Page 54 of 63 FirstFirst ...
4
44
52
53
54
55
56
... LastLast
  1. #1061
    The decline in 25m raiding was player driven only.
    Both should have been driven by player and guild preference, but instead players flocked to what proved to the easier route, the one with less organisational requirements rather than the one they enjoyed.
    25m with superior loot forced it to be a mandatory progression rather than a choice, and unfair on those not in sufficiently sized guilds for organised progression above 10m.
    That is why blizzard equalised the loot, to make it fair.

  2. #1062
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Archidamos View Post
    No easy solutions the devs said EJL but diagnosed a problem...
    You make it sound like they haven't stated something I've been stating flat out for the past while.

    You mean the same way that some people were forced not to raid at all, or not to raid 25s at the begining of cataclysm?
    You didnt seem so sensitive on those "issues" back then!
    Spare me m8...
    I didn't post on those issues back then because beta was over and I'd made my point there, on those forums. When Cata launched was the time to see how accurate the predictions were going to be. I don't think I was far off with my 90-10 split forecast

    As it is, I would suggest that there is a clear difference between Blizzard making the player do something, and the player making a choice because he doesn't like what Blizzard has done. Blizzard designed a system where they expected anyone who couldn't raid 25s would switch to 10s. Where the answer to a no-show was...split the raid into 2 tens until the player gets back. What happened was "Player X doesn't show up leads to Raid not happening".

    Players made a choice based on the game conditions at the time. Blizzard didn't create conditions which forced them to act in a certain way. Blizzard remoevd the need for players to raid 25s and as a result, players left in droves. Players switched to 10s in their thousands.

    You think wrong.
    Perhaps. However, your instructions aside, I just have to look at threads such as this were we have players still moaning about the loss of 40 man raids, and look back to the disruption caused by the switch to 10s and 25s at the start of TBC and the reported loss of subs to actually see what happens when raid sizes change. As GC stated, there are players who still haven't forgiven that change and I don't see the fact 25s have been around for 6 years instead of 2 making things any easier. The game doesn't have masses of players joining up to cushion the blow this time.

    And, even if you are right, the point is simple - do you truly think this is a risk worth taking?


    Nooo! EJL tears for the few remaining 25s that got spared so far by the horrendus raiding model THAT HE SUPPORTS!!!
    I've made no secret of the fact I think the current raid model is far superior to that of the LK for various reasons.

    What a hypocrite!
    I support the current raid model. I prefer 25s. I think there needs to be a solution, but one that doesn't undermine the current raid model. I think most of the solutions presented so far are foolish in that they ignore Blizzards desire to keep 10s viable.

    Where is the hypocrisy?

    At least final sentence reminds people who you actually are and how clueless on top of everything!
    It's facing reality. If Blizzard were to move to a single raid size model, they can either disrupt every guild in the game or they can disrupt a few hundred or a few tens. Disruption affecting a few players is far preferable to disruption affecting all players.

    So you suggest 10s to stay unchanged so the 15 (and not 10) spare people from a downsized 25 to remain with no raiding team whatsoever???
    I would have thought you had realised that players leaving a guild CAN actually form a new one. Not to mention that you are complaining about the same problem your idea of a 15 man raid would cause.

    Hmm like experiencing a decline in people raiding of over 50% maybe?
    No. Raiding population has actually doubled since LK. Seriously. I should know - I was the only player raiding at the time. In the entire world. These days, my brother also raids. So...now there are two raiders, instead of 1.

    Those other folk? Oh...they don't count as raiders.

    See - I can arbitrarily discount people as well.

    You seem to miss the point. This isn't about trying to ensure 25s "win" over 10s; this is about trying to ensure raiding is available for all, in a format players like. You may want to discount LFR as a true raiding format, but it is still a bunch of players making use of raid content in a raid group experiencing raid mechanics. At an easy difficulty level, sure - but if MC or the Gunship counts as a raid, why can't LFR? Simply because it undermines your point that there are fewer raiders now than before?

    Like seeing subs going under 10 million AGAIN?
    Yeah. The CRZ and daily fiasco had a cost. Thankfully, it didn't really affect raiders.

