Larger vs smaller raid instances

[Swalload]

It seems more that's what YOU want it to be, this is not any game before wow or any game after, this is WoW. The way something is referred to in WoW does not need to be the way it referred to in other games. If it has been referred to that way for years, it's just what it is and always has been for WoW.

Just because the creator of .gif wants it to be pronounced jif doesn't mean the masses aren't going to start referring to it with anything BUT a hard g.

Not talking about other games either.

tier
/ˈtir/Submit
noun
a row or level of a structure, typically one of a series of rows placed one above the other and successively receding or diminishing in size.
"a tier of seats"
synonyms: row, line; More
one of a number of successively overlapping ruffles or flounces on a garment.
a level or grade within the hierarchy of an organization or system.
"companies have taken out a tier of management to save money"
synonyms: grade, gradation, echelon, rank, stratum, level, rung on the ladder
"the most senior tier of management"

Do you see anything in there saying "things of different power rank put together and labeled as the same thing while not being of equivalent difficulty or hierarchical level" ?

What you call tier is literally the opposite of the definition. What I call tier follows the definition. I don't decide what the word means, I just know what it means and I point out when it's incorrectly used, it's not a matter of preferences it's a matter of knowledge. And all I want is for people to learn and use the right words for the right things.

[Donald Hellscream]

For me it depends on the quality of the encounters, I don't mind say a 5 boss raid if those five bosses are a amazing and on the other hand a 10+ boss raid with a bunch of garbage boss fights is not that enjoyable.

[Onikaroshi]

Not talking about other games either.


Do you see anything in there saying "things of different power rank put together and labeled as the same thing while not being of equivalent difficulty or hierarchical level" ?

What you call tier is literally the opposite of the definition. What I call tier follows the definition. I don't decide what the word means, I just know what it means and I point out when it's incorrectly used, it's not a matter of preferences it's a matter of knowledge. And all I want is for people to learn and use the right words for the right things.

Good luck fighting the majority of the wow player base, words change with time and by context btw. Just because a word means one thing one day, doesn't mean it can't mean something completely different the next. Look at Retard, the actual definition is to delay or hold back, as in to Retard fire. Nowadays though, no matter the context, you'd get more then a few bad looks.

In wow a Tier is specially based around what would have "Tier" gear, this is the only meaning of it within WoW. This is why MSV, Toes and HoF are one tier

[Swalload]

Good luck fighting the majority of the wow player base, words change with time and by context btw. Just because a word means one thing one day, doesn't mean it can't mean something completely different the next. Look at Retard, the actual definition is to delay or hold back, as in to Retard fire. Nowadays though, no matter the context, you'd get more then a few bad looks.

In wow a Tier is specially based around what would have "Tier" gear, this is the only meaning of it within WoW. This is why MSV, Toes and HoF are one tier

I know but I'm trying to do my part in stopping idiocy. Islam is now considered a race by most american because of mainstream media incorrectly using the word racism. I refuse to lower myself to a level where words lose their true meaning and we can just talk shit really loud until smart people give up and accept the wrong usage of words by the stupids.

[Battlebeard]

This, but only if it makes sense story wise.

I'd be down with a 5 boss raid if it drives the story forward in a meaningful way (and it was a relatively short patch).

I don't want just 5 bosses per patch, but per raid. The main point is to have more than just 1 raid, so we get a different scenery and don't get bored over seeing the same interior 24/7.

[Onikaroshi]

I don't want just 5 bosses per patch, but per raid. The main point is to have more than just 1 raid, so we get a different scenery and don't get bored over seeing the same interior 24/7.

I see where you're coming from, but that generally feels horrible for guilds "oh we finished these 5 bosses now we need to travel across the map to start up a different raid", maybe if we still had Have Group Will Travel, but that's not the case.

- - - Updated - - -

I know but I'm trying to do my part in stopping idiocy. Islam is now considered a race by most american because of mainstream media incorrectly using the word racism. I refuse to lower myself to a level where words lose their true meaning and we can just talk shit really loud until smart people give up and accept the wrong usage of words by the stupids.

Seems like there's better words to fight for then the "improper" use of the word tier (it's probably far too gone in wow now anyway), better to fight for words like Retard, and other misconstrued words that lost their original meaning and are seen as negative.

[Byleth]

I don't want just 5 bosses per patch, but per raid. The main point is to have more than just 1 raid, so we get a different scenery and don't get bored over seeing the same interior 24/7.

I mean what you're describing is going to be part of raiding anyway.

Personally, I don't want them making 12-17 bosses a tier. It's longer development, and honest raids of that size, even if it's two raids are just a chore to do after a while.

[Swalload]

Seems like there's better words to fight for then the "improper" use of the word tier (it's probably far too gone in wow now anyway), better to fight for words like Retard, and other misconstrued words that lost their original meaning and are seen as negative.

Who said I'm not? I won't make a post or a petition about it and if I do it would certainly not be here rofl. So I fight when I run into it. Like here, it's "than", not "then".

