Blizzards 25 man mistake.

[Espe]

and now a "forced" 10 man raider.

In that case, find a 25m guild. I hear there are a lot looking for a few warm bodies to fill out their roster so it probably won't be hard for anyone to get in.

As for the videos, I have seen several. I don't think we're supposed to tell people to google things, but that is a good place to start if you were inclined to actually look for things instead of just laying that burden on everyone else. The videos exist, the logs exist - take 5-10 minutes and go find them if you are that interested.

[akris15]

In that case, find a 25m guild. I hear there are a lot looking for a few warm bodies to fill out their roster so it probably won't be hard for anyone to get in.

I look for heroic modes...not normals...there is literally 4 guilds in the US above my current progression looking for my class and they all filled since they updated their recruitment needs.

Also I am not making the clam that 25s are so easy 3+ people can be dead with less than around 90% active time to kill a boss...I know this from personal experience this isn't true 95% of the time...therefore its up to you to back your claim. I mean I can claim that 10s are so easy you can have 2 people dead most of the fight and I have the proof but I am not going to show you my proof the other side of the debate will go "...right" and dismiss your point. Yet again you like to twist stuff to your liking such as your lfr quote.

[Espe]

there is literally 4 guilds in the US above my current progression looking for my class and they all filled since they updated their recruitment needs.

If your guild leadership couldn't maintain a 25m roster because of lack of interest or progression or whatever, why would you look for a higher progressed guild to go to? If you want to raid 25m, find a 25m guild to raid in - it's that simple.

Also I am not making the clam that 25s are so easy 3+ people can be dead with less than around 90% active time

How often does dying and getting a brez drop a person below 90% active time on the boss? Does a single brez really take any amount of time or thought to execute?

I suppose you wouldn't care if they reduced the number of brezes per attempt for 25m to 1 then, right?

Beyond that, you're arguing against the Blizz devs, not me. They are the ones who say over and over again that 25m raiding takes much, much less executional (i.e. inside of the actual raid instance) responsibility than 10m. They are the one who clearly state that there is a good reason no 10m version of LFR exists.

You seem upset that your old guild couldn't progress and you want to find any reason other than yourself to make excuses for your failure. Find another 25m guild and give it your best in progression, maybe this time you will get somewhere.

[Deleted]

What in the world type of argument is that? It doesn't even make sense. First some fights you would approach differently as a the same 10 man than you would a 25 some examples include Lei Shi, Protectors, Will of the Emperor, Amber Shaper and Vizier. In 25 Will most guild would Ring of Frost all the rages until before the lull (prenerf) but 10s would outright kill them, 25s didn't have the healer logistic issue that's involved with 2 healing Vizier 10. Lei Shi 10s take a different approach on stack building than a 25 man guild does and so on.

Second you will see a fight before heroic 95% of the time through LFR or Normal (got to complete normal before you do heroic) so you will always build on previous experiences with that boss to add in the new mechanics.

Finally sometimes these guys are working on 25 and 10 the same week, naturally the opening few weeks of heroics.

I am not sure if serious or just insane troll logic?

P.S.
Also in cata I did both 10s and 25s progression and these raiders still do 10s and 25s for both progression...you know people can own more than one toon of the same class and gear them up to be near equal of their 10 man team and their 25 man team. I done this with my mages since late T11 up until my 25 man team died about 2 months ago.

What you described was used during ICC to escape the limited number of attempts. Not so much in T11. And, the notion of alts is compatible with the point. The point is that, once you progressed on a fight on one difficulty, you are already biased. You have had that experience during progression already where you had to learn the fight and perform. You already experienced the learning curve. Fights become easier the more practice you had at them. Playing the very same class/spec could be more of a bias here because you already know the fight, as well as have the experience for that class/spec. You should also remember your anecdotal evidence counts for only that class/spec POV.

[Talen]

This just isn't true.

It's true. How much it is true depends on other factors, but its true.

This is why 25m raiding should just be left the way it is. It already has so, so many incentives over 10m.

I'm hard pressed to think of any - more flexibility with the class make up? Balanced for full buffs?

As the Blizz devs have stated over and over again, there is a higher executional (i.e. inside of the actual raid instance) burden on 10m raiding.

I am unaware of them ever making such a statement. ***That*** would be a good quote for you to provide. Once.

If you actually take the time to read my post before replying you can clearly see that I state there is a reason there is only a 25m version of LFR.

Beyond that, whatever the original quote was in reply to, the ideas obviously translate to any 25m raiding.

This is why I pointed it out - you can't help but try and extend those concepts into 25 man raiding as a whole. The reasons why 25 works for LFR doesn't extend that much into Normal difficulty, and not at all into Heroics. For example, you can't really expect to carry anyone in a Heroics, regardless of size format.