    Your problem is simple. You re biased and clueless.
    And you prefer to ignore statements like
    No. I don't. I also don't ignore statements where Blizzard discuss the many reason why players prefer 10s, the logistics issues facing 25s and so on. As it is, I largely agree with that statement - 10s, after , do require less logistical and organisational effort on behalf of the player.

    No my concern is that i want raiding to thrive the way it was during WotLK. If you fail to see that i have nothing else to say to you on the matter.
    More raiders now than ever before and you claim raiding isn't thriving.

    LK model did not fail.
    Yes, unfortunately...it did. There are reasons why it was changed. It worked, but not well enough. Its flaws outweighed its successes.

    Equality means same efford same reward. Here obviously this equation is distorded and you can see the results.
    I see raids which require equal effort to play through but where one requires much less effort to join and where the other has a relatively huge logistical burden most players do not want to shoulder. I see that leading to a situation where most raiders get the same reward for the same effort, but where many raiders choose formats based upon little things such as "I can raid at this time so this raid fits".

    So because it has been a minority interest we can have 1 guild remain raiding if that means that your precious model survives EJL?
    How many players do you know who are interested in the day to day grind of running a guild or raid and all that comes with it? How many players do you know just want to raid? In my case, the answers are "none" and "a lot" respectively. Oh, I know players who WILL run a 25 man guild/raid - I don't know anyone who actually truly wants to do it.

    Because, you see...raiding as you see it (and I'm leaving out LFR here) has always been a minority interest. Its been able to succeed because those players were largely channelled into one raid size, one raid difficulty and that was supported by the attraction of the best gear in game. Its easy to be "successful" when there is no choice.

    But then Blizzard introduced choice. Players had a choice of raid sizes, and raid difficulty. One choice...became four, but skewed because of the gear aspect. And then four became five, and the skewed nature was removed. So now, all those players that used to have a choice of one raid format, one raid difficulty now have five viable formats in which to raid. This allows for far better balance and design and targeting by Blizzard....but it also dilutes the audience for each format.

    Which leads us to the situation where you can ask if having just 1 25 man guild remaining is worth the new model.

    To which the answer is, as things stand.....yes. Better balanced, better targeted raids and a hefty raider population that ensures the actiivty will contineut o be funded by Blizzard.

    To me, thats better than having everyone in one format, which is imperfectly tuned for everyone because it has to cater for everyone and which is so exclusive that raiding is shut down as it can't justify its costs.


    I am genuinely surprised when i see that this particular guy is so well received by mods, even when he contradicts Blizzard Developers.
    I don't believe I have ever contradicted Blizzard developers. Disagreed with them? Sure...Do that all the time.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-02-08 at 05:38 AM.

  3. #1063
    Quote Originally Posted by jax View Post
    You have hit the nail on the head here when it comes to Lola, if it doesnt match up with his specific experience in game then it isnt real.
    He lives in some fantasy land where he thinks that all 12 million peoples experience with the game is the same as his. I spent 3 pages trying to get him to understand that his perception and premise of how things are isnt the only idea that is real... I failed and for my trouble was called a liar and cheat...

    Goodluck trying to open his eyes to a reality that is not based on his very narrow minded view.
    Our 3-page discussion involved your statistical fluke regarding no bow dropping for 4 hunters in 25m for 12 weeks. You went for an argument, and I completely debunked your premise, while I don't even necessarily agree or disagree with your argument. Your premise was plain poppycocks. But you had to vigilantly defend it, with your buddy Matoshi claiming something vague about PRNG (which emulates RNG closely enough).

    I'll explain it you once more: if you get an ice block under you 3x on Stone Guards that is RNG, "bad luck". When you stood in it 3x without blue being active that isn't "bad luck"; that's bad play. The ice block spawning 3 times under you isn't some faerie at Blizzard pulling a lever "lets grief that guy". If you do TK twice and get A'lar that's not Blizzard flagging your account "allowed to receive mount", that is called "being lucky" or "good RNG". If you're trying to pick a lock and you roll 2D and you need to roll more than 4 to succeed but you roll 3 then you had good odds but you lost it with "bad luck" or "bad RNG". There's no magic force involved in it. It isn't something you take into account "next time I'll get it" because it stands on its own (future rolls aren't causal related to this one).