[Mrbleedinggums]

Raids should be the correct size based on if it's justified to add a certain boss for lore or aesthetics. Trial of the Grand Crusader was a decent amount of raid bosses for instance. You had 1 encounter with a myriad of bosses, 1 with an Alliance gnome summoning a demon lord, 1 faction-specific because they think the gnome tried to screw them over, 1 with Lich King Valkyr, and then the final "surprise" boss of Anub'arak reincarnated. It was a rather short raid with only 5 bosses, but it felt right given the setting. If they tried to cram in 5-7 more bosses in there just for the sake of making it a larger raid it would have felt tongue-in-cheek. Also because the raid setting was mostly organized, it would not make sense to have minions.

Icecrown Citadel on the other hand was more than justified having 12 bosses. You're going up against the biggest baddie of all time (at that point) so it makes sense that his massive fortress has a swarming amount of minions in between all the bosses. You have a sentinel, a boss for the cultists/damned, a gunship where the Horde/Alliance have a slight fight because mah faction, and the deathguard Saurfang before you can even penetrate the upper levels. Only then do you get to fight all of the Lich King's allies including Professor Putricide and his creations, stop the corruption of Valithria, annihilate the San'layn, and subdue his pet Sindragosa so that when you finally reach him he has no other help (other than the swarm of common undead and his valkyr).

For ICC, it makes sense that it was so many bosses. If they had made ICC a 1-4 boss fight it would have been a huge slap in the face. How would a huge villain NOT have so many lackeys working for him?

For Azshara's Palace, depending on how the bosses are connected to her it would probably work with 8. I think less wouldn't work and if there were more it might feel redundant or not justified. Plus, we're already fighting in her zone and defeating all her minions as we take over the area. I imagine it's probably more of a final hold out with the rest of her forces since she's already supposed to be inaccessible.

[BadguyNotBadGuy]

You're speaking as if every player shares your opinion.

so are you tho

[Sixy]

I prefer 3-5 bosses

I think Highmaul and Emerald Nightmare were way better entry raids than Uldir.

- - - Updated - - -



how is that untrue?

Were Emerald Nightmare and Nighthold the same tier to you?

Emerald Nightmare and Trial of Valor were the same tier. Nighthold was not.

[Deleted]

Emerald Nightmare and Trial of Valor were the same tier. Nighthold was not.

https://www.wowprogress.com/rating.tier19

[Kwaai]

To me when cutting edge is no longer available should be the cutoff for what we consider a tier. Cutting Edge G'huun won't be available once Battle for Dazar'alor (BfD?), so that'll be a new tier.

There's no sense in not using the term any more, because the word itself fits perfectly for what people are describing. We called them tier sets because it was the set that went along with that tier, not the other way around.

On topic: As others have said, I think 5-8 bosses is good for a single raid, but 10-12 is good for an entire tier.

[Svisalith]

I'm not sure about that. Blizzard doesn't use the term "tiers" anymore when referring to BFA raids.

They use the term "Seasons" which is essentially the same thing. Each season has higher raid ilvls, higher m+ ilvls and a new m+ affix.

[Sluvs]

I rather have 2 raids with 7 bosses each than 1 raid with 14 bosses.

Don't know where this fall in this discussion, but there you go.

[Thelin]

Agreed, but it feels like longer raids have more bosses where you go... why is this guy important?

Now, if you could skip some, like in Ulduar (where you could ignore Razorscale, Ignis and/or the iron Dwarves), then I'm down with adding bosses.

I wish blizzard would look at Ulduar's design and try to bring that back in some way. Even if you kept norm/heroic/mythic, perhaps add the option to allow the boss fight to change to increase the reward like ulduar allowed you to do.

[Teroo]

Let's look on some of the best raids:

Ulduar - 14 bosses
ICC - 12 bosses
ToT - 13 bosses
SoO - 14 bosses
BRF - 10 bosses
HFC - 13 bosses
Nighthold - 10 bosses

Every raid with less than 10 bosses (with the exception of firelands) was shit and the worst ones were:

ToC - 5 bosses
DS - 8 bosses
ToS - 9 bosses


Sooo, the answer is easy -> larger raids are generally better.

[Thirtyrock]

The Azshara raid is only 8 bosses making this the shortest main raid added in a patch since Dragon Soul. In Mists and WoD we got some massive raids with ToT, SoO and HFC clocking in at 13-14 bosses each.

What is your preferred raid size?

My preference is big, long raids. 12-14 seems perfect.
My available time to raid prefers smaller raids. 6-9 seems perfect, particularly for pushing Heroic.

[Sixy]

https://www.wowprogress.com/rating.tier19

That was wowprogress deciding to combine them for w.e reason. Cutting Edge was gone once Nighthold released.

Edit* Not only was the cutting edge no longer obtainable, but the ilvl cap was raised and the base gear was much higher.

[Bangdingow]

I enjoy raiding for about 2 hours at a time these days, every minute after that becomes less and less fun.