EJL

[hulkgor]

25 is more complicated to coordinate and organize. Logistics are hard.
10 man is more prone to having issues on some events that require certain setups, aswell has more punishing on mistakes.
And having the same room\area\platform for 10 guys to spread evenly, or 25 guys, can have a big impact on some fights.

In my opinion, 10man is a more casual setting, as the most satisfying raiding 'tier' is the 25s, or the 40s previously.

Play whichever you want, why whine and complain if changes are made to the one you do not participate in? Jealousy? This sense of entitlement is just baffling. Just because there are certain rewards to one, and not the other (like a title, a mount, or heck, an achievement), it does NOT mean you're obliged to do both... just enjoy the one you like the most. Geez

"I MUST HAVE EVERYTHING IN THE GAME ROAR ROAR!!!!11". geez.

[Razecog]

In my opinion, 10man is a more casual setting, as the most satisfying raiding 'tier' is the 25

And in my opinin, 10man is for those who wish to carry their own weight, and 25 is for those who wish to be carried.

[Deleted]

Might want to take your own advice. The Blizz devs have stated over and over again that 10m raiding requires much more executional (i.e. inside of the actual raid instance, when attempting boss kills) responsibility.

"Blizzard said something" is not an argument with any weight. They are wrong about this like they've been wrong about so many other things.

There is a good reason they don't have a 10m version of LFR even though it is often asked for. Check my sig for more details

The reason there is no 10 man LFR is that building 25 man groups automatically is much easier and faster. It has nothing to do with anything else (Blizzard has stated this, since you seem to take their word as gospel). Also that sig of yours is just hilariously wrong, no wonder the WoW devs are screwing up the game so badly and losing hundreds of thousands of players.

In the end, if people just want the higher in-raid challenge of 10m, let them have it and let 25m raiding go the way of 40m raiding. Most raiders don't want to be carried to easy epics, and that is why most raiders are turning to 10m.

10s have lower in-raid challenge, it's one of the reasons why I quit WoW. 25s were dead and 10s simply do not provide the level of challenge that keeps me interested.

---------- Post added 2013-02-10 at 10:11 AM ----------

And in my opinin, 10man is for those who wish to carry their own weight, and 25 is for those who wish to be carried.

Nah, in 10s I can carry the whole raid myself. I could call out everything for everyone. In 25s you need people able to think for themselves, carry their own weight and not expect someone to do everything for them.

[Deleted]

I've raided 25man and 10mans nearly every tier now (Mostly 25 progression through wotlk/cata) and I've never seen much difference in difficulty between the two. I remember OS3D being harder in 10-man and Ragnaros being harder in 25-man, but they both in the end required the same amount of effort and provided enough challenge for the better guild to get a better ranking. I think there was maybe 5 10-man guilds in the top20 in Firelands regardless of difficulty level between the two?

The reason this "10 vs 25" argument exists is the same reason that any "Real Madrid vs Barcelona" topic exists too. People will always be a fan of one or the other and very rarely will they enjoy raiding as a whole. I can't agree more that 25-man raiding is dieing because there is no more reason to put that extra effort in to find 30~ suitable players rather than 13~. But they both require the same amount of effort and skill from your raiders to kill stuff and thus both deserve the same rewards/achievements. You can even argue that 10-man requires a bit more effort from raiders as I've seen players thrive in 25-man and as soon as they're relied on that extra more, they just can't deliver in 10-man.

To fix 25-man? I don't think they can. If they created realm first achievements for each size, what stops 25-man guilds from grabbing the 25-man version of the achievement and then using the best geared players to roflstomp the 10-man version just because they can? I personally think that one size should be made (15-man?) for next expansion and that this will be the only way that raiding will ever be fixed.

[Deleted]

I've raided 25man and 10mans nearly every tier now (Mostly 25 progression through wotlk/cata) and I've never seen much difference in difficulty between the two.

Yet every time a 25 man guild goes to 10 man they jump forward in progression, and every time I've seen two 10s merge into 25 they've failed to come anywhere close to their previous progress (granted I've only seen this happen twice on my realm).

If they created realm first achievements for each size, what stops 25-man guilds from grabbing the 25-man version of the achievement and then using the best geared players to roflstomp the 10-man version just because they can? I personally think that one size should be made (15-man?) for next expansion and that this will be the only way that raiding will ever be fixed.

25 and 10 should have the same lockout. If some people decide to go after 10 man realm first after 25 man, and manage to kill it before any of the other 10 man groups, then they deserve the achievement.

But I agree there should be either one size (although I think it should be 20+ instead of 15) or 10 and 25 mans should have completely different raids. The current system is simply not fulfilling its stated goal of letting people choose the size they prefer, instead forcing people into 10s or into quitting.

[Deleted]

Yet every time a 25 man guild goes to 10 man they jump forward in progression, and every time I've seen two 10s merge into 25 they've failed to come anywhere close to their previous progress (granted I've only seen this happen twice on my realm).