    Back to our Stone Guards example: if the chance of getting 3 times the ice block in a row is 1 in 1000 or 0,1% then it will happen sometimes given the boss is killed more than 1000 times a week (which makes the chance at least 1 in 1). However, just because this happens, does not warrant some kind of argument for some kind of crybaby RNG club where people complain about RNG. Instead, people should realize they just had bad luck.

    Which means if 4 hunters for 12 weeks do not get in 25m (6 drops) something with 10% drop chance they are incredibly unlucky and off from the statistical median. They are statistical flukes (6 x 12 = 72 drops with 10% drop chance means 720% drop chance of 1 bow which means the bow on average would've dropped 7,2 times. Which means well over 7 hunters would've gotten their bow. In your case, it did not drop at all, out of the 4 hunters not 1 got their bow. We are not even taking Lucky Charms and LFR into the equation here. We can feel sorry for you (you're fishing for pity tho IMO), we can pray to the RNG gods (if you believe in them), but that is all we can do. What we cannot do is take your example as "how hardcore raiders are still doing LFR". For one, the amount of hardcore raiders isn't that large. Second, the chance this type of thing occurs is incredible rare. To prove your argument there are much better examples available which don't require anecdotes or statistical flukes.
    "When i am done with you, you won't trust your own mind."

  4. #1064
    Quote Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
    snip
    You might want to go over your Statistics I and Statistics II notes, what you described here is NOT how statistics works, and I'm not gonna go through the process of explaining it at the moment. I just got my Gao-Rei after 72 attempts at a weapon (including Spirit Kings LFR/Normal/Heroic and Tsu-Long LFR/Normal, coins used on every attempt). That's 3.5 months of raiding with a blue weapon

    On topic - For me, merging achievements/lockout was a HUGE mistake. As a poster previously said, 10man guilds do their progress during the week, then on a Sunday (for example), get together with another 10man guild and go raid 25man. Likewise, the 25man guild could do their progress during the week, then on their offday/offdays, make 2-3 10man groups. People whined about TOC and it's 4 resets (10N/10HC/25N/25HC), but do you honestly prefer having ONE reset?

  5. #1065
    @lola

    You kill leu shi:
    he drops 6 pieces of loot of which 3 are tokens.
    so we have 3 items
    he has a loottable of 17 items excluding tokens.
    for each of the 3 items there is a 1/17 chance that the game rolls the gun.

    Does the chance of 1/17 change over time. No it does not.
    if you were to claim that you might also claim that the chance of a given combination coming out in the lottery increases over time which is complete and utter nonsense.

    if we are to calculate the chance that it does not drop we have to look at the combination that all 3 loot rolls lead to it not dropping. there is a 16/17 chance everytime. so 16/17=94% chance of the game not rolling the gun. We then do that 3 times so end up with .094*0.94*0.94=.83= 83% chance each week that the gun didn't drop.

    If we look at it over 12 weeks what is the chance that it didn't drop all these weeks that the same scenario happened. We multiply the 83% 12 times = 0.83^12 = 0.10=10%, so there is a 10% chance that after 12 weeks of killing that boss the gun didn't drop at all.
    So it is not that unlikely that the gun hasn't dropped at all.

    But that is only calculating that over time statistically it schould have dropped.
    But over time statistically doesn't say anything about the next kill because at each kill he has a chance of 83% that the gun will not drop and that is the important part.

    And coins do not increase it dramatically. Firstly the coin has to end up dropping loot which has an unknown propability. And then he has a 25% chance of getting the gun because the hunter loottable of lei shi is 4 items (gun,token,trinket,belt).

    And LFR again unknown propability of game rolling loot and when it rolls loot he only has a 25% chance of getting the gun.
    Last edited by Dax75; 2013-02-08 at 02:55 PM.

  6. #1066
    Current Blizzard incentives for 5.2 are simply not enough.

    It either needs to go back to the Wrath of the Lich King model, or put non-gear things that are highly sought after, like cool mounts exclusive to 25-mans.

    Basically drastic problems require drastic solutions.

  7. #1067
    Quote Originally Posted by Dax75 View Post
    Does the chance of 1/17 change over time. No it does not.
    if you were to claim that you might also claim that the chance of a given combination coming out in the lottery increases over time which is complete and utter nonsense.
    Yeah that's true, permutations.

