because they truly love the larger raid size.

Eventually we'll reach a point where the bleed stops & only those two groups will be left - it's just a question of how many 25 man guilds will be left at that point... looking at the middle-ranking servers on wowprogress, it seems like that'll be 0-2 per average server but with an artificially larger number on the top-end servers where there's a higher population of the type (a) prestige players. And that's even aside from the artificial boost from the higher number of players overall - with 44,000 people on us-illidan you should already be expecting about 4 times as many of each type of guild as on the ~11,000 pop middle progression servers.

If you're good enough to be in the top 10 players in a 25 man guild, then you're good enough to ditch the 15 suckiest & go further than the bottom 15 are capable of. So naturally, most people tend to & that affects everyone.

[Twiddly]

People saying 25 mans are already dead are hilarious, look at the top guilds and see how many are 25 mans!

[TheViper]

.

At present, in my opinion, what we're seeing is a culling of 25 man guilds down to a level where they're comprised of only those who are specifically interested in (a) the creme de la creme prestige (i.e. not just realm top rankings, but into regional/world world top rankings) and (b) raiding 25 because they truly love the larger raid size.

Eventually we'll reach a point where the bleed stops & only those two groups will be left - it's just a question of how many 25 man guilds will be left at that point... looking at the middle-ranking servers on wowprogress, it seems like that'll be 0-2 per average server but with an artificially larger number on the top-end servers where there's a higher population of the type (a) prestige players.

exactly right, and thats how its worked out on our server. Theres just 2 25man guilds left. Im in one of them. Its seems theres just less and less and less quality players now, ones who care about the 25man race, who care about larger raid sizes, the epicness of them.

---------- Post added 2012-03-20 at 07:30 AM ----------

People saying 25 mans are already dead are hilarious, look at the top guilds and see how many are 25 mans!

This is great and all, but the fact is, 99.99% of us, arnt in the top 100 world guilds.

[Jinto]

Two servers I've been on: US-Area 52 was (probably still is) the highest pop PVE Horde server in the US. The # of 25m guilds from T11 to T13 decreased by about 80% (guilds that I remember were doing 25m HMs vs now). US-Arthas, one of the launch and still high pop servers. The # of 25m guilds decreased by about the same percentage (and this is with the current top 25m guild being a transfer). Obviously super high pop servers with huge raiding populations won't see as big a decrease due to influx of raiders from dying realms looking for 25m environment. However that is hardly evidence that 25m is not dying overall.

[whoranzone]

What are you on about? I'm not sure if you run a guild or not, but it happens that I do. Do you think we get something extra out of it? Do you think there's a secret in game mail with secret BiS items that people who administer guilds get when the group they run with kills something? I assume this is the kind of thing people come up with when they have no idea what they are talking about and just like to vomit text onto forums.

I am not running one but I am involved in the administration and recruitment process of a 25 man guild. What secret bis items are you ranting on about ? You were the one mentioning how amusing it seemed to you to use the extra administrative effort as a justification for greater rewards which simply isn't unreasonable at all. What is unreasonable though is to say that they should just keep up all the work just for an unquantifiable increase in fun and for the love of 25 man raids.

[CDShaidar]

You're not seriously arguing that 10mans are "equal" in terms of difficulty and organizational requirement to 25mans are you? You give us statistics why do you think the percentage of 10man raids that clear stuff is lower than the percentage of 25mans? Maybe it's cos so few fucking people have the presence of mind to even START a 25man that those that actually do are good enough to clear the stuff theyre clearing; ridiculous statistics that prove YOU wrong.