And this has nothing to do with the fact that in 25 man guild there are always those 10-13 "best" players. Of course their progress jumps if they change to 10 man and get rid of those players who were slowing their progress.

There is no room for carrying in 25 either if you're doing the content among the first.

[Deleted]

Higher chance of failure is one aspect that makes 25s harder (there are other aspects but for now lets focus on the failure chance). In order to counter that higher chance of failure you can either get higher skilled players that fail less, or put in more effort and do more tries. So now compared to 10 mans we have to put in more effort and/or be more skilled in 25 mans. Thus it follows that the rewards should also be greater in 25 mans.

Martoshi mate, you won't measure 3x 10 man against 25 because you want to only look at the difficulty for each player as an individual but you also want to say that 25 man is more difficult because of the macro level once I show that individual skill is pretty much the same in both.

Your two positions don't go together. Again, can you pick one - is it individual skill that matters or the whole thing? If it';s individual skill, then 25 mans and 10s aren't too far apart. If it's macro level, you need to meaure 25 man against 3x 10 man.

let me expand on that last point a bit. Lets say we have 2x 25 man and 5x 10 man and 2 people from the total 50 will fail every boss pull, causing a wipe. This makes our 25 mans more likely to wipe - but some of our ten mans will also wipe. What happens in the move from 25 to 10 is that the failures aren't seen by the people who succeed in the new ten man raid because they happen to someone elses raid. They then take this personal experience and use it as the basis for saying that 25 mans are much harder.

But they aren't - you've still got the same failure rate, it's just that in the move to ten man you get several successful raids and 1 or maybe two raids that can't kill anything at all regularly.

[Deleted]

Martoshi mate, you won't measure 3x 10 man against 25 because you want to only look at the difficulty for each player as an individual but you also want to say that 25 man is more difficult because of the macro level once I show that individual skill is pretty much the same in both.

I've already explained why your comparisons of 3 x10 man against 25 man are completely idiotic and pointless. I have no clue why you think they have some relevance to anything.

---------- Post added 2013-02-10 at 10:58 AM ----------

And this has nothing to do with the fact that in 25 man guild there are always those 10-13 "best" players.

There are those 10-13 "best" players, but you're assuming you get those in your 10 man raid group. That only happens on paper, in reality you don't get to just pick your 10 best because some of those will want to continue 25 in another guild, some will take the opportunity to quit the game, some will stop raiding, some won't have the right class geared and available, etc. etc.

[Spike`]

why do people care about separate 10/25 achievements ?

you know that you can see that and if its 10/25 or even LFR already? Ex: http://www.wowhead.com/search?q=Sha+of+fear+kills

just go to wowhead and search for nameoftheboss kills

in game, you can see it on inspect

[Deleted]

I've already explained why your comparisons of 3 x10 man against 25 man are completely idiotic and pointless. I have no clue why you think they have some relevance to anything.

You agree that macro level is where the complexity is - so you now have to look at the macro level of ten mans. (or change your mind about the macro level for 25)

All I am asking for is consistency from you.

There are those 10-13 "best" players, but you're assuming you get those in your 10 man raid group. That only happens on paper, in reality you don't get to just pick your 10 best because some of those will want to continue 25 in another guild, some will take the opportunity to quit the game, some will stop raiding, some won't have the right class geared and available, etc. etc.

Overall, if guilds go 25 to 10, it will lead to more elitism, over time as the lower skilled players are hoofed and replaced with better ones. Whereas in a 25 man guild you might take bob the useless for that 25th warm body because some dps is better than none, he'll wind up benched if he lands post 25 man break up in a good ten man and eventually move to a ten man at around his skill level - which will then chain wipe because all of them are useless bobs.

like I said, the failure rate on the macro level is the same - t's just that good players don't get to see the wipey groups any longer. (And the wipey groups don't get carried either and start to leave towards the door.) I will agree that one corrosive change to the general raid atmosphere is of ever increasing complexity in the raids which pushes the casual out of the loop. They've sortof fixed it with LFR, but it seems no matter how blizzard try to cater to the average player it causes elitist QQ.

[kurotori]

Martoshi mate, you won't measure 3x 10 man against 25 because you want to only look at the difficulty for each player as an individual but you also want to say that 25 man is more difficult because of the macro level once I show that individual skill is pretty much the same in both.

Your two positions don't go together. Again, can you pick one - is it individual skill that matters or the whole thing? If it';s individual skill, then 25 mans and 10s aren't too far apart. If it's macro level, you need to meaure 25 man against 3x 10 man.

let me expand on that last point a bit. Lets say we have 2x 25 man and 5x 10 man and 2 people from the total 50 will fail every boss pull, causing a wipe. This makes our 25 mans more likely to wipe - but some of our ten mans will also wipe. What happens in the move from 25 to 10 is that the failures aren't seen by the people who succeed in the new ten man raid because they happen to someone elses raid. They then take this personal experience and use it as the basis for saying that 25 mans are much harder.