    Dax, someone else told me, in this very thread, the bow has a 10% drop chance. I went with that number. I didn't know the loot table was shared with Tsulong. I did not calculate the tier tokens indeed, my bad.

    It also isn't my job to refute your premise because it is your job to prove yours; you did not do this.

    The original premise was that "hardcore raiding guilds had to do LFR to get the bow from Lei Shi LFR". With the ranged weapon being your example. My reply was this was exceptionally rare. 10% is rare, but like you said I agree 10% is not exceptionally rare.

    However you need to factor in the follow statistics as well:

    1) Charms on N/H; 12 additional shots.
    2) LFR; 12 additional shots.
    3) Charms on LFR; 12 additional shots.
    4) This puppy on H: http://www.wowdb.com/items/87069-fan...park-of-titans (hardcore raiding guilds have Will of The Emperor on farm); 12 additions shots.

    You'll find because of these 4 factors the chance of none of these factors triggering makes the chance the hunter has to do Lei Shi LFR is much lower than 10% of all hardcore raiders.

    Although we need to define what a hardcore raiding guild is (top100? top300?) and the amount of mains who are hunters.

    So it is not that unlikely that the gun hasn't dropped at all.

    But that is only calculating that over time statistically it schould have dropped.
    But over time statistically doesn't say anything about the next kill because at each kill he has a chance of 83% that the gun will not drop and that is the important part.

    And coins do not increase it dramatically. Firstly the coin has to end up dropping loot which has an unknown propability. And then he has a 25% chance of getting the gun because the hunter loottable of lei shi is 4 items (gun,token,trinket,belt).

    And LFR again unknown propability of game rolling loot and when it rolls loot he only has a 25% chance of getting the gun.
    Yes but we need to take into account the chance of none of these 4 factors triggering AT ALL.
    "When i am done with you, you won't trust your own mind."

  8. #1068
    Quote Originally Posted by ComputerNerd View Post
    25m with superior loot forced it to be a mandatory progression rather than a choice, and unfair on those not in sufficiently sized guilds for organised progression above 10m.
    That is why blizzard equalised the loot, to make it fair.
    There is nothing fair about the current system. I'm a 25 man raider, I have no interest in 10 man raiding, however, in the current system I have no choice in practice to play 25s. So I had to quit.

    Also, few more ilvls on the gear is hardly "forcing" anyone. It just shows how little people actually care about the raid size, few ilvl more is much more important than running 10 instead of 25.

  9. #1069
    Quote Originally Posted by PaladinBash View Post
    If you think 25m raids are cool and want to go through the extra effort and carry 15 more bads then go for it. Nobody is stopping you. If you can't, suck it up buttercup. You don't deserve extra rewards, the reward is doing something you like and not having the feature taken away for you even though it's inferior in terms of sheer practicality (easier to find 10 non-mouthbreathers, easier to get mats ready, easier to keep everyone on the same page etc). People shouldn't have to do 25m raids because they give something cool...they don't want to do them. If they did, they'd do them anyway because they're fun for them. That is what most people are missing the point of. You aren't special for doing 25m raids. You shouldn't get anything extra. Nobody should be forced to do something they don't want just because YOU want something extra for nothing.
    Le sigh. Another post with 0 objectivity or comprehension of the facts.
    Nobody is saying 25's is "special", whatever that means to you, people are noting its differences. The primary difference is that 25's are much more difficult to maintain logistically than 10m's. People who want to do 25's cannot either find a good fit for them or are unable to maintain that raid group because of said logistical differences. Rewards, no rewards, those people who want to do 25's and cannot or are doing 25's and would like to be able to maintain their roster/raid group without perpetual headaches are seeking some alleviation to these aforementioned problems.
    Get a better understanding of a thread and issue before you spout this kind of ignorant shlt. Thx ^.^

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenixdown View Post
    Personally, I think it should be 20-man. The average 25-man guild I've ever been in has, at most, maybe five "dead weight" raiders on their roster. It would be a perfect merge for 10-man guilds as they simply a. merge two 10-man groups or b. merge two 10-man guilds and 25-mans it would be perfect because they drop their five worst and it's not a major middle finger.
    If the size of raid groups must be re-evaluated, I think 20 is a good, round number but I don't see blizzard taking out 10's and making 20m the only size. I could, however, seeing them eliminate 25's and introducing 20's in some attempt to "keep larger, more challenging raiding alive without taking anything away from the playerbase". At least that is what I imagine Blizzard would say :/

    Quote Originally Posted by corebit View Post
    Current Blizzard incentives for 5.2 are simply not enough.

