Tier 7?

[Tonkadin]

You guys act like its far fetched that they 10 man tier set and 25 man tier set of lets say Nax would have the same set bonuses and same names. There was an issue with arena gear like this. Where people were getting s1 and s2 and getting 2 set bonuses. Blizzard put an end to this and I would bet ya my character that while the stats will be different in terms of 10 man and 25 man nax gear or "arthas" gear, the set bonuses will probably match to get rid of the 2 setters that clear 25 man said instance then go stroll through the 10 man of the same isntance.

[gherkin]

This makes the most sense, but is still speculation. It is more work to implement anything different and I don't see blizz volunteering to do more work

1) Tier 7.0 (10 man) and Tier 7.1 (25 man) will have the exact same graphic (recoloured) and similar name.

2) Names will have something tacked on to make it more epic. The best example I can think of would be "Warlock Dreadgear" (TX.0) and "Heroic Warlock Dreadgear" (TX.1).

3) Using previous iterations of gear means that a full "Tier" is 10-15 iLVL's worth of itemization. This would put T7.0 at iLVL 200 and T7.1 at iLVL215. This matches gear posted on the main page, but may change. Numbers are pulled based on BC itemization and for gear to scale it might have to be increased to a 15-20 iLVL range.

4) Set bonuses will stay the same for both versions of Tier 7. It does not make any feasible sense to make two sets of Tier bonuses (programming, graphics, triggers, etc) when the bonuses themselves either scale with gear or are not amazing enough to warrant nerfing.

[cubby]

Why couldn't they use the same tier sets but just have less tokens drop in 10 man?

I'm sure I'll get my tail kicked in for this - but why is it always assumed that 10 man is easier than 25 man? If the raids are tuned properly it shouldn't be that much different - in fact, a 25 man raid can add more diversity to a raid, making things arguably easier. The only argument I can see against this is that organizing 25 people to raid is tougher than 10 man (and, believe me, this I know). So why should 25 man raids get better loot than 10 man raids? Because they are better organizers?

[gherkin]

Why couldn't they use the same tier sets but just have less tokens drop in 10 man?

I'm sure I'll get my tail kicked in for this - but why is it always assumed that 10 man is easier than 25 man? If the raids are tuned properly it shouldn't be that much different - in fact, a 25 man raid can add more diversity to a raid, making things arguably easier. The only argument I can see against this is that organizing 25 people to raid is tougher than 10 man (and, believe me, this I know). So why should 25 man raids get better loot than 10 man raids? Because they are better organizers?

If you note the posted badge gear, they differentiate 10 man and 25 man right in the name. So the expected plan is to have different badge loot (again, same tweaking as i posteD) per version of the dungeon.

10 mans are not always easier, but you have less people to carry and fewer people who screw up. Someone is bad in a 10 man? Replaced with someone decent and you're fine. Someone is bad in a 25 man? Well, theres 2 other people who are almost as bad, so replacing the worst doesn't really solve the problem overall and introduces drama.

... Maybe 10 mans are easier :P

[Jaaviju]

If you note the posted badge gear, they differentiate 10 man and 25 man right in the name. So the expected plan is to have different badge loot (again, same tweaking as i posteD) per version of the dungeon.

10 mans are not always easier, but you have less people to carry and fewer people who screw up. Someone is bad in a 10 man? Replaced with someone decent and you're fine. Someone is bad in a 25 man? Well, theres 2 other people who are almost as bad, so replacing the worst doesn't really solve the problem overall and introduces drama.

... Maybe 10 mans are easier :P

In a properly tuned 10 man, you can't really carry anyone. In a 25man, you can. Even on the most difficult of fights. There could be one guy thats half retarded and you can carry him through. In a 10 man tuned to the same difficulty you couldn't. Right now however the difficulty level of SWP is GREATLY higher than that of ZA, so while you may think im high on drugs, think back to when 10 mans first came out, and how very very carefully every person was selected. Depending on where you were with progression ZA is a great example however. If you had 9 Kara geared people, and 1 guy in greens, you for sure struggled more than just 10 kara geared people.

Or you had 10 t5+ geared people and tore it the f open...Either way...

[cubby]

They said 10 and 25 man will share the same Tier, for example having 3/8 drop in 10 Mans and 5/8 drop in 25 Mans.

They have NEVER said this before. They have consistently said that you will not have to do 25 mans if you are only doing 10 mans and vice versa. You need to stop posting this incorrect info. You will never need to do 25 man to complete 10 man. It's the entire essence of Blizz splitting the raid number requirements.