But they aren't - you've still got the same failure rate, it's just that in the move to ten man you get several successful raids and 1 or maybe two raids that can't kill anything at all regularly.

You know what isn't equal and hasn't ever been? Enrage timers. Having raided both formats, consistently, across all of the cataclysm tiers and in pandaria, I can safely say without a doubt that enrage timers are skewed HEAVILY in the 10 man's favor. That is, bosses have significantly less HP than their 25 man counterpart to the point of making the enrage timers non-factor. In 485~ avg gear across most of our raid, Gara'jal's enrage on HEROIC difficulty was barely met when we were first doing it to the tune of seconds off. In 10 man, we managed to BEAT the enrage timer by OVER A MINUTE in nearly identical gear. This is true of almost every other fight in the last 4 tiers, as well. (Ragnaros was also significantly easier in 10M H, Morchok (lol, bring 4 healers, still not even close to enrage in 10M) Baleroc (again 1min+ ahead of enrage on 10M,) Ultraxion as well (however, if the fight goes past a the 6th? hour of twilight it becomes nearly impossible to heal on 10M without 3 healers,) Zonozz, Yorsahj BOTH are significantly easier in 10H than their 25H counterparts (we're talking on the scope of <5 attempts per boss on 10M.) Forming the chains for lightning phase on 4th boss in DS? That's a joke on 10M, they instantly break every time. 25M relying on people to be in same spot everytime + nothing borking itself before the chains go twice the distance is a cruel joke compared to the difficulty of the 10M version.

I don't know why people say anything without having done both 10H and 25H in current gear available (without % based nerfs, too) in respective tiers. 10M has been consistently easier with the exception of T11, and even then, there were fights in T11 that were significantly easier than their 25M counterparts (Ascendant Council, Omnitron, Magmaw, Maloriak, Chimaeron, Atramedes, Al'akir...) It baffles me that the entirety of the arguement for people arguing that 10mans are more difficult seems to consist of "ONE BATTLE RES, AMG" and nothing else. Attributing the necessity of better personal play in 10M, well, yeah, one battle res makes sense if you put it into perspective that 3 people in 25 is essentially the weight of 1 in 10. I could see the number of battle res available in 10man increasing, only if 25 gets an increased number as well... (10-> 2 res, 25 -> 5) then the amount of ressing is much more equal, and 10man is ressing the same % people as 25.

Continuing into pandaria fights: Spirit kings was also a non-factor on enrage, as well as elegon... Let's not even get into Feng (and dogs) because 10M Feng (and dogs) is on the scale of thousands of % easier than their 25M counterparts.

[Deleted]

Martoshi mate, you won't measure 3x 10 man against 25 because you want to only look at the difficulty for each player as an individual but you also want to say that 25 man is more difficult because of the macro level once I show that individual skill is pretty much the same in both.

Your two positions don't go together. Again, can you pick one - is it individual skill that matters or the whole thing? If it';s individual skill, then 25 mans and 10s aren't too far apart. If it's macro level, you need to meaure 25 man against 3x 10 man.

let me expand on that last point a bit. Lets say we have 2x 25 man and 5x 10 man and 2 people from the total 50 will fail every boss pull, causing a wipe. This makes our 25 mans more likely to wipe - but some of our ten mans will also wipe. What happens in the move from 25 to 10 is that the failures aren't seen by the people who succeed in the new ten man raid because they happen to someone elses raid. They then take this personal experience and use it as the basis for saying that 25 mans are much harder.

But they aren't - you've still got the same failure rate, it's just that in the move to ten man you get several successful raids and 1 or maybe two raids that can't kill anything at all regularly.

So 10 mans are more efficient in killing stuff.

[Deleted]

So 10 mans are more efficient in killing stuff.

No, some ten mans are more efficient and other ten mans less so than the 25s they leave behind.

Moving from 25 to 10 splits tiers the raiding populations skill level more finely. The problem on a fan site such as this is it's a discussion about raiding amongst the good players - the survivors of the cut.

[Deleted]

You agree that macro level is where the complexity is - so you now have to look at the macro level of ten mans. (or change your mind about the macro level for 25)

All I am asking for is consistency from you.

Huh? You're not making any sense. Are you saying that 10 mans are just as complex as 25 mans on "macro level" when you compare 3x 10 mans to one 25 man? Because that's idiotic.

[Deleted]

Huh? You're not making any sense. Are you saying that 10 mans are just as complex as 25 mans on "macro level" when you compare 3x 10 mans to one 25 man? Because that's idiotic.

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

Why is it idiotic? We are looking at the efforts of 25 people in one format and comparing it to the efforts of 25 people in another format.