    It either needs to go back to the Wrath of the Lich King model, or put non-gear things that are highly sought after, like cool mounts exclusive to 25-mans.

    Basically drastic problems require drastic solutions.
    Agreed, the incentives are not a viable solution to keeping 25’s alive. Incentives are nice, and a few more might help but are not ultimately what will bring 25’s back from the grave, as the main issues remain to be logistical.

    -=-Sig by Rivellana-=-

  10. #1070
    Quote Originally Posted by Travex View Post
    Agreed, the incentives are not a viable solution to keeping 25’s alive. Incentives are nice, and a few more might help but are not ultimately what will bring 25’s back from the grave, as the main issues remain to be logistical.
    You make the incentives strong enough, and people will be willing to face any logistics to get them. It's all about the motivation to make people raid 25.

  11. #1071
    Quote Originally Posted by corebit View Post
    You make the incentives strong enough, and people will be willing to face any logistics to get them. It's all about the motivation to make people raid 25.
    Agreed, but the point is not to make people who genuinely enjoy a 10m environment more than a 25m environment feel too pressured into having to do a different raid format (as that is what is happening now for 25s to 10s due to logistics and availability) just because of what would then be too strong incentives. A problem that exists is that almost any incentive to 25's and the 10m people will cry their little hearts out that it's "zomg totally unfair! :*( qq"

    -=-Sig by Rivellana-=-

  12. #1072
    Herald of the Titans Injin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,980
    Quote Originally Posted by corebit View Post
    You make the incentives strong enough, and people will be willing to face any logistics to get them. It's all about the motivation to make people raid 25.
    I agree, 25 man raiding isn't compelling enough on it's own to entice people to do it.

    Why is it still in the game?
    http://secretgl.wordpress.com/

    Guild Blog for <Debonair> EU, Zenedar.

  13. #1073
    Quote Originally Posted by Injin View Post
    I agree, 25 man raiding isn't compelling enough on it's own to entice people to do it.

    Why is it still in the game?
    Why are you still posting things that don't line up with the general dialogue here?
    Nobody is saying one is more "compelling" or implicitly more "enticing" than the other, the issue is that 25's are having a hard time standing up vs 10's because of the additional logistical pressures and issues that exist due to its 250% larger size.
    Stop trolling, be productive. Seek solutions, don't create problems with these almost non-sequitur posts.

    -=-Sig by Rivellana-=-

  14. #1074
    The Insane Wildtree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Iowa - Franconia
    Posts
    16,737
    Maybe they just should lift the shared lockout again. It worked before, and may as well work again.
    It effects also on old content we can solo now.. It's rather inconvenient to have to wait another week to do something you're used to do twice before already. And now that it's outdated one cannot do it twice anymore? Weird....

    The mechanic behind a possible incentive exists. Raise 25m loot ilevel to 1 upgrade level. Which translates into the incentive being
    - a slightly better item
    - saving on valor to purchase 2 item upgrade levels.
    Of course, that would mean, they have to put the upgrade back in the game, instead of removing it for at least one patch.

  15. #1075
    Herald of the Titans Injin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,980
    Quote Originally Posted by Travex View Post
    Why are you still posting things that don't line up with the general dialogue here?
    Nobody is saying one is more "compelling" or implicitly more "enticing" than the other, the issue is that 25's are having a hard time standing up vs 10's because of the additional logistical pressures and issues that exist due to its 250% larger size.
    I didn't say 25 mans were less enticing, I just agreed with that PoV- aim your comments at the right poster, please. Guy said they needed greater incentives to make people do 25 mans, what else does that mean than people don't want to do them?