Where did I say there wasn't more "work" getting 25 people together? I just pointed out that unless you are one of the people actually doing that work it isn't relevant. Where do you normalise then? You can't just say that because more people have done one thing it's easier than another, that's not how statistics works. So, what fight should we use then oh wisest of shiny things? What fight is hard enough that all the "shitty guilds that shouldn't count for 10 mans" aren't relevant but that you can still do statistics with?
I happen to have run both a 25 and a 10 man guild, I'm going to assume you haven't since I don't sense the "presence of mind" in your post. Again I ask, if you are so sure that 25 mans are way harder, which I'm not at all interested in arguing, why do you need additional incentive to do that or recognition that you did so? Are people not believing you when you tell them you run 25 mans?

That's actually incorrect imo.

...

When you're learning a fight, 25 is dealing with 25 people's learning curves versus 10 people's learning curves yet in both formats you're typically held back by the biggest window licker in both formats. When you combine in the fact that choice number 25 for a raid team is invariable going to be a bigger dumbarse than choice number 10 for a raid team, it's just exaggerating the issue.

I'm not saying that this is an inequality that should necessarily be solved by (i.e.) boosting the loot to artificially incentivise 25 man. I'm just saying the idea that only the officers/admins are affected is wrong.

Thank you first of all for not being a raving idiot and posting interesting stuff. Firstly, I promise that almost every player in wow is capable of finding a guild in which they are the biggest window licker and unless you have an extremely out there schedule you can find one on your time frame. If they'd accept you is an entirely different matter but you can't justify the relative skill level of a group of 25 vs the 10 best in that group as a reason for anything when the pool of players is this large. Sure any given guild could cut it's 15 worst players and have a group of 10 that has a better average skill than the 25 man.
The only people who actually have to deal with the added difficulty of finding 25 skilled players compared to 10 skilled players are, as I mentioned the 3 or so people actually doing that. I honestly still don't understand the issue with the people left doing 25 mans are just the people who prefer raiding with 24 other people compared to 9. Why do we need extra incentives?

[Cursingmonk]

Ive done this tier, both 10man(under protest) and 25man on heroic so in a good position to comment.

25man raiding is harder, pure and simple. Assuming you dont have 25 "world class" raiders. Which the absolute majority of guilds dont.
There is a single fight which is actually more difficult on 10 man, and thats hagara. Other than that single fight ie, logistically, encounter difficulty and socially, a 25man raid is harder to do. Its harder to fill a roster, its harder to get everyone to the right thing everytime (ok we all know the mechanics, but we are human and make mistakes). Its harder to organise, its harder for the officers. This is 7 years of experiance talking with both 10man, 20man, 25 and 40man raiding.

Most guilds are 10man because its easier, simple as that. Those that are 25 still, choose to be because they feel 10man isnt epic enough, a sentiment i share, despite the fact its more difficult without any extra rewards.

Well said, sir. Even removing the typical "25 is harder than 10" argument the administrative control and overall coordination is much harder. I feel that there does need to be a little more loot per person. I don't think much in terms of gear but either a few item level points, a slightly higher loot/person ratio, and higher drop rates for random BOEs (maybe 25 man bosses have a small % chance to drop BOEs in addition to normal 10/25 trash droprates) would make a little more incentive in 25s. The deal right now is a little better with more gear selection (beating RNG a little bit) and faster legendaries but we need a little more to attract some people back to 25 raiding.

And for people out there saying that you can't get back to 25s, start a guild; we have a constant flow of new applicants weekly. Many of them are not good enough for top 100 but they would be great in a more casual 25 man guild. They just need raid leads and copious amounts of leadership.

[Amorise]

If you're good enough to be in the top 10 players in a 25 man guild, then you're good enough to ditch the 15 suckiest & go further than the bottom 15 are capable of. So naturally, most people tend to & that affects everyone.

This right here is why our guild and a few others on server went to 10m. Arygos, while being a med pop server, had 9 or so 25m guilds on just the 1 faction. We're down to like....1 on both sides and it's because of that. We all got sick of the constant recruitment with a piss poor recruitment pool, progress being hindered by window lickers, etc. Kick the scrubs andmake progress.

I'd much rather raid and challenge myself and my smaller group than go back to feeling like I'm herding brain damaged sheep.

