One raid-size to rule them all: why or why not?

**Bloodfire** · 2013-01-02, 09:54 PM

15ppl +1.
No people sitting and waiting, nobody complaining etc.
95% of people who threat to cancel are idiots who will continue anyway.

**Yrrildur** · 2013-01-02, 09:56 PM

15 man would be the ideal format for a lot of things. The size is just about right to have all classes in there, added with a couple more when 1 class/spec is slightly better. It should still be 2 tanks, but then with 4 healers and 9 dps. I'd be very happy if blizz will do this.

**Bloodfire** · 2013-01-02, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Yrrildur

15 man would be the ideal format for a lot of things. The size is just about right to have all classes in there, added with a couple more when 1 class/spec is slightly better. It should still be 2 tanks, but then with 4 healers and 9 dps. I'd be very happy if blizz will do this.

Also this will exclude any 1 tank boss fights.
I think.

**Cookie** · 2013-01-02, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Siggma

kill them all, bring back 40 mans with properly tuned encounters so that everyone has to pull their weight and have a good amount of loot drops.

The irony.

On topic, it's quite apparent that a smaller raidsize is more popular and having one size would at least spare me from all the bloody threads about 25v10 man (otherwise 25 man can stick around for all I care, players will just lose more and more interest though). Personally I'd like to see 10 being the only size (I've been raidleading both 25 and 10 mans, and 10 man is just so much smoother to handle and you get a better understanding of each raider) but since this would enrage everyone currently raiding 25 man beyond reason I guess 15 is what we'll end up with if they do merge them.

**Gurbz** · 2013-01-02, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by Yrrildur

15 man would be the ideal format for a lot of things. The size is just about right to have all classes in there, added with a couple more when 1 class/spec is slightly better. It should still be 2 tanks, but then with 4 healers and 9 dps. I'd be very happy if blizz will do this.

3 tanks, 3 healers, and 9 DPS would be better, because that way it scales directly from 5-man groups. But that would probably lead to some weird fights.

**Rivyr** · 2013-01-02, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Gurbz

3 tanks, 3 healers, and 9 DPS would be better, because that way it scales directly from 5-man groups. But that would probably lead to some weird fights.

Nothing wrong with a weird fight, Kologarn was a weird fight and one of the most fun in the game in my opinion. How often does a boss become your path to the next area? lol. "Ahh RIP ulduar mechanics, you where taken from us far too soon"

That aside 15 man raids would give just the right number of players I think to allow for really interesting fight mechanics.

**blargh312** · 2013-01-02, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Bloodfire

Also this will exclude any 1 tank boss fights.
I think.

I don't see why considering there are 25man fights that only need 1 tank.

**Nairobi** · 2013-01-02, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by fangless

Not sure why they ever split the groups. It's something that wasn't needed, no one asked for and now they can't go back on.

We got 25 raids because apparently it's too hard to get 40 people. Now we have 10 because it's too hard to get 25. One day it'll be 3 man groups because 5 is too hard.

Because then it's a slippery slope until this is a single player MMO. This has been a steady path since vanilla :P

Just bolding, since that IS already an option, with scenarios.

I personally think 2 tank, 4 heal, 9 DPS would be the ideal (with some fights requiring minor changes, i.e. 1-tank or 3/5 heal) composition to allow the most amount of flexibility and keep a semi-standard balance of the roles/classes in the game.

**Tziva** · 2013-01-02, 11:54 PM

I've love to see 15man raids on the caveat that they are not implemented mid-expansion. In lieu of that, both sizes continuing on equal footing.

**Filth the Warlock** · 2013-01-03, 02:24 AM

I'd love to see 15 man raiding.

I try to imagine how much easier it would be to design raid encounters for one raidsize, but I fall short. It must be amazing. Imagine being able to say; this boss will have 7 arms that work differently, it will need 1 player to tank each of the 7 arms, meaning 7 tanks. 2 melee and 1 healerthingie and 4 ranged.
Such a mechanic would be murder in 10 man cause it would consume your entire raid, but in 15 man it would work (as it would in 25). You'd still have half a raid doing their normal job, rather than their specific assignment.