    You don't need to incentivise people to eat chocolate, because they already like it. Having to incentivise people before they will get off their arses is pretty much solid proof it's not what they want to do.
    Stop trolling, be productive. Seek solutions, don't create problems with these almost non-sequitur posts.
    I have given several solutions, one was lower the difficulty of 25 mans to LFR level difficulty for HC level loot*, another was to put in better organisational tools for 25 mans in game. Both will work. Both have been ignored - because the pro 25 man arguers want the 25 mans to stay the same and the whole rest of the game to revolve around them like a pre-capernicus sun. Bit of an arrogant a position to take for a niche interest with no popular support, imo.


    *But leave 10 man as they are, so there is no extra ilvl anywhere, just the diffiiculty changes.
    http://secretgl.wordpress.com/

    Guild Blog for <Debonair> EU, Zenedar.

  16. #1076
    I am Murloc! Fenixdown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    5,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Injin View Post
    I didn't say 25 mans were less enticing, I just agreed with that PoV- aim your comments at the right poster, please. Guy said they needed greater incentives to make people do 25 mans, what else does that mean than people don't want to do them?

    You don't need to incentivise people to eat chocolate, because they already like it. Having to incentivise people before they will get off their arses is pretty much solid proof it's not what they want to do.


    I have given several solutions, one was lower the difficulty of 25 mans to LFR level difficulty for HC level loot*, another was to put in better organisational tools for 25 mans in game. Both will work. Both have been ignored - because the pro 25 man arguers want the 25 mans to stay the same and the whole rest of the game to revolve around them like a pre-capernicus sun. Bit of an arrogant a position to take for a niche interest with no popular support, imo.


    *But leave 10 man as they are, so there is no extra ilvl anywhere, just the diffiiculty changes.
    You still fail to understand exactly why people don't do 25-mans. It's not for challenge, it's for ease. It's not for less reward, it's for equal. Effort + challenge = reward is the argument we, as people who prefer 25-man to 10-man, are making. The equations are not equal, 10's is drastically superior in this equation. THAT is why people do them at such an incredibly alarming rate.

    How do you solve this equation problem? Make the equation equate to the same number. In other words, if 25's provide more challenge (they do) and more effort (they do) they should have GREATER reward (they DON'T).

    However, like lola, you live in the "I like 10's so everyone else should just conform to my system" world. Most of us in this thread with the counterarguments to that point (I will not say all, yes some people have come up with some hair-brained ideas) have tried to tell you time and again that we're not thinking in the context of attempting to phase 10-mans out. That is not what we want. What we WANT is for both systems to be equal to what they provide.

    Your ideas are laughable, as well. If we wanted LFR difficulty, we wouldn't even be in guilds. We'd just do LFR. I still prefer to have some challenge (which is why I don't prefer 10-mans, either).

    Your arguments are simply to make 25-man raiding a joke, not to make it more popular than it currently is. Because you want your system to be the "more prestigious". Which, even with it's much stronger popularity due to it's equal reward for less effort and less challenge, it's still viewed upon by many as "inferior". Which the way it's currently designed, it is. It should be appropriately designed to be exactly what it is : easier raiding style, easier organization, and lower reward. Plain and simple.

    Again, you don't play harder difficulties just to get the same pat on the back you did for playing the game on easier difficulties. If you went through Nightmare on something like D1 or D2 and still only got the same gear to drop that you were vendoring in Normal, would you bother playing it? No. So, how is it that doesn't work there, but the same design principal works in WoW? Oh, that's right. Because you want the easier path to be the viable one, and the harder path to be simply phased out.

    We don't want that. We want 10's to be what 10's should be, and 25's to be what 25's should be. Then people make the choice of what they WANT to do. Nobody would be forced. Do you play for the higher incentives of better gear and prestige, or do you play simply to clear the content at a quicker pace with less resistance and effort? The choice would then be everyone's to make. Right now, there's no choice.

    We want options. You just want your system to be the only one that exists. So, who's the one that's arguing about "the whole rest of the game to revolve around them like a pre-capernicus sun" here, again? It's certainly not I. It sounds much more like you.

  17. #1077
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Martoshi View Post
    There is nothing fair about the current system. I'm a 25 man raider, I have no interest in 10 man raiding, however, in the current system I have no choice in practice to play 25s. So I had to quit.
    And the reason you can'ty raid 25s is that there is not enough players interested in the format to make recruiting, etc easy. Thaty's not really a problem with the system. Its simply a reflection that more palyers want to do 10s, and very much fewer players want to actually lead a raid/guild.