As for the difficulty, there's different %s of kills for each difficulty, showing that there are some fights harder in both settings. Hagara, Warmaster, and Zon'ozz have less kills in 10 man than 25, while Yor'sahj, Ultraxion, and Spine are the opposite.

This is an argument that will never end since no side is willing to admit fault or that their side has X, Y, and Z easier. People will openly spit in the face of math and statistical analysis just to feel superior in a video game.

[lolalola]

When you're learning a fight, 25 is dealing with 25 people's learning curves versus 10 people's learning curves yet in both formats you typically held back by the biggest window licker in both formats. When you combine in the fact that choice number 25 for a raid team is invariable going to be a bigger dumbarse than choice number 10 for a raid team, it's just exaggerating the issue.

In 25m, you have most likely more people who run your spec who you can theorycraft as well as compete with. A windowlicker is just as easily replaced in 25m as in 10m. It is a matter of having enough active people on standby, or just removing the windowlickers from raider core.

[Madkitty]

There are two things here:
Top End guilds, the 25 market will still exist for as long as they can maintain getting good players, which they are because 25 mans are generally progressing faster. Yet there have still been many top end guilds that have disbanded or gone 10.
General guilds, the market for 25 mans are dead, more guilds with more progression.

The 'i don't want to be forced to do 25 mans' comment is a load off bull. Because on my server there are 4 times as many 10 man guilds doing hcs than there are 25mans, and the 25 mans are dying through the lack of applications. My guild eventually went 10 from 1 player having to quit the game, and in a month we had 2 apps, of people in blue gear and this was the third best 25 man guild on server. We went 10 because a month of lost progress in a guild that wants to do progression is disastrous.. I therefore am FORCED to raid 10 mans which is dislike, because i want to progress through DS HC.

The idea of not removing shared lockout is complete bull as well, due to LFR. In the same way that to progress through ICC people ran 10s and 25s to get gear to help progression, people are running 10/25 and LFR to get gear for progression. Removed shared lockout and let people run whatever they like.

Personally i think remove 10 and 25 and have one raid size of 20 or 15. It then removes the inconsistencies in tuning fights (there has not been a balanced tier where 10 and 25 were equal in difficulty, tiers have gone from favoring 25 to 10 with the odd fight being the other way round.


EDIT: Not sure if its also a case of on other servers but the 10man guilds seem to have a larger higher turnover rate of members. Due to there being so many 10 man guilds people generally apply to 10 man guilds, leading to a higher turnover rate of members, were as 25mans seem to offer the more stable platform for raiders

[CDShaidar]

I am not running one but I am involved in the administration and recruitment process of a 25 man guild. What secret bis items are you ranting on about ? You were the one mentioning how amusing it seemed to you to use the extra administrative effort as a justification for greater rewards which simply isn't unreasonable at all. What is unreasonable though is to say that they should just keep up all the work just for an unquantifiable increase in fun and for the love of 25 man raids.

Then you're doing 25 mans for the wrong reason. You should be doing/running 25 mans for the sole reason that you prefer doing raids with 24 other people over 9 other people. I'm actually dumbfounded that you think there should be more rewards simply because there's more work and I'd hate to be in a guild you run. Do the officers in your guild get more of the rewards than the rest of your members because they put in more work?

[whoranzone]

Then you're doing 25 mans for the wrong reason. You should be doing/running 25 mans for the sole reason that you prefer doing raids with 24 other people over 9 other people. I'm actually dumbfounded that you think there should be more rewards simply because there's more work and I'd hate to be in a guild you run. Do the officers in your guild get more of the rewards than the rest of your members because they put in more work?

Of course not - the rewards are distributed among all the members. And also more rewards would be distributed among all the members which will in return make our jobs easier. Why did it matter so much that 10 man raids had worse loot in wotlk if it all is about preferred raid size and has nothing to do with anything else ?