Best idea I've seen (even from info from Blizz):

This makes the most sense, but is still speculation. It is more work to implement anything different and I don't see blizz volunteering to do more work

1) Tier 7.0 (10 man) and Tier 7.1 (25 man) will have the exact same graphic (recoloured) and similar name.

2) Names will have something tacked on to make it more epic. The best example I can think of would be "Warlock Dreadgear" (TX.0) and "Heroic Warlock Dreadgear" (TX.1).

3) Using previous iterations of gear means that a full "Tier" is 10-15 iLVL's worth of itemization. This would put T7.0 at iLVL 200 and T7.1 at iLVL215. This matches gear posted on the main page, but may change. Numbers are pulled based on BC itemization and for gear to scale it might have to be increased to a 15-20 iLVL range.

4) Set bonuses will stay the same for both versions of Tier 7. It does not make any feasible sense to make two sets of Tier bonuses (programming, graphics, triggers, etc) when the bonuses themselves either scale with gear or are not amazing enough to warrant nerfing.

[bbr]

So much false info here, it's funny.

10 and 25 mans will have a completely separate tier even.
e.g. The 25 mans will be a full tier above the 10 mans.

[Calaba]

Why couldn't they use the same tier sets but just have less tokens drop in 10 man?

I'm sure I'll get my tail kicked in for this - but why is it always assumed that 10 man is easier than 25 man? If the raids are tuned properly it shouldn't be that much different - in fact, a 25 man raid can add more diversity to a raid, making things arguably easier. The only argument I can see against this is that organizing 25 people to raid is tougher than 10 man (and, believe me, this I know). So why should 25 man raids get better loot than 10 man raids? Because they are better organizers?

It's basically because you're relying on far more people to not mess up.
Let's take Aran for instance. FLAME WREATH! DON'T MOVE!!!
How many times, with 10 people in the raid, has the raid blown up due to flame wreath? It's got to be the most common mistake in Kara. Yet it's easily avoided, BY STANDING STILL!! Such a hard boss design, eh?
Now, let's make a 25-man version of Aran. WOAH!! How the heck are you supposed to do it now?! 10 People standing still was hard enough, but 25?! Almost impossible.

Now, compare to Archimonde.
Again, in theory it's really easy. You have to click a button as you fall, and stand somewhere that the fire isn't. Is it easy to get 25 people to do this? LOL NO!
Would it be easier if scaled down to 10-man? Yes. Not just by a little, but by a LOT. you've got less than half as many people who can get killed, or lag out, or whatever. Of course you'd need to make changes to the fight for this to happen, he'd have to only air burst 1 person at a time, and stuff. But you'd end up with a boss on a par with Prince in Kara, ("you face not Archimonde alone, but the fires I command!" etc)

This is why 25-man is harder. It's not really because the bosses hit for more, or you need better gear, or anything like that (at least not until Bruttalus). It's because you have far more people who can screw up.
HOWEVER, that isn't to say a badly tuned 25-man version wouldn't be easier. It depends entirely on how hard the tactics for each fight gets, and how badly 1 person dying, or messing up, can affect the raid.

[nazrakin]

In a properly tuned 10 man, you can't really carry anyone. In a 25man, you can. Even on the most difficult of fights. There could be one guy thats half retarded and you can carry him through. In a 10 man tuned to the same difficulty you couldn't. Right now however the difficulty level of SWP is GREATLY higher than that of ZA, so while you may think im high on drugs, think back to when 10 mans first came out, and how very very carefully every person was selected. Depending on where you were with progression ZA is a great example however. If you had 9 Kara geared people, and 1 guy in greens, you for sure struggled more than just 10 kara geared people.

Or you had 10 t5+ geared people and tore it the f open...Either way...

Well, I don't think that is true of 25mans. While progressing you really can't afford to carry others. Everyone has to be on their A game. Those half retards are likely the reason many guilds are still stuck in SSC/Mag.

[gherkin]

So much false info here, it's funny.

10 and 25 mans will have a completely separate tier even.
e.g. The 25 mans will be a full tier above the 10 mans.

"Yes" but a resounding "No!" That post by Kalgan or whoever - they said they expect the gear will be a full tier higher in 25 man vs 10 man. HOWEVER, tier does not mean "set of gear". Tier also has the same definition of steps on a staircase. Think about BC Raiding - SSC is a full tier higher than Kara (T5 vs T4) but ZA is also a full tier higher than Kara, if not more. Tier does not mean T1, T4, T7 etc all of the time.

Can you interpret it as the quoted text states? Heck yeah.
Should you? No. It does not make sense for Blizzard to develop an extra set bonus when they don't have to.