    Blizzards goal was that players would run they fromat they preferred, and could switch between them at will if there weren't enough players for 25s. What it got was players unwilling to lead 25s leading to massive drop off in numbers running that format and players refusing to run 10s at all if they couldn't have their 25s.

    Also, few more ilvls on the gear is hardly "forcing" anyone. It just shows how little people actually care about the raid size, few ilvl more is much more important than running 10 instead of 25.
    Yes. Which is why Blizzard changed it so the gear was equal. Blizzard didn't want to be in the situation where it forced players to run 10s and 25s and the previous models did just that.

    In this system, Blizzard doesn't do the forcing. There is nothing in one raid one cannot get in the other. Players choose based solely on their own needs, their own preferences on what each format offers. All players need to do is form their group - and number of groups 25s has shrunk for several reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by corebit View Post
    You make the incentives strong enough, and people will be willing to face any logistics to get them. It's all about the motivation to make people raid 25.
    Yes. Which is why thats a very poor solution and a road Blizzard does not want to go down. It tried that and that system led to numerous other issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Travex View Post
    Agreed, but the point is not to make people who genuinely enjoy a 10m environment more than a 25m environment feel too pressured into having to do a different raid format (as that is what is happening now for 25s to 10s due to logistics and availability) just because of what would then be too strong incentives. A problem that exists is that almost any incentive to 25's and the 10m people will cry their little hearts out that it's "zomg totally unfair! :*( qq"
    And it WOULD be unfair.

    The point, after all, of incetives is to provdie soemthing players want. In this case, its to provide something players want so badly they are willing to alter their bahavior to get it. Which menas any incentive good enough to draw players to 25 is TOO good in that it will kill 10s. And anything less WON'T work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Injin View Post
    I agree, 25 man raiding isn't compelling enough on it's own to entice people to do it.
    Why is it still in the game?
    Because lots of people like it. Because Blizzard likes it. Because it has a lot to offer the game. It has issues that make it unpalatable for a greeat many people, and the resulting lack of recruits and group make it difficult and irritating to both recruit for and join, which results in a positive feedback loop. It's one not helped by other issues affecting the game and server populations.

    Simply put, the pool of players wanting to do 25s has declined to the point it is difficult to form more than a few groups on even the mot populous servers. This mean raid leaders can be left scrambling for recruits of suitable quality and who are able to raid at a set schedule. It also means recruits have a chocie between several 10s who are raiding at tiems that fit their scheudle, but may have a choice of 2 or 3 incomplete 25s who will need PuGs and don't raid at a convenient time.

    It thus ends up that players who would prefer the 25 joins a 10 because it is easier to get into, they are surer of a start, surer of a new group if something happens, and they can likely find one that raids to their schedule on any server. Raid leaders prefer 10s because it is easier to control and get everything started and get everyone moving in the same direction. Guild leaders perefer 10s because it is easier to recruit for and there isn't as much room for drama, and its easier to kick troublemakers.

    Even when the raids are otherwise perfectly balanced, offering the same challenge, rewards and effort, these issues will kill 25s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildtree View Post
    Maybe they just should lift the shared lockout again. It worked before, and may as well work again.
    I don't think you'd get anywhere near as many players doing it if they got zip for doing it except the pleasure of running it twice a week. Or forcing the entire raid to use the LFR loot system. You'd need something like that to address the issues Blizzard had with the previous system.

    EJL

  18. #1078
    Herald of the Titans Injin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,980
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenixdown View Post
    You still fail to understand exactly why people don't do 25-mans. It's not for challenge, it's for ease. It's not for less reward, it's for equal. Effort + challenge = reward is the argument we, as people who prefer 25-man to 10-man, are making. The equations are not equal, 10's is drastically superior in this equation. THAT is why people do them at such an incredibly alarming rate.

    How do you solve this equation problem? Make the equation equate to the same number. In other words, if 25's provide more challenge (they do) and more effort (they do) they should have GREATER reward (they DON'T).