Honestly, I see no real downside to merging it to one raidsize. It would cause some issues if it's introduced, with 10 man guilds having to find more players and 25 man guilds having to get rid of some. But in the end, I think it would turn out great.

From a raidleading / guildmanagement point of view, 15 is also alot easier than 25 and still not that much harder than 10.

**Outofmana** · 2013-01-03, 02:32 AM

35 man raiding please, all 25 man guilds merge with a 10man guild and problem solved, epic fights return and everybody will be happy.

**Filth the Warlock** · 2013-01-03, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by Outofmana

35 man raiding please, all 25 man guilds merge with a 10man guild and problem solved, epic fights return and everybody will be happy.

Alot of 10 man raiders have decided to raid 10 man because of their wooden computers being unable to handle 25 players fully enchanted nuking a boss spewing shadowy fires and sparkly slime.
That is my core issue with the thought of simply deleting the 10 man bracket and being done with it.

**Kaleredar** · 2013-01-03, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by Gurbz

3 tanks, 3 healers, and 9 DPS would be better, because that way it scales directly from 5-man groups. But that would probably lead to some weird fights.

I think three tank fights for "conventional fights" would be doable, if not a little repetitive... Either two tanks swapping and adds that need to be managed, or debuffs that need to be cycled through three tanks to wear off.

**skrump** · 2013-01-03, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by Kaleredar

Except picking up 15 extra people while dealing with guild poaching isn't exactly good design.

The problem with merging raids to 15 is the 10 people in a 25 man guild that you're basically telling to go screw themselves. Banking on them being scooped up by a 10 man guild to make everything okay seems... shallow.

The above already happened to the majority of players who enjoyed 25m more, simply because guild/raid leaders preferred to organize smaller groups and did so once the benefit of organizing larger ones was removed.

Oddly enough however every single raid leader I've talked to agrees that 25m was more fun but they still prefer 10m simply because it is less stressing to organize/lead

**Mokoshne** · 2013-01-03, 05:12 AM

and if you have 15 man raids you'll still have to have +1 or 2 or 3 sitting out.

**Talen** · 2013-01-03, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by Nairobi

So, since Blizz has stated that they want EVERYONE to be able to experience ALL of their content that they work on, do you think we are on the verge on another paradigm shift in raiding? A move to one, single raid size? If so, what should that size be? If not, why keep the 2 options we have now? I've added a poll with the most commonly held ideals, but I'm interested to see what everyone thinks about the future of raiding. I've kept the assumption that groups will remain 5man size for this purpose.

I do not think it is that difficult or challenging to tune raids for both 10 & 25 man raids. That's just number tweaking and the same visuals and mechanics are used for both. The real challenge here would be ensuring the formats are as similar in difficulty as possible.

Personally, I think adjusting party size to 6, and raid size to 2 or 3 groups with LFR balanced around 4 parties would be good. Overall, a single party size would indeed be best.

However, GC said controversial....not radical. And a change to a one party system would require massive retuning of existing raids and a great deal of disruption to existing guilds. So a change to a standard 10 man size with 25 being kept for LFR would be most likely if this was the solution used.

This solution is preferred...but doubtful.

EJL

**dokilar** · 2013-01-03, 05:18 AM

i was always surprised that when they did away with 40 man raids they didnt just halve the number and go with 10 and 20 man raids. zg was 20 man, aq had a 20 man version. it just seems like it would have been easier to have went the 20 man route vs the 25 man route.

anyways, doesnt really matter. i dont think they should have one raid size. people do both and people enjoy both. no sense in forcing the people who like to do 25 mans to do 20s or 15s or whatever size raid they come up with and the same goes for 10 mans. theres not reason to force them to do 15s or 20s

**Vexxie** · 2013-01-03, 10:34 AM

Rather have 20m than 15m if I were to choose. Vanilla did it right and so does Rift currently. It's a great format and means 10m can merge, which is about as annoying as a 25m dropping 5 raiders.

End of the day, I would rather see separate raid instances for 10 and 25 but the glory days are over

View Poll Results: What should the raid size(s) be?

Thread: One raid-size to rule them all: why or why not?

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions