---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 06:08 PM ----------
Ppl are doing 10mans, only because they will allways be bit easier and its so much harder to gather 25 skilled ppl than 10. Btw i raid both of them, mostly 25mans, but during off-raid raids we are doing 10mans. So i pretty much know diffrence between them.
Last edited by ripslyme; 2013-01-02 at 06:22 PM.
Mastery: Deep Healing
Requires Shaman (Restoration)
Requires level 80
Increases the potency of your healing spells by up to 24%, based on the current health level of your target (lower health targets are healed for more).
What the fuck this has anything to do with the raid composition? In reality, shaman are much much better in 25 men, healing rain says hi.
Will of the emperor is a fucking joke in 25. You can have 5 mages spamming ring of frost and forget rage's existence.Most of the people that tried going 25 man were good as well. Most of us are breezing through 10 man now with 7-8 heroic kills. I got the Will of the Emperor cutting edge over 2 weeks ago.
No.10 man are easy mode.
---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 07:26 PM ----------
The only thing I can really think of right now would be for it to drop more loot, but that wouldn't really be to controversial.
25m drops more gold, more points, bags-o-stuff ala LFR (but with better stuff then just gold in them). Not really to controversial either (coming from my current 10 man perspective)
The loot being higher ilev (sort of like 1/2 upgrade or something), same really. Not to controversial. Totally doable. Question then ofcause is what are the 25m raiders going to do with all their spare valor points.
It would be much higher ilev (sort of like a possible /3 or /4 upgrade and possibly start at /2 ), that would be controversial I think.
Removing the 10m lockout for 25m. I dont really know how this would work but I guess that would be controversial to. Not for the 25m but for the 10m people that would then be "forced" to band together with other 10's and alts to do them; "forced" since not actually forced but it would be done since nobody wants to waste possible upgrades/loot. This would be a slight curse for the 25m people then if they have to do both. It won't really affect me as a 10:er tho so I don't really care that much.
Removal of 25m? Nah, it would be controversial. No doubt about that. I just dont see it; sure they removed 40m so it's not unheard of. Possibly I would prefer it then if they all just made it 15man across the board. One size fits all, one size to design for instead of two.
Some unique only drop in 25m items; could be controversial even if its just some pure vanity item.
25m dropping less/elder charms; possible. Wouldn't really be to controversial tho in my mind. It's not like they are hard or annoying to gather. Would save some time not having to do dailies etc but it eventually turns into a pointless "extra".
Higher (weekly) VP cap for 25m vs 10m; that would be controversial I think.
Shorter reset cycle (twice per week instead of once per week), could work. Becomes more or less the same as just dropping more loot tho except you have to play more.
Now, the people who raid 10s are worried that Blizzard will overcorrect and we will end up in a situation just like WotLK, where 10s were considered an inferior format in pretty much every possible measurement, and people will feel forced to run 25s. And, just like the 25-man raiders before Cata, they are being told they are wrong or are overreacting. When really they aren't, just like the 25-man raiders weren't. Any change that deals with character power, if significant enough to have any effect at all, would cause a drastic shift back to 25s, as they would now be considered required in order to maximize your character's potential.
Last edited by Gurbz; 2013-01-02 at 06:33 PM.
All this complaining is simply further proof that Blizzard could send each and every player a real-life wish-granting flying unicorn carrying a solid gold plate of chocolate chip cookies wrapped in hundred dollar bills, and someone would whine that Blizzard sucks for not letting them choose oatmeal raisin.
25s have alrdy easier bosses and more loot per raider. Why should they get something more?
done both on heroic 10man was just lol, while 25man is chaos with double the adds and 15 more people, so much more to coordinate.
---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 06:40 PM ----------
Whenever I read a reply to me that starts with, "So what you're saying is..." -- and I've read so, so many -- my first thought is,
"What I'm saying is what I'm saying, otherwise I would've said something else."- Zarhym June 2015
A bit controversial would be removing the lockout, period, and doing nothing but perhaps adding achievements to the 25m raids. That would give the "officer sorts" the reason to do 25m (gear faster) while sticking to 10m (for progression). It's hard to imagine they want us to burn out and gear faster, though. Probably they'd need to reduce the drops in 25m if they did this.
Really controversial would be i-levels to which they said no. Destroying 25m would be impossibly controversial. Buffing i-level and boss strength for 25, would perhaps not destroy 10m, would probably not be just a "bit controversial". It also rather defeats the best part of 25m: that you can take weaker players just to fill in a slot.
Here's a guess: All loot changed to LFR style. You have a chance at 10m loot and a chance at 25m loot--clearly the chances of getting loot in 25m are higher. You can't trade loot. Charms can only use them once per boss/week.
It's a great way to get weaker players back in to 25m since the "officer types" will be willing to build the raids just to get extra shots at loot over the course of a raid tier. I can't speak to it myself but I think the hardmode folks would be OK with this: it intensifies their cycle but shortens it. More raiding in the short run, but the farming will be done sooner.
And you'll still get geared fine if you don't do this.
More to the point, it would bring back Monday night 25m puggin' for a lot of folks. Why not try for a second chance at your trinket?
Edited because I made my example as confusing as I was able--now it's merely unclear.
Last edited by Demeia; 2013-01-02 at 07:33 PM.