    However, like lola, you live in the "I like 10's so everyone else should just conform to my system" world. Most of us in this thread with the counterarguments to that point (I will not say all, yes some people have come up with some hair-brained ideas) have tried to tell you time and again that we're not thinking in the context of attempting to phase 10-mans out. That is not what we want. What we WANT is for both systems to be equal to what they provide.

    Your ideas are laughable, as well. If we wanted LFR difficulty, we wouldn't even be in guilds. We'd just do LFR. I still prefer to have some challenge (which is why I don't prefer 10-mans, either).

    Your arguments are simply to make 25-man raiding a joke, not to make it more popular than it currently is. Because you want your system to be the "more prestigious". Which, even with it's much stronger popularity due to it's equal reward for less effort and less challenge, it's still viewed upon by many as "inferior". Which the way it's currently designed, it is. It should be appropriately designed to be exactly what it is : easier raiding style, easier organization, and lower reward. Plain and simple.

    Again, you don't play harder difficulties just to get the same pat on the back you did for playing the game on easier difficulties. If you went through Nightmare on something like D1 or D2 and still only got the same gear to drop that you were vendoring in Normal, would you bother playing it? No. So, how is it that doesn't work there, but the same design principal works in WoW? Oh, that's right. Because you want the easier path to be the viable one, and the harder path to be simply phased out.

    We don't want that. We want 10's to be what 10's should be, and 25's to be what 25's should be. Then people make the choice of what they WANT to do. Nobody would be forced. Do you play for the higher incentives of better gear and prestige, or do you play simply to clear the content at a quicker pace with less resistance and effort? The choice would then be everyone's to make. Right now, there's no choice.

    We want options. You just want your system to be the only one that exists. So, who's the one that's arguing about "the whole rest of the game to revolve around them like a pre-capernicus sun" here, again? It's certainly not I. It sounds much more like you.
    All I did was make ten man the thing the whole game revolves around.

    This is exactly the same as the 25 manners are doing - but theres one crucial difference.

    Most people are already doing 10 mans, nerfing 25 man to the pont where logistics are n longer an issue is the least disturbing way of changing things. Make 25 mans very easy and they will be ram jam full of people. If more popularity is what you want, then this should be a perfectly adequate solution.

    So, I have to ask - why isn't it?
    http://secretgl.wordpress.com/

    Guild Blog for <Debonair> EU, Zenedar.

  19. #1079
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    And the reason you can'ty raid 25s is that there is not enough players interested in the format to make recruiting, etc easy. Thaty's not really a problem with the system. Its simply a reflection that more palyers want to do 10s, and very much fewer players want to actually lead a raid/guild.
    People prefer 10s because it's the easier and faster route to the rewards. When there's a faster and easier route to the same rewards, people would feel like idiots for taking the more difficult path for the same rewards. That's why people migrated from 10 to 25, not because they somehow prefer the smaller number of people.

    Blizzards goal was that players would run they fromat they preferred, and could switch between them at will if there weren't enough players for 25s.
    Ok, if that was the goal, they failed. There's no doubt about that. I observed ALL THE 25 MAN GUILDS FAIL on m server in the the current system, with probably a hundred raiders who no longer could run the formant they preferred so they quit the game or quit raiding.

  20. #1080
    I am Murloc! Fenixdown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    5,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Injin View Post
    All I did was make ten man the thing the whole game revolves around.

    This is exactly the same as the 25 manners are doing - but theres one crucial difference.

    Most people are already doing 10 mans, nerfing 25 man to the pont where logistics are n longer an issue is the least disturbing way of changing things. Make 25 mans very easy and they will be ram jam full of people. If more popularity is what you want, then this should be a perfectly adequate solution.

    So, I have to ask - why isn't it?
    I already answered that question. Perhaps you should read my post that you quoted again. Then read it again until you understand exactly what I'm saying.

    25-man raid guilds don't want the game to revolve around their system. They want the two systems to be equal. Perhaps not all of them do, but the ones with any form of rational thought process do. Where's your rational thought process, then? You're the one who only wants one system to be "superior", it just happens to be YOUR system. I don't recall at any point stating I want my preferred system to be "superior". I want it to be equal. There is a major difference between what you want (the sun to revolve around you and your little world) and what I want (two suns revolving around two worlds).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •