Do you include 10 man raids in the World First race?

[Deleted]

Swapped from 25 to 10 man with cata and never regretted it. I felt more connected, more fun (on 25m there was always a bunch of slackers we had to carry since Vanilla to fill the raid), less stress (internet/pc problems reduced by factor 2.5 statistically) and we still had to work our asses of for the kills. It's not like either side gets free loot but both just have different problems to handle inside and outside the raid. Only real downside? It felt slightly less epic than coordinating 25/40 man, but that's about it.

-> whoever get's first should be treated like that

[wownut187]

World first is world first.

[Dvaldin]

I don't really care who kills it first in 10 man as far as world first. Server first, sure.

[Deleted]

This topic is both new and refreshing. Can't wait to read all the wonderful insights.

[Zanaku]

World First is World First

10m Guilds have "different" problems than 25 man Guilds. Ever since the separation happened, we've seen a raid tier have bosses that are easier on 10m and bosses easier on 25m. Having played both in a progressive raiding format (even in the same tier) I can say this to be absolutely true. Dragon Soul for example: Bosses Harder on 25m (Zon'ozz, Ultraxion) Bosses Harder on 10m (Warmaster Blackhorn, Hagara). The other bosses were about equal.

There is a difference beign a 25m and looking at a 10m saying that it is easy. The reason i say that is because being in a 25m guild, if you were to say one day "We will go 10m to finish clearing the raid instance this week" (which was the case in the first week of raiding MoguShan), You will probably take the 10 best players from your 25m Guild.

Regardless of what people say, raiding is a group effort and in a majority of 25m guilds you have your top players and your lagging behind players. If you take your top players and do 10m (which is how many 10m guilds got started) then you will probably be more successful, thus making it seem easier (you cut the fat so to speak).

If you were to instead, "scale down" your 25 man so that its not the best people but a scaled down version of "your top players and some lagging behind players" you might have a different outlook. A lot of established 10m guilds have that problem after having to have to recruit to fill slots left by their previously established (top players they formed the guild with)

[Sorraxe]

This can been seen in how long it took Vodka/BL to clear 3/6HM with Paragon flying right up there in just a few hours.

Does that include Nefarian Heroic W-First from Paragon ''10-Man'', against Vodka´s World Second Nefarian Heroic 25 Man, 20 days later? or....wait a minute...Iam sorry, Paragon DID kill him in 25-Man Heroic and i thought it was 10-man going by your logic.

[Riptide]

It would be true, unless Blizzard decided to make everything do less damage in 10 man (in order to make up for not having raid-CD's).
Oh wait, they totally did. Go take a look at any ability in Dragon Soul for example, between 10 and 25. You'll see that it does less damage in 10 man (example would be spine bloods explosion, doing ~20% less dmg on 10 than 25).
Not to mention that if you use 2 healers in 10 man, that's equal to 5 in 25 man (1 healer for every 5 persons). However, few fights required 2 healers only throughout the progress of Cataclysm, atleast - which means you had 3 healers in 10 man, or 3.33 persons / healer ratio. In 25 man, 6-7 healers have usually been required for progress (save for the bosses that were designed to strain your dps/healers, like Baleroc and Ultraxion), giving you a 4.16 or 3.54 healer per person ratio.
So in any fight that required 3 healers for 10 man, healing would be significantly easier, just due to the fact that you'd have more healing power per person. Nevermind the fact that most abilities were already tuned down a ton.

Actually the aoe pulse in madness was 80% of what it was in 25m... you say it's 1 healer per 5 ppl, but you forget that the tanks require significantly more healing. That's a huge oversight on your part the total amount of healing is spread very thin then. For example you could derp your way to victory on hagara in 25m heroic by stacking in the middle while in 10m you couldn't stack up in the middle and just pop cds and heal the ppl running on the edge. You could have the lightning phase end in less than 2 seconds, meanwhile in 10m they are still taking considerable dmg. That required too much healing power and cds. Sure we could do it after we had a lot of gear and the nerfs went out but it just wasn't feasible in 10m for timely progression.

World first is world first.

this.

[daftone]

People will vote yes because that's what they raid and they want their content to appear relevant on all levels. This poll won't really do much good. I would rather see a "provide insightful and relevant arguments for why 10mans should be considered equivalent to 25mans when tracking world's first kills" topic.

Ok. 25 mans are easier. They are more flexible and have more dps. Take any bosses health 10 man and 25 man. Divide that by the dps output and you'll get a rough number on how long it should take to kill it (not counting hero/tank dps etc). In every fight 25 mans have a smaller number because they have more dps output. Take the stone guard for example.

Health

10-man 130M
25-man 365M

Dps

5-6
15-16

Now assuming each dps does 30k for this example, a 10 man will put out 150k dps/sec (5 x 30k). Take 130 million divided by 150k and you get 866 sec. Divide that by 60 and you get 14.4 minutes. Thats how long this 10 man would take to kill the boss.

Now take 365 million divided by 450k (15 x 30k) and you get 811. Divide that by 60 and you get 13.5 minutes. Thats how long a 25 man will take. They have almost a full minute advantage because they have more dps. The 25 man boss has 2.8 times the life of the 10 man but the 25 man raid has 3 times the dps. That little .2 adds up. And in this fight 25 man are doing 3 tanks. Most fights they 2 tank it so they pick up another dps giving them even more advantage.

You can do this formula with any boss and you will see that 25 man has a dps advantage.

[Deleted]

Ok. 25 mans are easier. They are more flexible and have more dps. Take any bosses health 10 man and 25 man. Divide that by the dps output and you'll get a rough number on how long it should take to kill it (not counting hero/tank dps etc). In every fight 25 mans have a smaller number because they have more dps output. Take the stone guard for example.

[math]

Uhm don't miss on the tanks in your calculation, right now tanks top dps meters on some fights and that clearly helps 10s more (proportianl view). 2 tanks on stone dogs can deal about 150k dps combined rather easily (might even add up to 200k with the right classes). Please substract that from your calculation and you'll end up seeing that there is a way lower requirement on 10 mans. BUT 10 m aren't designed about perfect (de)buff coverage and eg no designer assumes multiple crit-banner, shattering throws or damage-totem to begin with.

In the past the dps requirements for 25 mans were always tighter, forcing them to use less healers (in relation to 10m) - but it worked for them somehow anyways.

[Deleted]

Yes but 25 man get 3 Brez and can also optimise the raid better, tanks are dying easily, use a 3rd tank, not enough dps, drop a couple healers etc etc. I do agree outside of raids 25 mans is a lot harder to organise and therefore should be rewarded as such.

3 battle resses instead of 1, sure, that's an advantage but at the same there's 15 more people in the raid. Pretty small difference when you think about it. Tanks dying easily and switch to 3rd tank? Say hello to berserk timer or some kind of soft enrage. Dropping healers is very common for top 25 guilds in cutting edge content but at the same time, it's only done because the DPS requirements are tuned so tight. That's something that never happens in 10 mans because there's a significant difference in switching from 2 healers to solo heal an encounter than it is to switch from 6 healers to 5 or from 5 to 4. My original point that 10 mans can't be tuned as tight as 25 mans factors here too because there's just not the same kind of leeway in raid setup.

[Spotnick]

This is kind of funny, the best guild in the world suddenly goes 10 man due to people quitting and they would be less legit if they got the world first as a 10 man group because they raid with less people?

Grats to Paragon for their world first.

[Deleted]

World First is World First

Disagreed. That makes zero sense. There is 2 separate categories, so there is 2 separate World Firsts. Period. It is not fair for 25 man guilds be in the same bracket as 10 man guilds and it's not fair for 10 man guilds to be in same bracket as 25 man guilds. Just look at the guilds doing progression right now. Not taking anything away from Paragon or anything, but you don't have to be a genius to see where the real competition is. It's in 25 man category. To have a guild from other category, doing content that is named the same and looks the same but number wise being completely different, taking the "World First" title... just makes no sense.

[Paarthurnax]

It would probably be best to consider both difficulties as different races, as no matter how much blizzard tries both sides have it easier/harder depending on how boss mechanics work.

I'm in a 25 man guild so i like to compare my progression to other 25 man guilds.

[MarizzaDraenor]

Nope. That would be kidna silly

[OneSent]

No. I never have and never will.

In my opinion, exclusive 10-man raiding was only ever created to help out guilds that couldn't fill out a full 25-man roster. There is no other logical explanation as to why they exist. They were added to the game as the "side-kick" to 25-man raids and I will always view them as such.

[Karazee]

As soon as Paragon downsized to 10 the result was pretty much expacted.
Paragon would dominate the 10 man world first and would also prove that 10 man encounters are undertuned combared to 25s,

Except that them killing 6/6 HM proves nothing, because they quite likely would have accomplished the same feat on the same day had they been doing 25's. They're certainly good enough to have gotten 6/6HM on 25 man by today.

If anything, them being the best guild in the world and being 5/6HM the same time two other guilds were 5/6HM, and then getting 6/6HM first proves that the difficulties of the two sizes are pretty equal.

[Achyra]

Yes, I include 10-mans. I've raided both and in my opinion 10 man is harder. This is, of course, my opinion.

As far as I'm concerned the race is over and I am done following it.

[DOORF]

I do but im not as impressed.

[Millennía]

I personally do count 10 mans as world first because raid size doesn't matter to me. If a guild kills the boss first then they are the world first no matter what anyone says

[Deleted]

If 10man is such a complete joke as a lot of people say. Then why are 12 25man guilds at least 3/6, but in 10 man paragon are the only ones that killed the third boss?